I will admit to a free-speech oriented bias against libel suits as a political weapon, since it is used by people like Trump to bleed people who’ve made legitimate criticisms. Folks have been put out of business by such suits.
But’s let’s examine the idea anyway.
It is an indisputable matter of fact that DSA endorsed a march, which was essentially one in support of killing Jews (preferably female, stripped naked and raped), and now is considering suing because its reputation was damaged by some factual inaccurate statement made about the march and the DSA’s involvement.
Though endorsed by the DSA, was sponsored by "The A.N. S.W.E.R. Coalition," which is pretty much synonymous with the "Party of Socialism and Liberation" (PSL).
PSL is an ideologically indistinguishable split off from the Stalinist Workers World Party (WWP), a tiny political sect with a perverse attraction to the world’s worst people.
WWP formed in the 1950s, after splitting off from the Socialist Workers Party over a disagreement about the Soviet invasion of Hungary, which the Workers World supported. After that, the WWP threw itself behind Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong-il; it backed the Chinese crackdown on the “counter-revolutionary rebellion” in Tiananmen Square. WWP was not just pro-Palestinian; it was pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah, devoted to the destruction of Israel.
WWP’s fringe views would hardly be worth noticing if not for its members’ organizing skills. For example, by securing protest permits on significant dates far in advance, it was able to take a leading role in the early marches against the Iraq war, even though many progressives were mortified by its involvement, and for a long time controlled International ANSWER and the International Action Center.
Since the split, control over ANSWER has largely reverted to PSL, which on its website labeled the US’s laudable effort to stop genocide in the Balkans and our successfully effort to defeat the Nazis as “Imperialist Wars.”
Naturally, they are also pro-Putin.
Say what you want about DSA; they are, more or less, a group which operates within the four corners of liberal democracy. By contrast, ANSWER is resolutely anti-democratic.
Yet, DSA endorsed their rally, and in the last election, more than one DSA elected endorsed the PSL candidate for Mayor.
Yes, not everyone is aware of what ANSWER stands for, and so innocents can be duped without intent. But, as part of the organized left, DSA leadership was, or should have been, aware of who ANSWER are and what they stand for, which raises the question, when the opportunity to support this march arose, did the DSA leadership ask itself “what could possibly go wrong?”
Another question: Doesn't the motto "No enemies to the left," have some limits of decency?
"Perhaps if the DSA didn't want to be accused of being Nazi sympathizers by Eric Adams then the DSA shouldn't have put out a tweet supporting a rally against apartheid."
I remember a facebook post from a college professor - someone I went to HS with - crowing about how the FIRST thing she thought of when waking up was INTERSECTIONALITY.
This was around 2014 or so. She teaches at a "top" school in NYC. Naturally, the post was followed by hundreds of likes, comments of 'stunning and brave', 'you go girl', 'this, so this' .... you know how it goes.
This became the pervasive and stupid rulebook that everyone has to follow. It seems to be the only set of rules that Adams capable of following. He's pretty good at it.
The left that I grew up in has been vaporized. I remember talking about how the Social Justice / Intersectionality rules set of grievance stack was a mistake. It was easy to see how it would blow up later. Very few people would even engage in dialogue. I must have felt good to do all of that virtue signaling on FBook at the time. Now the bill has come, and no one can pay.
One wonders when organizations from DSA to Harvard Admissions will - finally - come to the obvious conclusion that it is unwise to have social media accounts staffed by random goombas with little impulse control and less sense. How many lawsuits will it take before nonprofits realize it's a bad idea to let someone - anyone - make instant & unreviewed public statements on behalf of the organization?
