[W:134]The New York Times Takes a Stand Against Free Speech

[Jack Hays]

It's always easier to attack free speech than to defend it, and the New York Times has sadly taken the easy way out.

The New York Times’s self-inflicted fiasco

• By Kathleen Parker
• ​

When the New York Times leadership recently apologized to the paper’s staff for running an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the enemies of “fake news” high-fived, and free speech collapsed from embarrassment.

Heaven forbid an opinion on a newspaper’s op-ed page should offend someone. It’s one thing to disagree on the merits of an opinion; it’s quite another to have published an opinion column, then criticized the column and then made a senior personnel decision in part because the column was published in the first place.

The Times’s editorial page editor, James Bennet, once a potential executive editor candidate, resigned over what should have been a blip on the continuum of lessons learned. This unnecessary spectacle isn’t only disappointing but also portends the gradual shrinking of the free marketplace of ideas. . . .

 

[Phys251]

It's always easier to attack free speech than to defend it, and the New York Times has sadly taken the easy way out.

The New York Times’s self-inflicted fiasco

• By Kathleen Parker
• ​

When the New York Times leadership recently apologized to the paper’s staff for running an op-ed by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), the enemies of “fake news” high-fived, and free speech collapsed from embarrassment.

Heaven forbid an opinion on a newspaper’s op-ed page should offend someone. It’s one thing to disagree on the merits of an opinion; it’s quite another to have published an opinion column, then criticized the column and then made a senior personnel decision in part because the column was published in the first place.

The Times’s editorial page editor, James Bennet, once a potential executive editor candidate, resigned over what should have been a blip on the continuum of lessons learned. This unnecessary spectacle isn’t only disappointing but also portends the gradual shrinking of the free marketplace of ideas. . . .

Please provide a definition of "free speech," and prove that the NYT's apology for that editorial, which broadcast a call for violence by a thug Senator, violated free speech.

 

[swing_voter]

It was an opinion piece by a republican senator and was labeled as such.


Opinion pieces are fine. It's not like anyone thinks Tom Cotton is a genius.

 

[Jack Hays]

Please provide a definition of "free speech," and prove that the NYT's apology for that editorial, which broadcast a call for violence by a thug Senator, violated free speech.

Parker continues:

". . . Cotton’s essential argument was that an “overwhelming show of force” was needed as the protests unfolded and that President Trump should invoke the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to “restore order to our streets.” Bad idea, Tom. See how easy that was? I for one am glad to know what’s inside Cotton’s cerebral cavity. I disagree with his thinking for the same reasons raised by others, including former defense secretary and retired Marine general Jim Mattis. As a member of the Kent State generation, it’s against my remaining liberal sensibilities, not to mention American values, to turn our military on our own people.

The angry Times staffers also claimed that the op-ed was inflammatory and “contained assertions debunked as misinformation by the Times’s own reporting.” They pointed to Cotton’s claim that antifa, a self-described anti-fascism movement opposed to the far right that can seem sort of fascist in its disruptive tactics, was behind the unrest. The piece should have been more carefully edited to make it clear that the evidence behind Cotton’s claim about antifa’s role was not very convincing. While his piece was far from perfect, Cotton tried to draw a distinction between violent actors and peaceful protesters. . . ."

 

[Phys251]

Parker continues:

". . . Cotton’s essential argument was that an “overwhelming show of force” was needed as the protests unfolded and that President Trump should invoke the 200-year-old Insurrection Act to “restore order to our streets.” Bad idea, Tom. See how easy that was? I for one am glad to know what’s inside Cotton’s cerebral cavity. I disagree with his thinking for the same reasons raised by others, including former defense secretary and retired Marine general Jim Mattis. As a member of the Kent State generation, it’s against my remaining liberal sensibilities, not to mention American values, to turn our military on our own people.

The angry Times staffers also claimed that the op-ed was inflammatory and “contained assertions debunked as misinformation by the Times’s own reporting.” They pointed to Cotton’s claim that antifa, a self-described anti-fascism movement opposed to the far right that can seem sort of fascist in its disruptive tactics, was behind the unrest. The piece should have been more carefully edited to make it clear that the evidence behind Cotton’s claim about antifa’s role was not very convincing. While his piece was far from perfect, Cotton tried to draw a distinction between violent actors and peaceful protesters. . . ."

