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

[jpn]

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

Jack Hays, brave defender of the establishment.

Jack Hays, champion of reaction.

Jack Hays, brave, knee-jerk warrior for the already powerful.

Jack Hays, can't be bothered when the repressed try to find their voice.

 

[Jack Hays]

Jack Hays, brave defender of the establishment.

Jack Hays, champion of reaction.

Jack Hays, brave, knee-jerk warrior for the already powerful.

Jack Hays, can't be bothered when the repressed try to find their voice.

Not sure what your string of pointless insults has to do with the debate.

 

[jpn]

Not sure what your string of pointless insults has to do with the debate.

And yet you employ them with relish yourself (post #126).

But then it's not like I expect intellectual integrity from you.

 

[Jack Hays]

And yet you employ them with relish yourself (post #126).

But then it's not like I expect intellectual integrity from you.

I believe you meant my #119.
My insult was not pointless. Your excuse did amount to cowardly BS. When reporters claim to feel endangered by an Op-Ed they betray the heritage of courage established by generations of journalists. They then prevailed on the NYT to betray its commitment to the free exchange of ideas.

 

[jpn]

I believe you meant my #119.
My insult was not pointless. Your excuse did amount to cowardly BS. When reporters claim to feel endangered by an Op-Ed they betray the heritage of courage established by generations of journalists. They then prevailed on the NYT to betray its commitment to the free exchange of ideas.

I didn't say your insult was pointless. I said it was intellectually degenerate.

 

[Jack Hays]

I didn't say your insult was pointless. I said it was intellectually degenerate.

Actually, you never said that. But now that you have, I'm sure you can explain what you mean.

 

[jpn]

Oh, sure, let's go back to post #1 and start this all over.

What fun. :roll:

 

[Jack Hays]

Oh, sure, let's go back to post #1 and start this all over.

What fun. :roll:

You have made an apparently false claim about your own posting. I'm offering you the chance to explain the claim or explain it away.

 

[Ikari]

Moderator's Warning:

Stop, right now, stop. Childish bickering can be taken to the basement, when upstairs everyone will argue as an adult. This asshat behavior ends now, the back-and-forth insults ends now. There will be no second warning. Stick to the topic, argue the topic. That's it. Failure to abide by this warning can result in moderator action and/or thread ban. Posts made prior to this warning are still open to moderator review and action.

 

[diz]

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.

It's really the only aspect of free speech that matters. The idea "thou shalt not silence any opinion" is inherently impractical and unenforceable.

Not all opinions can appear in a newspaper. Not all bands can play in Carnegie Hall. Someone must decide which opinions appear in newspapers and which bands play in venues. "Freedom" means when it's my newspaper or music hall I get to decide. You can express your opinion about it, you can refuse to buy a newspaper or a concert ticket. But you can't force them to run opinions.

If you decide to enforce some other outcome you are against freedom, not for it.

I wouldn't use the term "free speech" here. You just invite people saying you're using the term incorrectly and they have the better of the argument.

I would say the NYT is intolerant of ideas it does not like and/or attempts to stifle expression of those ideas. It does seem guilty of those things.

 

[Jack Hays]

It's really the only aspect of free speech that matters. The idea "thou shalt not silence any opinion" is inherently impractical and unenforceable.

Not all opinions can appear in a newspaper. Not all bands can play in Carnegie Hall. Someone must decide which opinions appear in newspapers and which bands play in venues. "Freedom" means when it's my newspaper or music hall I get to decide. You can express your opinion about it, you can refuse to buy a newspaper or a concert ticket. But you can't force them to run opinions.

If you decide to enforce some other outcome you are against freedom, not for it.

I wouldn't use the term "free speech" here. You just invite people saying you're using the term incorrectly and they have the better of the argument.

I would say the NYT is intolerant of ideas it does not like and/or attempts to stifle expression of those ideas. It does seem guilty of those things.

I'll stick with J.S. Mill, thanks.

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

 

[diz]

I'll stick with J.S. Mill, thanks.

