Whom are you going to believe? Some fat, bald, funny looking lawyer or an award-winning investigative journalist? News anchor/managing editor @tjctv? Steven I. Weiss, clearly.
There seems to be this idea that parody is protected in absolute and unlimited fashion by the First Amendment. This is not so.
— Steven I. Weiss (@steveniweiss) May 1, 2016
Is that what there “seems to be”? Does it “seem” that parody is protected in “absolute and unlimited fashion”? Is this “not so”? Weiss saves us from this blight.
It really can’t be stressed enough: journalists should learn what the First Amendment means. It’s our most vital tool. @jeffjarvis
-30-
— Steven I. Weiss (@steveniweiss) May 1, 2016
And who better to teach journalists what the First Amendment means but Weiss?
In this case, @ProfJeffJarvis writes about the same topics as @jeffjarvis, in same formats & fora, just stupider.
— Steven I. Weiss (@steveniweiss) May 1, 2016
Just stupider? Does that matter?
People write stupid shit all the time. Why wouldn’t @jeffjarvis? It’s a weird defense, but it’s the reason @ProfJeffJarvis is damaging.
— Steven I. Weiss (@steveniweiss) May 1, 2016
But who could possibly disagree?
A brief update: clearly many find @Popehat‘s misleading analogy to Farah v Esquire to be correct. It’s here:https://t.co/KW9xJm9iAL
— Steven I. Weiss (@steveniweiss) May 1, 2016
What does that miscreant claim?
Here’s how @Popehat explains @jeffjarvis @ProfJeffJarvis & Farah v Esquire pic.twitter.com/tMnSqv88Ig
— Steven I. Weiss (@steveniweiss) May 1, 2016
Is that wrong?
But the detailed argument in Farah is v different than @Popehat suggests & diff from @jeffjarvis @ProfJeffJarvis pic.twitter.com/mPz36a9E6A
— Steven I. Weiss (@steveniweiss) May 1, 2016
And your point would be?
Why doesn’t @Popehat deal honestly w vast differences in Farah precedent & @jeffjarvis @ProfJeffJarvis?
I don’t know. But it’s misleading.
— Steven I. Weiss (@steveniweiss) May 1, 2016
But didn’t you say that the parody was “stupider”?
Expecting reasonable readers to assume a piece w @jeffjarvis‘s name isn’t his because it’s a stupid argument is an unreasonable expectation.
— Steven I. Weiss (@steveniweiss) May 1, 2016
Well, there you go, the First Amendment in the hands of a critically acclaimed investigative journalist. By the way, who is it that critically acclaimed you?
If that’s not clear and obvious, I don’t know what is.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Send the Jeffster and Stevie to Stanford so the school can include “mutual masturbation” in the sex survey.
Such a crude way to described a symbiotic relationship.
Love it – a court opinion on satire that goes back to Defoe… …whom I read as a kid and didn’t really ‘get it’, at least not all of it.
I’m confused, was this the real Steven Weiss, or a parody using his name to make a mockery of him?
As Steven Weiss says:
So there ya go.
I must have missed the contest announcement for best recursive tweet.
That made my head hurt, and I wish I could sue Weiss for journalistic malpractice.
I know it’s a horrible idea on 1st amendment grounds, but smacking the likes of Weiss and Curmi for spreading stupidity would be so satisfying. Unfortunately, like the Illinois Nazis we must protect their free speech in order to protect our own. But I can still call Weiss a wittering bilious bladder who breaks wind from the mouth and speaks as much sense as a drunken macaque.
On behalf of macaques, I demand you cease and desist.
… isn’t the dullest knife in the drawer.
… actually has some admirers.
… is impossible to distinguish from a buffoonish simulacrum.