Your copy-pasting does not answer my question. Provide a definition of "free speech," and prove that the NYT's apology for that editorial, which broadcast a call for violence by a thug Senator, violated free speech.

 

[Jack Hays]

Please provide a definition of "free speech," and prove that the NYT's apology for that editorial, which broadcast a call for violence by a thug Senator, violated free speech.

free·dom of speech

noun

• the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
  "the move would further harm freedom of speech in the region"

 

[j brown's body]

I suspect that a United States senator could have found another venue in which to express his views if the NYT hadn't printed it.

 

[Jack Hays]

Your copy-pasting does not answer my question. Provide a definition of "free speech," and prove that the NYT's apology for that editorial, which broadcast a call for violence by a thug Senator, violated free speech.

Please see #6. The NYT engaged in censorship.

 

[j brown's body]

free·dom of speech

noun

• the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
  "the move would further harm freedom of speech in the region"

It is generally considered to by censorship or restraint by the government, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

 

[Phys251]

free·dom of speech

noun

• the right to express any opinions without censorship or restraint.
  "the move would further harm freedom of speech in the region"[/COLOR]

Again with a copy-pasted definition. :lol: And no, not every single opinion out there falls into free speech. People are arrested for making threats on social media. Or do you condone that violent speech, just as you condone Cotton's?

Please see #6. The NYT engaged in censorship.

Irrelevant. You accused the NYT of violating free speech, not self-censorship. Those are not the same.

 

[Jack Hays]

It is generally considered to by censorship or restraint by the government, as spelled out in the Bill of Rights.

Nonetheless, the NYT's action clearly attacked free speech.

 

[Jack Hays]

Again with a copy-pasted definition. :lol: And no, not every single opinion out there falls into free speech. People are arrested for making threats on social media. Or do you condone that violent speech, just as you condone Cotton's?



Irrelevant. You accused the NYT of violating free speech, not self-censorship. Those are not the same.

To take the last first, yes, they are the same.
You asked for a definition, so you have no grounds to complain when one was provided.
And it's only the whining of the poutrage crowd that would call Cotton's view violent.

 

[Jack Hays]

Parker's concluding paragraph is worth emphasizing.

". . . It is probably telling that the Cotton protest largely took place on Twitter, where it was sure to gain momentum. It doesn’t take much courage to join a gang and cancel an opinion — or ruin a career. It does take great courage, on the other hand, to stand alone against a tide of pitchfork-wielding Twitter tyrants and defend a free exchange of ideas, even if some of them are bad."

The New York Times’s self-inflicted fiasco

 

[Phys251]

To take the last first, yes, they are the same.

And with this comment, you prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. Let set things straight for you.

The NYT is a private corporation and gets to screen anything that they publish. If they wanted to censor any mention of baseball games where the New York Yankees lost to the Boston Red Sox, they could. It is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion whether they should. What matters is, they legally could if they wanted to.

Their backpedaling on Rethuglican Cotton's call for violence was purely an act of self-censoring, which they are fully in their right to do. Neither the city nor the state of New York forced them to do this. They made a decision to acknowledge their journalistic malpractice all on their own. That's it. Nobody's "freedom of speech" was abridged.

You fascism supporters, by contrast, despise the freedom of the media, which is why your ilk is constantly whining about so-called "fake news." You despise the free press and want it taken down by force.

 

[j brown's body]

Nonetheless, the NYT's action clearly attacked free speech.

That is just one way of looking at it. But the New York Times is a business. As such, they are free to do with their property as they please. Making editorial decisions is part of that freedom to own property. Hence, the famous quote: "Freedom of the Press Is Guaranteed Only to Those Who Own One."

And don't kid yourself, all media outlets make them. This particular one just happens to be out in the open.

 

[Jack Hays]

And with this comment, you prove that you have no clue what you are talking about. Let set things straight for you.

The NYT is a private corporation and gets to screen anything that they publish. If they wanted to censor any mention of baseball games where the New York Yankees lost to the Boston Red Sox, they could. It is absolutely irrelevant to this discussion whether they should. What matters is, they legally could if they wanted to.

