Civil rights lawyer quits X after Alex Jones' return to platform

submitted by hfxB0oyA from politico.com

all 15 comments
sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun

[–]turtlew0rk 4 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 0 fun5 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A meaningless gesture. Social justice in action for sure.

[–]hfxB0oyA[S] 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (0 children)

She'll be back. They always do when they realize they're missing their attention fix.

[–]Drewski 3 insightful - 2 fun3 insightful - 1 fun4 insightful - 2 fun -  (3 children)

So freedom of expression is what drove the "civil rights" lawyer off X? Lol!

“Alex Jones tortured these families who suffered the unimaginable,” Ifill posted Sunday on X. “He has monstrously led a campaign of gaslighting and assault on the spirit of Sandy Hook families & desecrated the memory of those murdered children.

Questioning the official narrative of an event, whether you're wrong or right, doesn't mean you're "torturing" the families of the victims and "leading an assault on their spirit". What an absolute load of garbage.

Ifill said with the return of Jones to the social media site, it “cannot be a place where I put my energy, my ideas, my plans, my joy.”

I'm sure your energy and joy will be sorely missed.

[–]hfxB0oyA[S] 1 insightful - 2 fun1 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 2 fun -  (2 children)

In fairness, these types have precious little joy to begin with, so i can understand her need to conserve.

[–]jet199 2 insightful - 2 fun2 insightful - 1 fun3 insightful - 2 fun -  (1 child)

She has plenty of joy ... in typographic art on the walls of her house.

[–]hfxB0oyA[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Live, Love, Laugh 😂

[–]Tom_Bombadil 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Civil rights lawyer opposes free speech.

[–]SMCAB 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

A sense of irony doesn't come with these people. It's amazing isn't it?

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (5 children)

That lawyer should be instantly disbarred for protesting over a person getting their right to speak back. This shows a profound misunderstanding of what they should be representing.

[–]hfxB0oyA[S] 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Uhhh......

[–]NastyWetSmear 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That tells me you're confused about something, but not what. Did you disagree? Does it not make sense?

[–]hfxB0oyA[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

I'm not sure if you were making a joke there about the free speech debate or not.

[–]NastyWetSmear 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Well, it was partially a joke in that I don't think anyone's actions on social media... Barring literally illegal actions... Should impact their job.
But what I meant was: Someone who is meant to be representing civil rights as a living, but then sees a person being returned to the public square and protests that, isn't the best person for the job. Anyone in her position should, even if they hated the person and their views, have the intelligence and impartiality towards such subjects to be able to say: "Well, I don't like him, but people I don't like should also have certain rights. In fact, it's part of my job to ensure that everyone has certain rights and they aren't infringed and, frankly, the 'town square' debate is one we should be having."

[–]hfxB0oyA[S] 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Gotcha. Thanks for clarifying. 👍

[–]Dragonerne 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Ironic