It's extremely hard for me to imagine how anyone who's read or listened to a lot of Ken's commentary could walk away thinking that he was suddenly in favor of 18 USC 1001 just because of the existence of the Trump administration. He regularly criticizes the statute.
I don't know, I really just don't see it.
----
Also, quick sidenote on the heckler's veto:
> We talked about chilling effects and heckler's vetoes, but now they're well-deserved social sanctions?
The heckler's veto isn't really the right term to use when talking about cancel culture or shouting down speakers. The heckler's veto is more about the government shutting down speech under the assumption that it might cause a riot or disruption in the future.
But for whatever it's worth, Ken also regularly criticizes shouting down speakers in public forums. I really just don't see this change in his opinion that you're talking about.
Oh, he hates the statute normally. He just failed to even express mild criticism of it when it was abused and he was discussing the trial, which stood out when he was literally discussing the merits of a trial centered on one. Maybe he made up for it on some episode I didn't listen to, there are a lot of them and there's no way I heard them all, but I was kinda surprised to see him fail to mention a hobby horse of his in a discussion of a trial centered on said hobby horse.
> The heckler's veto isn't really the right term to use when talking about cancel culture or shouting down speakers. The heckler's veto is more about the government shutting down speech under the assumption that it might cause a riot or disruption in the future.
You say that as if nothing got shut down or forced to pay huge security fees due to other people being moved to violence against the speakers, but there were and have been lawsuits over the same. One of which I think even involved Clark, though I didn't follow that particularly closely.
> He just failed to even express mild criticism of it when it was abused and he was discussing the trial
I don't know if I need to dig through however many X podcasts exist here to find examples, but for whatever it's worth I know that Ken criticized criminalization of lying to the FBI during the Trump investigation. You can believe me or not about that, short of digging through a bunch of transcripts I'm not sure what else to say about it other than I didn't notice the silence you're talking about.
> You say that as if nothing got shut down or forced to pay huge security fees due to other people being moved to violence against the speakers, but there were and have been lawsuits over the same.
Ah, first of all there's a difference between private companies doing this and public forums doing this. Not to say that it's never a bad thing if private forums do this, but it's not a heckler's veto in the legal sense. Second of all, it's still improper to characterize things like shouting down a speaker as a heckler's veto, because regardless of whether or not public forums violate that standard and are guilty of allowing a heckler's veto, it's still the case that actual heckling is not a heckler's veto.
But regardless, this is something that Ken criticizes regularly, so I just don't get what the point is. I have seen Ken criticize shouting down speakers and threatening them even when he doesn't like the speakers.
----
Edit: Okay, I did do a real quick 3-minute search online and not only do I see multiple instances of Popehat criticizing 18 USC 1001, I also see multiple instances of Left-leaning readers accusing him of being too critical of the statute when it's applied to Conservatives (https://nitter.42l.fr/Popehat/status/966388695505952768#m). Again, take from that whatever you'd like. I even (since you brought up the word) found a pretty recent example of him literally calling it chickenshit (https://nitter.42l.fr/Popehat/status/1486410486258102273#m)
I don't know, I really just don't see it.
----
Also, quick sidenote on the heckler's veto:
> We talked about chilling effects and heckler's vetoes, but now they're well-deserved social sanctions?
https://nitter.42l.fr/Popehat/status/1504505701401448467#m
The heckler's veto isn't really the right term to use when talking about cancel culture or shouting down speakers. The heckler's veto is more about the government shutting down speech under the assumption that it might cause a riot or disruption in the future.
But for whatever it's worth, Ken also regularly criticizes shouting down speakers in public forums. I really just don't see this change in his opinion that you're talking about.