Proclaiming one thing. Demonstrating another

PrawfsBlawg claims it is “Where Intellectual Honesty Has (Almost Always) Trumped Partisanship Since 2005.” The post on Donald Trump’s First Amendment tends to illustrate otherwise. The comments on the post notice this and describe the conflicts between claim and behavior.

Trump’s tweet “Someone should look into who paid for the small organized rallies yesterday. The election is over!” does not assert that there is something wrong with the rallies nor any sanctioning or limiting of the speech or its funding as Howard Wasserman asserts. Not does the tweet say there is something wrong with “organized rallies or other peaceable assemblies.” Nor does the tweet say that “only opportunity people have to express their political preferences is during an election.” These are perceptions and speculation about implications that are highly biased and intellectual honesty should acknowledge this. The bias is shown in that the perceptions are all extreme and in one direction and there is no consideration given to other ways the tweet might be interpreted  much less the context of the media involved. Honesty requires a basis in what was actually said, not what one thinks he heard.


Comments are closed.