Patterico's Pontifications

7/11/2019

Trump Deplatforms Cartoonist on “Whine About Deplatforming” Day

Filed under: General — Patterico @ 7:58 am



Today is the big social media summit that DRJ mentioned below. Otherwise known (by me) as Whinefest, the summit provides an opportunity for Trump lovers of every stripe to come together and whinge about Twitter and Facebook using their own private property to exclude people whose views they find reprehensible.

One of the people originally invited was anti-Semitic cartoonist Ben Garrison, but after Jewish groups contacted Trump to say what the hell, Garrison was disinvited. Here’s the New York Times.

Ben Garrison, a pro-Trump cartoonist, was originally scheduled to attend, but the White House rescinded his invitation this week, according to Politico, after critics accused him of drawing an anti-Semitic cartoon.

(Well, more than one, actually, but I can see why the New York Times would be sensitive about such a topic.)

ZOMG!!!1! Deplatformed!

Apparently Trump excluded Garrison because he, OK I mean his Jewish supporters, found Garrison’s views reprehensible. I think we can all understand that and approve it, even as we wail to high heaven about Twitter and Facebook doing the exact same thing, only with private property as opposed to the public property of the White House.

[Cross-posted at The Jury Talks Back.]

65 Responses to “Trump Deplatforms Cartoonist on “Whine About Deplatforming” Day”

  1. Interesting bit of trivia: it seems that none of the cretins invited today has actually been deplatformed.

    Patterico (115b1f)

  2. 1. Hella salty post, Pat. What’s the over/under for how many commenters don’t pick up on the sarcasm?

    Gryph (08c844)

  3. Heh. This is a treat.

    DRJ (15874d)

  4. Here is one of his cartoons that was posted today about the Social Media Summit.

    DRJ (15874d)

  5. The thing I admire most about Trump is his loyalty to people who did him a favor less than one minute ago.

    nk (dbc370)

  6. 6. Weak sauce for charges of antisemitism. That looks like pretty standard Rothbardian conspiracy-mongering to me.

    Gryph (08c844)

  7. His cartoon reminds me that we need another lane, or need to do some pretty serious roadwork…

    Dana (bb0678)

  8. I feel sorry for Garrison:

    The problem, however, was that the more successful his cartoons became, the more trouble he experienced. That fascination with his newfound platform quickly vanished once he realized the professional courtesy of respect was not guaranteed on the web.

    “I didn’t know anything about social media, didn’t know about memes, didn’t know about the social conditions of the internet,” Garrison said. “I thought people would generally treat me with respect, that they would respect my copyright and signature.”

    Instead, Garrison found himself the target of more than one internet troll who altered his cartoons or stole his signature and placed them on cartoons depicting hateful, racist images.

    Read it all, really.

    DRJ (15874d)

  9. Exactly, Gryph.

    nk (dbc370)

  10. “I didn’t know anything about social media, didn’t know about memes, didn’t know about the social conditions of the internet,” Garrison said. “I thought people would generally treat me with respect, that they would respect my copyright and signature.”

    I thought the whole idea of being a good cartoonist is that you had to be up to speed on current events. In this day and age, that would seem to have at least a passing familiarity of how social media works.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  11. That was something he felt in 2008-9 when he resumed cartooning after the financial crisis:

    “Nazi trolls showed up to my humble blog and claimed I was on their side and drawing anti-Semitic cartoons,” Garrison said. “I wasn’t. This is what happens when one draws anti-Federal Reserve cartoons, though. Almost instantly the claim is made that the cartoons are ‘anti-Jewish.’”

    “They had created a doppelganger of Ben: a murderous, racist, homophobic Ben,” he said. “Google my name in 2014 and the first thing that comes up is my face that someone pasted into a Nazi uniform.”

    He started receiving hate mail and found himself at a “terrible low point because I realized it was really hurting my business,” Garrison said.

    He reached out lawyers to try to sue the people responsible but found it was nearly impossible because most of the people were anonymous.

    Then he got targeted by someone, similar to what happened to Patterico.

    DRJ (15874d)

  12. I can’t reprint the entire article, that would be unfair. Please read the link.

    DRJ (15874d)

  13. Garrison has always made me laugh. Sad Trump caved.

    mg (8cbc69)

  14. I read it all. He seemed extremely unprepared and naive about the internet, how vile it can be, and the ever-present trolls seek to damage and destroy those with whom they disagree. A cautionary tale to anyone contemplating a career that requires exposure of one’s heart and soul. It’s not for the faint of heart. It shouldn’t be that way but it sadly, is.

    Dana (bb0678)

  15. Weren’t we all that way 10 years ago?

    DRJ (15874d)

  16. #17 Weren’t we all that way 10 years ago?

