Actually, No

He wrote: “I urged no such thing. I intended no such thing. But sufficient numbers believe I did, and in cases of widespread misapprehension of meaning, the fault always lies with the writer.” He also apologised for giving “the impression that I welcome killing”.

While it is beholden on the writer to make his meaning clear, there is no more that he can do beyond that. Joshua Treviño’s tweet was perfectly clear:

“Dear IDF: If you end up shooting any Americans on the new Gaza flotilla – well, most Americans are cool with that. Including me.”

This is not and could never be reasonably construed as an incitement to kill Americans. It’s fairly obvious that he was taking sides over the blockade of Gaza and pretty much stating that any Americans who chose to try and run the blockade would be getting no more than they deserve. So, yeah, possibly harsh –  although I would tend to take the same view –  but not by any stretch of the imagination an incitement. Not even close.

The twitterati have whipped up a storm and the Groan has decided (by mututal agreement) to terminate his role as a commentator.

All of which comes back to that original point; just how much control does the writer have over those who read his words? I had a troll leave an insulting comment the other day regarding my comments about cold calling. I had said nothing in that that could possibly warrant such an attack. He had chosen to read his own interpretation into it through the filter of his own hateful prejudices. I have upset his sensibilities in the past by saying things that he disagrees with, so everything I say is now coloured by this. The same would apply to Treviño. He is a Republican, so the leftists at the Groan and elsewhere have chosen to misinterpret an injudicious tweet to suit their own political ends. Short of not writing, there is nothing the writer can do about that, so the fault is not with the writer, it is with the readers. And, no, he should not have apologised.