Their backpedaling on Rethuglican Cotton's call for violence was purely an act of self-censoring, which they are fully in their right to do. Neither the city nor the state of New York forced them to do this. They made a decision to acknowledge their journalistic malpractice all on their own. That's it. Nobody's "freedom of speech" was abridged.

You fascism supporters, by contrast, despise the freedom of the media, which is why your ilk is constantly whining about so-called "fake news." You despise the free press and want it taken down by force.

Again, last first. I don't believe in the "fake news" smear and have always stood up for free speech, 100% of the time.
The NYT is often cited as our "national newspaper of record." As such it bears a special responsibility. You are certainly correct that as a private company they may publish or not as they see fit. That is a small point for small minds. The larger point concerns the NYT's role in our national discussion, which they have in this instance abdicated by cowardly censorship and abandonment of free speech.

 

[Jack Hays]

That is just one way of looking at it. But the New York Times is a business. As such, they are free to do with their property as they please. Making editorial decisions is part of that freedom to own property. Hence, the famous quote: "Freedom of the Press Is Guaranteed Only to Those Who Own One."

And don't kid yourself, all media outlets make them. This particular one just happens to be out in the open.

You are certainly correct that as a private company they may publish or not as they see fit. That is a small point for small minds.

 

[jamesbyoung]

No media outlet is required to publish 'fake news' or 'alt facts.'

If they do, then they must tell why it is such and publish good cites supporting that.

 

[Phys251]

Again, last first. I don't believe in the "fake news" smear and have always stood up for free speech, 100% of the time.
The NYT is often cited as our "national newspaper of record." As such it bears a special responsibility. You are certainly correct that as a private company they may publish or not as they see fit. That is a small point for small minds.

Jack, Jack, Jack, you were so close to finally getting it right.

You were the one who accused the NYT of attacking free speech. You were the one who mislabeled their self-censorship as that attack on free speech.

Either you don't know what free speech even is, in which you need to step out of this discussion and learn what it is, or you know what it is and lied anyway. Which is it, Jack? Did you lie out of intent or ignorance of such a basic concept?

The larger point concerns the NYT's role in our national discussion, which they have in this instance abdicated by cowardly censorship and abandonment of free speech.

There it is again! You did it again! :lamo

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack, Jack, Jack, you were so close to finally getting it right.

You were the one who accused the NYT of attacking free speech. You were the one who mislabeled their self-censorship as that attack on free speech.

Either you don't know what free speech even is, in which you need to step out of this discussion and learn what it is, or you know what it is and lied anyway. Which is it, Jack? Did you lie out of intent or ignorance of such a basic concept?


There it is again! You did it again! :lamo

Yes, and proudly. No amount of insult can change the direction of this debate. I am defending free speech against the NYT's attack. You are joining in the NYT's attack. Please see #13.

 

[j brown's body]

You are certainly correct that as a private company they may publish or not as they see fit. That is a small point for small minds.

Small minds or not. Private property is a very popular concept.

 

[Phys251]

Yes, and proudly. No amount of insult can change the direction of this debate. I am defending free speech against the NYT's attack. You are joining in the NYT's attack.

You should give up now. You are either unwilling or unable to admit what free speech even is, and none of your foot-stamping will change this fact. You really should stop embarrassing yourself with all your ignorance on this topic, which you've put on full display.

 

[Jack Hays]

You should give up now. You are either unwilling or unable to admit what free speech even is, and none of your foot-stamping will change this fact. You really should stop embarrassing yourself with all your ignorance on this topic, which you've put on full display.

I'm quite happy to have others compare our respective points of view. Please see #13.

 

[Jack Hays]

Small minds or not. Private property is a very popular concept.

Yes. It is.

 

[Linc]

You should give up now. You are either unwilling or unable to admit what free speech even is, and none of your foot-stamping will change this fact. You really should stop embarrassing yourself with all your ignorance on this topic, which you've put on full display.

Cotton’s letter to the Iranians during Obama was sabotage and treason. He and Phoni Ernst are an embarrassment to their service.