    DRJ (15874d) — 7/11/2019 @ 9:14 am

    Yes.

    Just not in near “real time” like today. Hell, smartphones wasn’t as ubiquitous as it is now….

    whembly (fd57f6)

  17. I was, DRJ.

    I wanted to give Trump credit for distancing himself from an antisemite, but honestly I don’t think he should have in this case unless there’s something antisemitic rather than critical of the federal reserve. Generally I agree with the ADL on these sorts of things, but it’s just not that strong a case.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  18. Also this is the funniest post in some time. The blog’s mojo is healthy.

    Dustin (6d7686)

  19. DRJ, I hope you don’t believe I am being harsh toward Garrison. I’m not. It’s possible to both feel badly that he had to endure such a nightmare and wish that he had had some more preparation for the endeavor and the environment he was stepping into. I wasn’t savvy about the internet a decade ago either, but I wasn’t attempting to break into a field that required an internet presence that would expose who I was in some detail. I can’t remember when I realized what an absolute cesspool the internet could be, but it was a long time ago. It only stands to reason that, anywhere a multitude of people that you don’t know gather, there is bound to be a lot of nuts in the mix. With that, in scrolling through P’s sidebar categories, I clicked on Hiltzik and realized that his sock-puppeting escapade took place way back in 2006!

    Dana (bb0678)

  20. Your comment is making me think, Dana, about being “unprepared and naive about the internet, how vile it can be, and the ever-present trolls [who] seek to damage and destroy those with whom they disagree.”

    Ten years ago, Garrison thought it was ok to post cartoons that expressed his opinions but he learned they made him a target. How are we as bloggers any different? Why aren’t we equally “unprepared and naive,” and we don’t even get paid?

    DRJ (15874d)

  21. How are we as bloggers any different? Why aren’t we equally “unprepared and naive,” and we don’t even get paid?

    I think political cartoons are far more confrontational and cause stronger reactions because it’s a visual medium being used to say an awful lot. Blogging needs people who will take the time to read and digest. A much more involved endeavor that looking at a cartoon. Both might pack a powerful punch but one is certainly more easily accessed and digested. Perhaps we’ve done our homework. Perhaps Garrison didn’t. He was 52 years old ten years ago, to me that makes it all the more surprising that he was so unprepared. Also some people have a more rose-colored glasses view of man’s overall goodness than do others…

    Dana (bb0678)

  22. Patterico: “I think we can all understand that and approve it, even as we wail to high heaven about Twitter and Facebook doing the exact same thing, only with private property as opposed to the public property of the White House.”

    Fail.

    Twitter and Facebook, with their private property, have the benefit of Section 230 public regulations which the government bestowed on them.

    Trump does have some protections since, after all, he is president and the WH is public property, but the comparison is ludicrous.

    T and FB should be free to deplatform anyone they please, and those who can demonstrate harm by their decisions (whether to platform or deplatform) should be free to seek a remedy.

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-sanbernardino-attack-decision-idUSKCN1OW16Q

    Munroe (0b2761)

  23. Also, DRJ, I think the mere fact that you and I blog anonymously speaks to being prepared and informed about potential pitfalls of being on the internet. I learned a very long time ago that there is a risk to exposing oneself and that are options available to help mitigate potential disasters.

    Dana (bb0678)

  24. AOC now being sued in Federal District Court in Brooklyn by former New York State Assemblyman Dov Hikind for blocking him on Twitter July 8 (Monday)

    He had berated her for using the word “concentration camp”

    In his own day, Hikind did block people o Twitter, but that was before the recebt Suprme Court decision.

    Sammy Finkelman (8b217f)

  25. @5. ‘Social Media Freeway’ … when did the ‘Information Highway’ change it’s name?!?!

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  26. The difference being, I suppose, that the ‘Social Media’ have been granted legal protections on the grounds that they are not editors and therefore are not responsible for the content of their services…and have been blatantly editing and then preening themselves on being “Responsible” over the content of their services.

    The Summit, so far as I can tell, has no such legal protection regarding its utterances. Indeed it’s hard to see how it could function if it did.

    I don’t want the Social Media companies to stop editing. I want them to stop editing while claiming legal protection because they don’t. Give up the editing OR give up the protections. Choose ONE.

    Now, I don’t claim this is the position of a lot of Conservatives, or of Trump. They seem to be reaching for some kind of legal club to beat the social media with, and while that is sure to be entertaining, I don’t think it’s right.

    C. S. P. Schofield (f7316d)

  27. when they decided to become commissars, dictating what should go down the memory hole, while pretending they are fair intermediaries, we know how google and facebook and Instagram and whattsap and telegram, are behaving, who they allow and who they dissalow, they have immense power to shape the public space, like they admitted over the vote in Ireland, they have cooperation from like minded persons on credit card company boards, who have third party influence over outfits like patreon,

    narciso (d1f714)

  28. Ten years ago, Garrison thought it was ok to post cartoons that expressed his opinions but he learned they made him a target. How are we as bloggers any different? Why aren’t we equally “unprepared and naive,” and we don’t even get paid?

