Kinda has hints of O. J. Simpson’s “If I Did It”, with a “having it both ways” finish.<p>It has always been the case that a paper will headline a damning take. Fact is, best I can tell from the interview and his words after, he <i>did</i> say such a thing, and I’m having difficulty even trying to imagine how it was taken out of context. That’s a live bomb, and you just don’t touch it. “We should have never taken that money” and then shut up.
How will this victory determine use/abuse of social media as an smear operation/rumors campaign mechanism?<p>Case in point: There are multiple twitter threads going around politicians saying things, but either recanting those later or being taken out of context.<p>A tweet doesn't do the justice. If Lessig wins it might help to lay the groundwork for some more nuanced digital ethics.