Alvin Greene howls and wails during interview, upset over indictment.
Dave Weigel asks (on Twitter): "At this point, how is this different from making fun of the mentally disabled kid in junior high?"
Well, golly. This guy is the Dem nominee for US Senate. In the primary, no one in the media pointed out that he is a bit erratic, and he..... WON the primary.
At some point, don't you have to give a U.S. Senate candidate a chance to explain? The whole "he's too pathetic, leave him alone" thing would only work if he withdraws from the race. Until then, the man is fair game.
(And I thought it sounded more like singing than wailing. NOOOOOOOOO and GOOOOOOOOO. At least they rhyme).
3 comments:
There is a "felony charge of obscenity"? A FELONY?!?
It's obvious that there is no standard by which a felonious action is distinguished from the merely rude (or wholesome!) other than the foul mood of legislators when considering how they might impress the throngs.
I see only three categories for "communicating":
1. Threats (misdemeanor at most)
2. Fraud (a lie that harms someone, severity is proportionate to the harm)
3. Protected speech
Mr. Greene's action seems to fall in category 3 and I would say he has a cause of civil action against the police and prosecutors harassing him (and sovereign immunity be damned).
Tom, he showed obscene pictures to a college student, against her will, repeatedly, and then tried to get her to take him to her dorm room. He was trespassing at the university, and had no ID or other basis for using the computer lab. (Still...a FELONY? He is black and she is white. I wonder...a FELONY? This was basically trespass and misdemeanor assault, and the assault is iffy).
I agree that LOOKING at pictures, of pretty much anything, involving consenting adults should be legal. But I do not see that forcing someone else to look, and then threatening that person, should be legal.
And, in any case, the question is whether the reporter is right to try to interview the guy. If nothing else, Mr. Greene might have made the argument YOU made, instead of howling.
I don't think Weigel would disagree with your assessment. He isn't saying a major-party senatorial candidate isn't fair game. His comment seems more about feeling that Greene doesn't represent anything more broadly about the Democratic Party and, since he is going to lose by an epic margin, there is no point to the coverage beyond cruelty.
It is no different than the Basil Marceaux coverage, except Greene happened to run in a Democratic primary in a state where the Democrats have essentially given up.
Post a Comment