    I think that Dana answered this point very well. I would also suggest that cartooning by its very nature dispenses with subtlety and instead by necessity makes sweeping generalizations in order to condense a complicated point to one single panel.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  29. Yes, it is a good answer, as is your point. Is that why you think cartoons elicit stronger emotions than written opinions?

    DRJ (15874d)

  30. “I don’t want the Social Media companies to stop editing. I want them to stop editing while claiming legal protection because they don’t. Give up the editing OR give up the protections. Choose ONE.”

    https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2018/04/no-section-230-does-not-require-platforms-be-neutral

    Online platforms are within their First Amendment rights to moderate their online platforms however they like, and they’re additionally shielded by Section 230 for many types of liability for their users’ speech. It’s not one or the other. It’s both.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  31. Is that why you think cartoons elicit stronger emotions than written opinions?

    I think so. Also, when you reading something you are digesting it bit by bit, but when you look at a cartoon you are almost immediately hit with the point the artist is trying to make (unless the artists actually has a modicum of subtlety to his or her work), so it’s bound to have a more visceral impact on you.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  32. I think cartoons elicit short-term responses, or responses that validate one’s POV, and if they don’t validate, them they are more easily dismissed than well thought-out arguments. Maybe pics garner a more immediate impression/response, and something that one has to actually read and consider garners a more long-lasting response.

    Dana (bb0678)

  33. I get the feeling that Whinefest is Trump’s first salvo in the opening battle of his 2020 re-election. He is preparing the battlefield.

    DRJ (15874d)

  34. Also, I know when we as bloggers are trying to make an argument, we generally do try to acknowledge the other side’s point (I know that I continually fall short on this), but the cartoonist by nature of the medium isn’t able to do this.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  35. I am still struggling to see the distinction because, as we know, some bloggers get strong reactions, too.

    DRJ (15874d)

  36. The difference may not be between bloggers and cartoonist but rather the difference is the medium itself, along With how people react to the visual versus the written word.

    Dana (bb0678)

  37. some sjw twit, is going after ryan maue, one of the most reliable weather trackers, because he doesn’t believe in agw, micharl mann, forces tim ball, of the Canadian climate center to mutter ‘it is flat’, you understand the power of this utter lunacy, that is taught in the schools, propagated on tv, will be the basis for insurance price projections, that’s just one example, I don’t particular care about ben garrison, one way or another,

    narciso (d1f714)

  38. I think Dana has it.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  39. I see that, but I also think most people tend to laugh off cartoons … because they are cartoons. Yes, they are often pointed and merciless, especially political cartoons. But I think it is the readers or viewers that make the difference, not the medium.

    DRJ (15874d)

  40. There are the Seth Rich promoters, the Klan-lite’s, InfoWars amateur’s, and that James oKeef guy. If you’re going to gather a bunch of idiot trolls, this would the the list you’d choose.

    Who’s not there, Google, Facebook, Twitter, you know the platforms that many of these people use to spread there BS.

    It’s tRump, so yeah, sounds about right.

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  41. But I think it is the readers or viewers that make the difference, not the medium.

    Good point. Maybe a strong majority of the nutjobs out there find looking at a cartoon easier than reading a blog post, and that’s why cartoonists appear to get a more frenzied reaction, whereas bloggers draw fewer extreme critics, even though they do get an unhealthy amount.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  42. I remembered Ben Garrison from a few years back when real neo-Nazis and white supremacists hijacked his cartoons to make them look severely racist and anti-Semitic. He is a true victim of the hardcore alt-right.
    It is ironic that none of Trump’s invitees were actually de-platformed. InfoWars hack Owen Shroyer was inadvertently right when he called the event an “abortion of truth”.

    Paul Montagu (fc91e5)

  43. I recognize that James O’Keefe isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but I wouldn’t lump him in with the Pizzagate and InfoWars crowd, even though a few times O’Keefe has gotten his nose out over his skiis. O’Keefe has done valuable work in exposing some of the shadier side of ACORN and Planned Parenthood, two organizations which the regular news media had deemed to be impervious to critical investigation. That he has attracted some lunatic fans in the process is like blaming Jodie Foster for John Hinckley, Jr.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  44. “If you’re going to gather a bunch of idiot trolls, this would the the list you’d choose.”

    Jim Hoft is there, which really tells you everything you need to know.

    Davethulhu (fab944)

  45. @33/@34. Charlie Hebdo.

    ‘Nuff said.

