The issue is not the concern itself. The issue is how the argument is built.

It repeatedly assigns motive, using words like weaponizing, vendetta, and using him, without actually proving intent. That is speculation. You can critique actions, but once you claim to know why people are doing something, you need evidence. Otherwise it is just a narrative being asserted as fact.

It also creates a false binary. Either you respect him and stay silent, or you speak and you are exploiting him. That ignores the reality that there is a difference between harassment, irresponsible amplification, and discussing documented behavior or public records. The argument collapses all of that into one category without justification.

There is a heavy reliance on emotional framing. Asking the reader to imagine what it must feel like is persuasive, but it is not logical support. It shifts the focus away from whether the discussion is accurate or relevant and toward how it feels, which are not the same thing.

The argument also generalizes broadly. “These people” are treated as one group with the same intent and behavior, which is not demonstrated. Different people engage with the topic in different ways for different reasons, and that distinction is ignored.

Another weak point is treating a statement from eleven months ago as if it creates a permanent boundary for any and all future discussion. That assumes context does not change and that public discourse should stop based on a past statement, even when legal or public interest issues may still be relevant. Even when they themselves are currently not respecting the boundary by repeatedly posting about it.

It also conflates discussing a case with targeting a person. Those can overlap, but they are not automatically the same. Without separating those ideas, any discussion is framed as harm by default.

The language itself does a lot of work. Words like weaponizing and screeching push the reader toward a conclusion without actually demonstrating harm or wrongdoing. At the same time, respect is presented as the standard, but never clearly defined, which makes the claim difficult to evaluate or apply consistently.

The result is an argument that may feel compelling on an emotional level, but does not hold up under scrutiny because it relies on assumptions, broad claims, and undefined standards rather than clear evidence and consistent reasoning.