Organization leadership doesn't seem to understand that being on twitter is an elective choice...are they incapable of preventing their smartphone-addicted underlings from making "official" social media accounts? Such accounts seem to be utilized for attempted clapbacks much more often than for "outreach" - and I don't think issuing public clapbacks on stupid websites should be part of the remit of any purportedly serious organization.
e: in general there really ought to be a clampdown on batsshit social media behavior, because it comes in deluges from the individual accounts of organization members, in addition to anything that comes from an official account. a lawsuit against Eric Adams by DSA would likely involve examination of public social media statements made on the subject by DSA officials high & low - and that, more than anything else, DSA reeeaaallly doesn't want.
but it's not just them - lesser college professors are becoming known, as a group, for batshit twitter behavior. since most people don't interact with college professors all that often in real life, this sets their understanding of who college professors are and what they do. that....really doesn't seem good for the future, in terms of trust in educators & trust in higher education.
imo, if you want to post your crazy thoughts, stay anonymous. if you're speaking on the internet under your real name, and you've put your university or nonprofit affiliation in your bio to give weight to your statements, don't get in stupid petty fights with people, choose your words very carefully, and maybe just don't touch controversial subjects. if you want to argue a controversial take, do it anonymously - such people hate this, however, as they're used to wielding their institutional status like a cudgel, rather than actually standing on the strength of their arguments, as one must do when incognito.
Discovery in a defamation case can be quite extensive. Undergoing that kind of examination could be risky for an organization made up of young radicals who like to say their piece on line. I’m a DSA member, but I think a defamation case is probably not the way to go.
>Undergoing that kind of examination could be risky for an organization made up of young radicals who like to say their piece on line
So... the members of this organization say such dumb sh*t online - under their real names - that this organization is incapable of filing any lawsuit that would result in such statements being examined...and you don't see this as, uhm, a massive problem?
No. DSA is a democratic organization with a low bar to membership. It’s run mostly by volunteers. It has many chapters, branches, working groups, committees, and internal political caucuses. Combining its big-tent bottom-up nature with the fact that everything that somebody purports to say on behalf of DSA is saved forever in cyberspace makes DSA a poor defamation plaintiff, but that’s okay with me because I don’t think filing defamation cases is a particularly useful tool for democratic political organizations. If the “massive problem” you see is that DSA has insufficient message discipline, I agree that it would be better if DSA members and leaders acted with more recognition of their status as a real political player, rather than the leftist debating society they were in days gone by.
I will admit to a free-speech oriented bias against libel suits as a political weapon, since it is used by people like Trump to bleed people who’ve made legitimate criticisms. Folks have been put out of business by such suits.
But’s let’s examine the idea anyway.
It is an indisputable matter of fact that DSA endorsed a march, which was essentially one in support of killing Jews (preferably female, stripped naked and raped), and now is considering suing because its reputation was damaged by some factual inaccurate statement made about the march and the DSA’s involvement.
Though endorsed by the DSA, was sponsored by "The A.N. S.W.E.R. Coalition," which is pretty much synonymous with the "Party of Socialism and Liberation" (PSL).
PSL is an ideologically indistinguishable split off from the Stalinist Workers World Party (WWP), a tiny political sect with a perverse attraction to the world’s worst people.
WWP formed in the 1950s, after splitting off from the Socialist Workers Party over a disagreement about the Soviet invasion of Hungary, which the Workers World supported. After that, the WWP threw itself behind Slobodan Milosevic, Saddam Hussein, and Kim Jong-il; it backed the Chinese crackdown on the “counter-revolutionary rebellion” in Tiananmen Square. WWP was not just pro-Palestinian; it was pro-Hamas and pro-Hezbollah, devoted to the destruction of Israel.
WWP’s fringe views would hardly be worth noticing if not for its members’ organizing skills. For example, by securing protest permits on significant dates far in advance, it was able to take a leading role in the early marches against the Iraq war, even though many progressives were mortified by its involvement, and for a long time controlled International ANSWER and the International Action Center.
Since the split, control over ANSWER has largely reverted to PSL, which on its website labeled the US’s laudable effort to stop genocide in the Balkans and our successfully effort to defeat the Nazis as “Imperialist Wars.”
Naturally, they are also pro-Putin.
Say what you want about DSA; they are, more or less, a group which operates within the four corners of liberal democracy. By contrast, ANSWER is resolutely anti-democratic.
Yet, DSA endorsed their rally, and in the last election, more than one DSA elected endorsed the PSL candidate for Mayor.
Yes, not everyone is aware of what ANSWER stands for, and so innocents can be duped without intent. But, as part of the organized left, DSA leadership was, or should have been, aware of who ANSWER are and what they stand for, which raises the question, when the opportunity to support this march arose, did the DSA leadership ask itself “what could possibly go wrong?”
