Recently, I was blind copied on an email blast from an author of a novel that employs modern alt-right/conservative iconography in a provocative way. The author mentioned coyly that their upcoming reading might have some protestors. The author urged those on the email list to defend their right to free speech by coming out to the reading.

I wrote back to the author: "Uh, aren't the protesters exercising free speech too?"

In another email the author conceded that this was true, but that it just wasn't fair — the protesters were saying the author's perspective wasn't allowed, simply because some of the characters in the author's book liked Donald Trump. I responded:

You're moving the goalposts, though.

First, you suggest that your free speech is somehow endangered by the protesters. Then you claim that the protesters are saying your point of view "cannot be allowed," when in fact they're exercising their free speech, just the same way that you are.

If you're going to try to frame it as a free speech issue by painting yourself as a victim, just please try to be intellectually consistent about it when you're trying to drum up publicity, okay?

The interesting thing is that in their response to me, the author had somehow accidentally included an email from their publisher offering them a blueprint for acquiring free publicity for the book — document the protests with photos and video, write an op/ed in a local paper about the experience, and find a "friendly local journalist" who could "provide love coverage."

It is a problem that here in Seattle, I can think of at least three "journalists" — including two right-wingers and one useful idiot who serves as an alt-right megaphone on so-called 'free speech' issues — who would have uncritically picked up this story and framed it exactly as the author wanted it to be framed, when in fact nobody is being silenced and the system of free speech is working exactly as it should.

I worry about the fact that conservative people are getting so good at working the system — at exploiting the pathological journalistic drive to find "both sides" to every story to create a controversy where, quite frankly, there is no controversy to be found.

I just want to take this opportunity to speak directly to my colleagues in the media: be better. You ignore dozens of PR emails with bad pitches every single day; you can ignore these flimsy arguments for imperiled free speech, too. It took one simple question to rip the lid off this author's naked thirst for attention. If I can do it, you can do it, too. Just don't fall for it next time. Okay?