She specifically enacted an absolutely financially disastrous tax cut that ballooned the national debt for extremely little gain in her extremely brief tenure.
It blows my mind that somehow he thinks that he can just sue people because they don’t want to do business with him. This is purely frivolous and a bullying tactic.
The law he’s citing is a good law, but it also very clearly doesn’t apply here.
Coordinating an effort to protect advertisers from association with extremist content, like what Garm was doing, could very easily be seen as a boycott against Twitter, since it is a well established fact that Twitter doesn’t do much to protect advertisers from reputational damage related to extremist content.
The question is whether or not the boycott was illegal. If the companies who rely on Garm’s advice (World Federation of Advertisers and member companies CVS, Orsted, Unilever, and Mars, who are in named in the lawsuit) collectively benefit in way that gives them a competitive advantage over Twitter or anyone not a member of Garm, the sure, that could be an issue, but that’s not really the case.
CVS, Orsted, Unilever, and Mars largely don’t compete with each other in the same markets. Some even work in symbiosis (CVS sells what Unilever and Mars make / all three might use Orsted energy products). There’s no reason to believe that anyone not subscribing to Garm’s guidance is going to experience a disadvantage that can’t simply be explained by Garm giving good advice.
Advising that advertisers avoid sites that allow hate speech and extremism is definitely a form of organized boycotting against any named website, but it isn’t intended to harm those sites, it is only meant to protect advertisers from toxic association with hate and extremism.
I sincerely hope he loses this lawsuit. Putting Garm out of business is shitty, but setting the precedent that you’re not allowed to respond to hate speech and extremism is dangerous.
Remember also in 1981 that the late Republican campaign consultant Lee Atwater explained in an interview with a Case Western Reserve University political scientist how Republicans could win the votes of racists without resorting to overt racism:
“You start out in 1954 by saying, ‘[N-word, N-word, N-word].’ By 1968 you can’t say ‘[N-word]‘— that hurts you, backfires. So you say stuff like, uh, forced busing, states’ rights, and all that stuff, and you’re getting so abstract. Now, you’re talking about cutting taxes, and all these things you’re talking about are totally economic things and a byproduct of them is, blacks get hurt worse than whites. … ‘We want to cut this,’ is much more abstract than even the busing thing, uh, and a hell of a lot more abstract than ‘[N-word, N-word].'”
I was a white kid who was bussed in the 80s in Louisville KY. I was a minority white kid in my class and I fully believe I broke out of the racism cycle I was in because of it. Luckily it happened before all that crap was firmly instilled in my pre-racist little brain
I had the opposite experience but with the same good outcome as you. I was a white kid in the 80s who moved from an all-white school (I think there was one black kid in the entire school) to a suburban school that would have been all-white but it bussed in kids from the inner city. I know that added exposure helped me break out of the cycle of racism I realized later was so prevalent at my earlier school. It’s almost like having experience with something helps you understand it better… wild concept.
You're right. I was considering adding more of the quote so it didn't look like I was leaving out context, but I wanted to highlight the phrase that confused me. It looks like I just ignored "for churches" mentally for some reason. I will edit.
Fun fact. While I worked as a prison officer, an inmate was escorted to a back room of the medical area and beaten handcuffed while 9 people listened. I reported it and nothing happened. None of the 9 people besides myself corroborated the attack. Then my warden denied my transfer request and attempted to kill me by putting me back under the command of the person I had reported for abuse.
My mother after I quit tried to pressure me to go back repetitively. Or take a job at another facility. I told her to look me in the eye while I say this, I would rather kill myself than do that again. Only evil people can stay at a job like that.
Granted, I do not know the details of the crime for which he plead guilty and was sentenced. Was it a violent rape? Or was it a concensual get together but she was far to young and he was slapped hard for it? Now I don’t condone it either way but it might give nuance to how he feels about it.
On one side, he, and society overall see it as he served his sentence (not all of it but that is not his fault) and is rehabilitated, he made changes to his life after that and made sure he is not near minors alone again, now even has a family of his own.
But, I really think it’s wrong to think rehabilitation means you can stand on a podium for admiration, or be in a place that strives for excellence in rhe public eye.
This is where he and the people around him should have realized that, no, no matter how good he is in his sport, he should just not be a competitor in the olympics as a shining example of greatness.
Rehabilitation means to be allowed back into society, in a menial job out of view and not in a spotlight of any kind.
It is definitely not a full reset on your life and you can do whatever, thinking people mostly forgot what you did.
So the bullying boo’s are quite justified imo and he should have expected this backlash because he sought the spotlight and admiration for his greatness in sport. And it shows he thought it a deserved thing for his ego following the years of hardship he went through after making a big mistake when he was young.
Was it a violent rape? Or was it a concensual get together but she was far too young and he was slapped hard for it statutory rape because young children cannot consent?
FTFY. It was statutory rape. He groomed a 12 year old, and slept with her multiple times. It wasn’t just a spur of the moment thing; It was planned, and he went out of his way to convince the victim that having sex was her idea.
On one side, he, and society overall see it as he served his sentence (not all of it but that is not his fault)
To clarify: He was sentenced to several years where the crime happened, but was extradited to his home country after only a few months. After extradition, he didn’t serve any time. So he only served a few months total.
and is rehabilitated
He had repeatedly refused to even acknowledge it during the games, and tried to downplay it every single time he was directly asked. Not even so much as a “yeah I messed up but I’m doing my best to make up for it.” Just straight up refusal to engage. Refusing to even admit you messed up doesn’t really tell the public “yes this person has been rehabilitated.” And again, he only served a couple of months for the crime.
he made changes to his life after that and made sure he is not near minors alone again
The Olympic Games are mostly minors, and most of the athletes live and sleep in close proximity to one another for the duration of the games. The Olympics are also pretty notorious for the massive orgies that happen after hours. They even have special beds (which the athletes always complain about) designed to only hold the weight of one person, because they couldn’t find better ways to stop all the athletes from having hardcore sex parties every night. Almost as if cramming a bunch of the world’s most physically fit teens into a close space and forcing them to sleep in one giant hotel will lead to rampant sex.
He was a 19 year old man in the Netherlands talking to a12 year old child in the United Kingdom on Facebook. He traveled to see her in the UK, got her drunk, raped her, and then attempted to get a hotel room with her. They couldn’t, so they slept under a stairwell and he raped her twice the next day. She had told him at one point that he was hurting her, but that didn’t stop him. After that, he flew back to the Netherlands and told her to go to a clinic for contraception.
So they were essentially strangers to each other with a significant she gap. I don’t know what her exact intentions were when speaking with him, but she was 12. Even if she were thinking about sex, it would not have been with an understanding of what that actually meant. She wasn’t just under age, she was well under the legal age of consent. There’s a reason that children cannot legally consent to sex.
Also, he’s never really shown any remorse for his actions. At best, he’s said that it was the biggest mistake of his life, but his overall stance seems to be that he regrets getting caught rather than raping a child. He’s much more angry at people calling him a pedophile than he is at himself for doing wrong. So your final points may be true, but they aren’t really relevant to his case because it doesn’t appear that he could be considered rehabilitated. He’s merely completed a prison sentence which was made lighter by Dutch law not classifying his actions as rape at the time.
news
Oldest
This magazine is from a federated server and may be incomplete. Browse more on the original instance.