Another question: Doesn't the motto "No enemies to the left," have some limits of decency?
"DSA endorsed a march, which was essentially one in support of killing Jews (preferably female, stripped naked and raped)"
You seem like a reasonable and fair person whose opinions should both be trusted and taken seriously.
Perhaps if DSA did not want to be linked by Eric Adams with the protests then the New York DSA should not have sent out a supporting tweet
"Perhaps if the DSA didn't want to be accused of being Nazi sympathizers by Eric Adams then the DSA shouldn't have put out a tweet supporting a rally against apartheid."
Fixed it for you.
I remember a facebook post from a college professor - someone I went to HS with - crowing about how the FIRST thing she thought of when waking up was INTERSECTIONALITY.
This was around 2014 or so. She teaches at a "top" school in NYC. Naturally, the post was followed by hundreds of likes, comments of 'stunning and brave', 'you go girl', 'this, so this' .... you know how it goes.
This became the pervasive and stupid rulebook that everyone has to follow. It seems to be the only set of rules that Adams capable of following. He's pretty good at it.
The left that I grew up in has been vaporized. I remember talking about how the Social Justice / Intersectionality rules set of grievance stack was a mistake. It was easy to see how it would blow up later. Very few people would even engage in dialogue. I must have felt good to do all of that virtue signaling on FBook at the time. Now the bill has come, and no one can pay.
One wonders when organizations from DSA to Harvard Admissions will - finally - come to the obvious conclusion that it is unwise to have social media accounts staffed by random goombas with little impulse control and less sense. How many lawsuits will it take before nonprofits realize it's a bad idea to let someone - anyone - make instant & unreviewed public statements on behalf of the organization?
Organization leadership doesn't seem to understand that being on twitter is an elective choice...are they incapable of preventing their smartphone-addicted underlings from making "official" social media accounts? Such accounts seem to be utilized for attempted clapbacks much more often than for "outreach" - and I don't think issuing public clapbacks on stupid websites should be part of the remit of any purportedly serious organization.
e: in general there really ought to be a clampdown on batsshit social media behavior, because it comes in deluges from the individual accounts of organization members, in addition to anything that comes from an official account. a lawsuit against Eric Adams by DSA would likely involve examination of public social media statements made on the subject by DSA officials high & low - and that, more than anything else, DSA reeeaaallly doesn't want.
but it's not just them - lesser college professors are becoming known, as a group, for batshit twitter behavior. since most people don't interact with college professors all that often in real life, this sets their understanding of who college professors are and what they do. that....really doesn't seem good for the future, in terms of trust in educators & trust in higher education.
imo, if you want to post your crazy thoughts, stay anonymous. if you're speaking on the internet under your real name, and you've put your university or nonprofit affiliation in your bio to give weight to your statements, don't get in stupid petty fights with people, choose your words very carefully, and maybe just don't touch controversial subjects. if you want to argue a controversial take, do it anonymously - such people hate this, however, as they're used to wielding their institutional status like a cudgel, rather than actually standing on the strength of their arguments, as one must do when incognito.
Discovery in a defamation case can be quite extensive. Undergoing that kind of examination could be risky for an organization made up of young radicals who like to say their piece on line. I’m a DSA member, but I think a defamation case is probably not the way to go.
>Undergoing that kind of examination could be risky for an organization made up of young radicals who like to say their piece on line
So... the members of this organization say such dumb sh*t online - under their real names - that this organization is incapable of filing any lawsuit that would result in such statements being examined...and you don't see this as, uhm, a massive problem?
No. DSA is a democratic organization with a low bar to membership. It’s run mostly by volunteers. It has many chapters, branches, working groups, committees, and internal political caucuses. Combining its big-tent bottom-up nature with the fact that everything that somebody purports to say on behalf of DSA is saved forever in cyberspace makes DSA a poor defamation plaintiff, but that’s okay with me because I don’t think filing defamation cases is a particularly useful tool for democratic political organizations. If the “massive problem” you see is that DSA has insufficient message discipline, I agree that it would be better if DSA members and leaders acted with more recognition of their status as a real political player, rather than the leftist debating society they were in days gone by.
I disagree. These lies will remain unless pushed back upon. Sunlight is the best disinfectant.
Let's talk about what is really happening.