ACLU to Taylor: Criticism is never pleasant, but shake it off

[migamiga 12,102]

LIVE FOOTAGE OF TAYLOR READING THIS ARTICLE:

 

[ALGAYDO 32,827]

1 minute ago, AlexanderMagno said:

I wonder if, with this new accusations, she will portrait herself as a nazi in her next video.

Inb4 she dresses up as Hitler in her next MV 

[Supersonic 49,376]

11 minutes ago, Ryusei said:

except random SJW blogs will spread this and with the way the internet works it's gonna become a popular opinion that taylor is some nazi icon racist 

Or she could have just said "I'm not a Nazi and I condemn anybody who paints me as such and abuses my likeness for their propaganda" and sued the RIGHT people. That's her fault. She made the bed, now she has to lay in it.

[TheRoof 21,600]

6 minutes ago, Gagaplayer315 said:

The new Taylor can't sue anyone right now. Why? Oh, cause she was DRAGGED 

[SHALLOW 16,443]

i don't agree. it's her right to sue.

[SHALLOW 16,443]

19 minutes ago, Gagaloo92 said:

ACLU is coming for ha 

http://variety.com/2017/music/news/taylor-swift-lawsuit-aclu-1202607965/

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is challenging lawsuit threats made by Taylor Swift and her lawyer against a Northern California blogger.

The letter takes subtle jabs at some of Swift’s lyrics, saying that “criticism is never pleasant, but a celebrity has to shake it off, even if the critique may damage her reputation,” and that “applying these fundamental constitutional principles to your four ‘hideous falsehoods’ shows that not even in your wildest dreams can they constitute defamation.”

 

a celebrity is still a person.

[ALGAYDO 32,827]

3 minutes ago, HYPODERMIC0 said:

a celebrity is still a person.

Yeah, a person who refuses to denounce literal neo-nazis and white-supremacists who use her as their Aryan Princess icon to push their racists agenda, and instead sues the people who pointed this out to her 

[SHALLOW 16,443]

Just now, HOMODRAKE said:

Yeah, a person who refuses to denounce literal neo-nazis and white-supremacists who use her as their Aryan Princess icon to push their racists agenda, and instead sues the people who pointed this out to her 

not sure if it's her fault that neo nazis like her. 

I mean, i agree that she takes everything way too seriously and that she doesn't speak out on anything but if she wants to sue, she can do it. it's her right as a human.

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

Just now, HYPODERMIC0 said:

not sure if it's her fault that neo nazis like her. 

I mean, i agree that she takes everything way too seriously and that she doesn't speak out on anything but if she wants to sue, she can do it. it's her right as a human.

Then she can state so in a tweet or something, not through the means of a threat of a lawsuit. 

Is that what the typical human does? Threaten a lawsuit with a rich and powerful lawyer over an article about you that you don't like? 

 

[ALGAYDO 32,827]

3 minutes ago, HYPODERMIC0 said:

not sure if it's her fault that neo nazis like her. 

I mean, i agree that she takes everything way too seriously and that she doesn't speak out on anything but if she wants to sue, she can do it. it's her right as a human.

It’s definitely NOT her fault that nazis and white supremacists use her image as their icon, but it IS her fault for continuing to let them do this by allowing them to use your image in such matters, especially by not publicly denouncing them. 

But yeah, I guess it IS technically her human right to sue, even tho she is completely in the wrong for trying to silence a publication for stating facts ¯\_(ツ)_/¯ 

[SHALLOW 16,443]

Just now, Gagaloo92 said:

Then she can state so in a tweet or something, not through the means of a threat of a lawsuit. 

Is that what the typical human does? Threaten a lawsuit with a rich and powerful lawyer over an article about you that you don't like? 

 

well, if she feels offendend by that article she's entitled to do anything she wants.

I personally don't like that she sues anyone but i'm just saying that i might understand her.

[ArtPLAUSE 1,252]

As per usual Taylor Swift is held by different standards from pretty much anyone else, what's new.

It is pretty much common practice for random neonazi groups to pick random white, blonde, blue-eyed celebs and advertise them as beauty archetypes. Basically every year some Miss (country) is regarded as such. TS is a singer, not a politician; there is no reason for her to dignify these groups with her attention. Should she be responsible for the actions, or beliefs, of people who look up to her? Or should she be held accountable for her own beliefs? Surely TS is not known to publicly take political stances, but everytime she sided on certain issues, she's proven to be far from a neo-nazi. I truly do not understand why bloggers, journalists, and whatnot expect her to publicly say that she is not a nazi sympathizer, when her actions make it clear already.

[ItWasntLaauv 6,392]

30 minutes ago, Red said:

This sounds like those corny youtube comments that forces song titles into a sentence.

"Gaga went on a Bad Romance with Alejandro and they had Telephone sex while Dancing in the Dark and made her So Happy She Could Die and Speechless, grinding her Teeth" teas

 

23 minutes ago, Yuuri said:

"John Wayne watched Joanne Dancin' In Circles, but realized it was a Perfect Illusion. So he gave his Sinner's Prayer for a Million Reasons, that his Diamond Heart can see his Angel Down. Hey Girl A-YO Come To Moma."

When will J.K. Rowling?

LAMKJDBDHSJAJGSJAHGGFGG BEST THING I READ TODAY OMFG 

[Gagaloo911 12,959]

22 minutes ago, HYPODERMIC0 said:

i don't agree. it's her right to sue.

 

10 minutes ago, HYPODERMIC0 said:

well, if she feels offendend by that article she's entitled to do anything she wants.

I personally don't like that she sues anyone but i'm just saying that i might understand her.

I couldn't disagree more. 

Trying to shut something down because one doesn't like it leaves a bad taste in my mouth and veers on the side of censorhsip and authoritatianism, which we already have to be worried about with Trump as president. 

Not a good thing at all. Not to mention that isn't defamation since it's not calling her a neonazi or alleging that she is. Simply calling on her to speak out on something.

It doesn't require that she needs to, and I don't think she has to. But it doesn't give her the right to try and shut down a form of free speech. 

[2007 5,291]

She’ll shake YOU off in court love