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  46. are you really this ignorant, you don’t know what o’keefe uncovered re acorn, planned parenthood, voting procedures in dc, topic selection at npr,

    narciso (d1f714)

  47. I recognize that James O’Keefe isn’t everyone’s cup of tea, but I wouldn’t lump him in with the Pizzagate and InfoWars crowd…

    I’d lump him in with those hacks after the stunt he tried to pull with the DDID.

    Paul Montagu (fc91e5)

  48. ‘I recognize that James O’Keefe isn’t everyone’s cup of tea…’

    Apparently he is for the Teetotaler In Chief; Orange Pekoe:

    ‘A month before the launch of Donald Trump’s presidential campaign, the Trump Foundation donated $10,000 to O’Keefe’s Project Veritas.’ – source, wikinutbio

    DCSCA (797bc0)

  49. But I think it is the readers or viewers that make the difference, not the medium.

    One has to intentionally look for political cartoons, whether a political cartoon link at a major outlet, or the cartoonist’s own website/twitter feed. Unlike the written word, they aren’t just everywhere. One has to work far less to access writing than they do a political cartoon. Also, one clearly is substantially greater in volume than the other.

    Dana (bb0678)

  50. “I’d lump him in with those hacks after the stunt he tried to pull with the DDID.”
    Paul Montagu (fc91e5) — 7/11/2019 @ 12:09 pm

    He’s certainly in the same sorry company of hacks who outed the Covington kid racists and exposed all the Kavanaugh gang rapey rapes, i.e. major media outlets and their dupes.

    Munroe (0b2761)

  51. In considering matters of risk and blogging, it strikes me as the perfect time to ask the boss for a raise.

    Dana (bb0678)

  52. Well, when you get Klan-lite types, and Seb Gorka?!?, you get https://twitter.com/katierogers/status/1149436290707927043/video/1

    Colonel Klink (Ret) (6e7a1c)

  53. the one libeled by the forward, and the basilisk, which looks askance at these marauders that call themselves Antifa,

    narciso (d1f714)

  54. In considering matters of risk and blogging, it strikes me as the perfect time to ask the boss for a raise.

    Aw, ever since the Janus decision came down I am finding it harder and harder to unionize our blogging crew. Let’s just continue to press for a platinum health care policy with no co-pay.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  55. At the Social Media Summit today, Trump said something that was positively fascist:

    “And we don’t want to stifle anything, we certainly don’t want to stifle free speech. But that’s [social media companies] no longer free speech,” said Trump. “See I don’t think that the mainstream media is free speech either, because it’s so crooked, it’s so dishonest.”
    “So to me, free speech is not when you see something good and then you purposely write bad, to me that’s very dangerous speech, and you become angry at it,” said Trump. “But that’s not free speech.”

    Saying something that’s not true (in Trump’s mind) is not free speech, and Trump gets to decide what’s not true. Using Trump’s own standards, his incessant lies must therefore be “dangerous speech” and “not free speech”.
    And in a moment of candor while addressing the attendees, Trump said something that couldn’t be more true:

    “The crap you think of is unbelievable.”

    Their crap is indeed unbelievable.

    Paul Montagu (fc91e5)

  56. Was Garrison antisemtic? Because of what? Exactly?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  57. Did he invite David French or Bill Kristol to whine about the Religious Right supporting him? Or to whine about Google being regulated? Because that’s all they whine about.

    rcocean (1a839e)

  58. Is Bill Kristol still whining about Hillary losing in 2016?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  59. Is Bill Kristol still whining about Hillary losing in 2016?

    rcocean (1a839e)

  60. Was Garrison antisemtic? Because of what? Exactly

    He’s used imagery in cartoons that can be read as being anti-Semitic, although with enough ambiguity to say they aren’t. I have seen only one of his cartoons which uses a very clear anti-Semitic trope
    https://grrrgraphics.com/product/the-deep-state-hydra-attacks-print
    One hydra head is labelled “Rothschilds”.

    Kishnevi (a992d1)

  61. After going through Garrison’s gallery, I don’t feel sorry for him, and I don’t buy his “poor, poor, pitiful me” refrain either. Warren Zevon did it better, and so did Linda Ronstadt. He osculated Trump’s podex and Trump flatulated in his face. It reflects badly on Trump but it does not make Garrison some kind of hero.

    nk (dbc370)

  62. Designated Survivor season 3 had the drop on this issue by way of a plot involving a melanin-activated virus that was thought to kill its victims, but instead would sicken and sterilize them instead. If you replace kill with deport and replace sterile with suppress population count, gist is gotten.

    urbanleftbehind (c5ceb5)

  63. That’s the supposed scheme in the next bond film.

    Narciso (0bfcbe)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.3203 secs.