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

[jpn]

Trump, Carlson and NASCAR are irrelevant. The NYT acted from cowardice and damaged the free exchange of ideas. Freedom demands courage; find some.

It's not cowardly to stand up to authoritarian bullies.

 

[Jack Hays]

It's not cowardly to stand up to authoritarian bullies.

The NYT stood up to no one, and abandoned its principles in response to political pressure.

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Glass houses

Mustards!

 

[Tanngrisnir]

Thanks for trying to contribute.

Thanks for admitting to your failure and ignorance of the English language.

 

[NotreDame]

That's called progress.

The NYT showed courage to face the fact they had made a mistake by printing a call to violence by a dangerous authoritarian.

Except, Tom Cotton’s piece didn’t make “a call to violence.”

Their stand is not against free speech; it's against violence. Americans are deciding to no longer give a free pass to haters who want to tear at the very fabric of our nation and then run and hide behind its precious freedoms, such as the First Amendment.

Except, the NYT is a newspaper organization. The NYT and other newspaper entities have historically practiced freedom of speech, not the legal meaning but freedom of speech in an academic, philosophical, or layperson understanding, of allowing a vast array of views to be expressed in its opinion pages, although some opinions are those the editors and perhaps the company disagreed with. As Bennet so eloquently said,”It would undermine the integrity and independence of The New York Times if we only published views that editors like me agreed with, and it would betray what I think of as our fundamental purpose — not to tell you what to think, but to help you think for yourself.”

This isn’t to suggest the NYT has an obligation to print every opinion piece it receives to practice this academic notion of free speech. There’s limited space, so not every opinion can be printed. Business constraints are important, as they rationally will want to avoid the print of certain content in its opinion pages because of the potential of a very likely loss of dollars from decreased subscriptions, loss of ads, for fringe views, such as Nazi ideology for instance. Of course, they have editorial discretion, insisting more artful phrasing, etcetera, before publication of an opinion.

Tom Cotton’s opinion was advocating for invoking the Insurrection Act, mobilizing some military and federalizing the national guard, not to silence protests, but to abate the destruction of property, the looting, setting fires, and deaths of some innocent people. He didn’t advocate a guns blazing approach. He didn’t express any hope or desire the use of force would manifest itself.

Such a view isn’t a call to violence, as you characterize it, and if the opinion piece is worthy of the action taken by NYT and derision, while expressing adherence to the academic notion of free speech means allowing views we disagree with, it would have to be on some other basis.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[jpn]

The NYT stood up to no one, and abandoned its principles in response to political pressure.

It didn't stand up to a dangerous authoritarian. That was its mistake. Which it admitted. Which is the essential road to improvement.

 

[Jack Hays]

It didn't stand up to a dangerous authoritarian. That was its mistake. Which it admitted. Which is the essential road to improvement.

The NYT abandoned its commitment to the free exchange of ideas because of pressure from whining journalists.

 

[jpn]

Tom Cotton’s opinion was advocating for invoking the Insurrection Act...

Both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Trump's hand-picked Secretary of Defense oppose invoking the Act. Neither are squishy liberals. That should tell you something about the judgment of Tom Cotton. You're confident that the cops and troops Cotton was urging into the streets would assiduously discriminate between rioters and mere demonstrators, despite weeks of evidence that isn't happening, and decades of that not happening in the past.

I don't share your confidence, not with Cotton tweeting: "“And, if necessary, the 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, 1st Cav, 3rd Infantry — whatever it takes to restore order. No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters and looters.”

Just speaking for myself, I don't trust the good intentions of the reactionary Tom Cottons of the world.

As the political theorist Corey Robin puts it, they are motivated above all by “a desire to resist the liberation of marginal or powerless people.”

Let me quote a columnist from the opinion pages of the courageous (and highly successful) NYT:

For reactionaries, however, the horror of the situation isn’t the possibility that protests might turn violent. It’s the fact that the protests are happening at all.

And that’s why people like Trump and*Tom Cotton*have been so eager to send in the military. They aren’t concerned about keeping the peace; if that mattered to them, they would have reacted harshly to the spectacle of*armed right-wingers*threatening Michigan’s State Legislature.

No, America’s reactionaries don’t want law and order; they want an excuse to crush social justice protests with a mailed fist.

 

[jpn]

The NYT abandoned its commitment to the free exchange of ideas because of pressure from whining journalists.

Free exchange of violent ideas? No thanks.

 

[Jason Warfield]

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.

If you view the idea that the government is not allowed infringe on your freedom of speech as spelled out in the First Amendment, which allows the people and its newspapers to self-regulate as they see fit (right or wrong) without the interference of the government as "a small point for small minds"...then you really don't get it.

 

[NotreDame]

, despite weeks of evidence that isn't happening, and decades of that not happening in the past.

Just speaking for myself, I don't trust the good intentions of the reactionary Tom Cottons of the world.

Let me quote a columnist from the opinion pages of the courageous (and highly successful) NYT:

Both the Chairman of the Joint Chiefs and Trump's hand-picked Secretary of Defense oppose invoking the Act. Neither are squishy liberals. That should tell you something about the judgment of Tom Cotton.

I’m not in favor of invocation of the Insurrection Act, but this shared resistance to invoking the act doesn’t inform anyone as to the propriety of the NYT’s reaction to Cotton’s view in the NYT opinion pages in light of their assumed commitment to some meaning of free speech.

You're confident that the cops and troops Cotton was urging into the streets would assiduously discriminate between rioters and mere demonstrators

My confidence level has nothing to do with whether the content of Cotton’s letter to NYT justified its subsequent treatment by NYT. Regardless of my confidence level, Cotton drew such a distinction between those groups, and properly so.

I don't share your confidence, not with Cotton tweeting: "“And, if necessary, the 10th Mountain, 82nd Airborne, 1st Cav, 3rd Infantry — whatever it takes to restore order. No quarter for insurrectionists, anarchists, rioters and looters.”

Which wasn’t in his letter to NYT.

As the political theorist Corey Robin puts it, they are motivated above all by “a desire to resist the liberation of marginal or powerless people.”

I appreciate his speculation about “they,” while pausing briefly only to say he can’t speak for the “desire” of “they.” I have no rational reason to believe what he says is an accurate representation of what “they desire.” Its speculative commentary at the moment. And it’s irrelevant to what is under discussion about NYT and it’s treatment of Cotton’s letter to NYT.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

If you view the idea that the government is not allowed infringe on your freedom of speech as spelled out in the First Amendment, which allows the people and its newspapers to self-regulate as they see fit (right or wrong) without the interference of the government as "a small point for small minds"...then you really don't get it.

It’s rather clear from his posts he is invoking an academic, perhaps a philosophical, understanding of free speech, not a legal understanding.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[NotreDame]

Free exchange of violent ideas? No thanks.

Except, Cotton’s letter didn’t advocate violence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Hays]

Free exchange of violent ideas? No thanks.

Free exchange of ideas. The "violent" is merely your propaganda excuse.

 

[Jack Hays]

If you view the idea that the government is not allowed infringe on your freedom of speech as spelled out in the First Amendment, which allows the people and its newspapers to self-regulate as they see fit (right or wrong) without the interference of the government as "a small point for small minds"...then you really don't get it.

This discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with constitutional freedom of speech as spelled out in the First Amendment. It has everything to do with the NYT's abandonment of the broader principle of free speech as set forth by J.S. Mill and others.

 

[jpn]

Which wasn’t in his letter to NYT.

When it comes to a publication as widely read and regarded as the NYT, they don't have the luxury of selectively ignoring previous incitements to violence.

 

[jpn]

Free exchange of ideas. The "violent" is merely your propaganda excuse.

You choose to be conveniently blind to the obvious consequences of his words. I'd say that the entire disagreement rests upon this fulcrum.

 

[Jack Hays]

When it comes to a publication as widely read and regarded as the NYT, they don't have the luxury of selectively ignoring previous incitements to violence.

Cotton's rhetorical history is far from the most violent published by the NYT.

 

[Jack Hays]

You choose to be conveniently blind to the obvious consequences of his words. I'd say that the entire disagreement rests upon this fulcrum.

There are no obvious consequences. That's just your BS cowardly excuse.

 

[diz]

This discussion has nothing whatsoever to do with constitutional freedom of speech as spelled out in the First Amendment. It has everything to do with the NYT's abandonment of the broader principle of free speech as set forth by J.S. Mill and others.

Meh, your right to speak freely does not extend to other people's property and platforms. The NYT is a private organization and they should be able to print whatever they want on their editorial page. They can, however, be judged on what they choose to print.

This reveals they are a totally partisan fish wrap that can't tolerate ideas they disagree with, but it has nothing to do with "free speech".

 

[NotreDame]

When it comes to a publication as widely read and regarded as the NYT, they don't have the luxury of selectively ignoring previous incitements to violence.

Edifying but irrelevant since Cotton’s letter has nothing to do with advocating violence.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Jack Hays]

Meh, your right to speak freely does not extend to other people's property and platforms. The NYT is a private organization and they should be able to print whatever they want on their editorial page. They can, however, be judged on what they choose to print.

This reveals they are a totally partisan fish wrap that can't tolerate ideas they disagree with, but it has nothing to do with "free speech".

Free speech as a principle can be both advocated and defended quite apart from considerations of government or property.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

 

[diz]

Free speech as a principle can be both advocated and defended quite apart from considerations of government or property.

“He who knows only his own side of the case knows little of that. His reasons may be good, and no one may have been able to refute them. But if he is equally unable to refute the reasons on the opposite side, if he does not so much as know what they are, he has no ground for preferring either opinion... Nor is it enough that he should hear the opinions of adversaries from his own teachers, presented as they state them, and accompanied by what they offer as refutations. He must be able to hear them from persons who actually believe them...he must know them in their most plausible and persuasive form.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

I don't think so. "Free Speech" as a principle means the government won't punish people for the content of their speech.

It places no burdens on private entities. None at all.

 

[Jack Hays]

I don't think so. "Free Speech" as a principle means the government won't punish people for the content of their speech.

It places no burdens on private entities. None at all.

What you have cited is one aspect of free speech, the constitutional right of free speech. The principle of free speech is considerably broader, as Mill points out.

 

[wellwisher]

The confusion is connected to defining what a journalist is, and how this definition of journalism relates to the freedom of the press. Is a journalist anyone who can write a sentence in an online forum? Does one need a formal education in journalism or can any well written and accurate article qualify one as a journalist? Or does one simply have to work for a newspaper or press agency and the right is automatically granted to you regardless of your truthfulness or talent? Is truth and/or accurate data reporting important to the definition of freedom of the press, and if so, why is fake news protected by the freedom of the press?

Maybe we need to modernize the standard since free market competition seems to have led the industry to the rag side of the press once occupied by National Enquirer. If the modernized standard is not met, press privileges will not be allowed. If a press privilege is revoked, the person still has freedom of speech, but they will not be allowed to use freedom of press, as a pretense for deception.

An analogues example is diplomatic immunity. This was originally designed to protect diplomats from the intimidating behavior of corrupt governments. But now it can be used by a diplomat to commit crimes in other countries and not be prosecuted. Maybe freedom of the press has to be redefined to mean; needed for defensive purposes against power, but it cannot be not used as a pretense for offensive actions for power. That is called propaganda. The NYT used freedom of press to help one side of power, while claiming diplomatic immunity.