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

But "New York Times won't publish you" not equal to "silenced".

The New York Times doesn't publish billions of people every day.

 

[Jack Hays]

But "New York Times won't publish you" not equal to "silenced".

The New York Times doesn't publish billions of people every day.

Nonetheless, they bowed to political pressure and abandoned their commitment to the free exchange of ideas.

 

[diz]

Nonetheless, they bowed to political pressure and abandoned their commitment to the free exchange of ideas.

Yes, I agree. What they did was pretty disgusting if you believe in free exchange of ideas and liberal standards of journalism.

How anyone could be surprised at the NYT having illiberal standards of journalism and a partisan agenda these days I can't imagine, but this seems like a low point.

I don't know if you saw Matt Taibbi's latest article on this, but I think he's one of the few on the left that actually is paying attention to the erosion of liberal values on the left.

It's worth reading. One point he makes is that some of the opinions newspapers are purging people for running (including Cotton's) are actually supported by the majority based on polls.

The main thing accomplished by removing those types of editorials from newspapers — apart from scaring the hell out of editors — is to shield readers from knowledge of what a major segment of American society is thinking.

It also guarantees that opinion writers and editors alike will shape views to avoid upsetting colleagues, which means that instead of hearing what our differences are and how we might address those issues, newspaper readers will instead be presented with page after page of people professing to agree with one another. That’s not agitation, that’s misinformation.

The American Press Is Destroying Itself - Reporting by Matt Taibbi

 

[Jack Hays]

Research suggests smarter people are more committed to free speech, even for those with whom they disagree. [link]

 

[iguanaman]

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. . . ."

Calling out lies is their right under the 1st amendment. You need to remind yourself of that daily since Trump became President. You sound like you have caught the "Trump bug".

 

[Jack Hays]

Calling out lies is their right under the 1st amendment. You need to remind yourself of that daily since Trump became President. You sound like you have caught the "Trump bug".

Not at all, thanks.

 

[iguanaman]

It's really the only aspect of free speech that matters. The idea "thou shalt not silence any opinion" is inherently impractical and unenforceable.

Not all opinions can appear in a newspaper. Not all bands can play in Carnegie Hall. Someone must decide which opinions appear in newspapers and which bands play in venues. "Freedom" means when it's my newspaper or music hall I get to decide. You can express your opinion about it, you can refuse to buy a newspaper or a concert ticket. But you can't force them to run opinions.

If you decide to enforce some other outcome you are against freedom, not for it.

I wouldn't use the term "free speech" here. You just invite people saying you're using the term incorrectly and they have the better of the argument.

I would say the NYT is intolerant of ideas it does not like and/or attempts to stifle expression of those ideas. It does seem guilty of those things.

What the NYT is "intolerant" of is the use of their paper to disseminate hateful lies under their roof. Hate propaganda is not protected under the 1st amendment either.

 

[iguanaman]

Not at all, thanks.

So you retract you thread? You really should. It is something Trump would say. Which a few months it will make you a pariah.

 

[Jack Hays]

So you retract you thread? You really should. It is something Trump would say.

Actually, it's something J.S. Mill would say, and did.

“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

 

[iguanaman]

Actually, it's something J.S. Mill would say, and did.

“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

It was not an "opinion" when he said Antifa was inciting the violence, it was a bald faced lie. A lie that was backed up with White supremacist groups posing as Antifa online. Was Cotton part of that plot? I believe it is possible that he was. At the very least he was propagating that charade and he should retract it immediately.

New York (CNN Business)A Twitter account that tweeted a call to violence and claimed to be representing the position of "Antifa" was in fact created by a known white supremacist group, Twitter said Monday. The company removed the account.

Before it emerged the account was run by white supremacists, Donald Trump Jr., President Donald Trump's son, pointed his 2.8 million Instagram followers to the account as an example how dangerous Antifa is.

White supremacists pose as Antifa online, call for violence - CNN

 

[Jack Hays]

It was not an "opinion" when he said Antifa was inciting the violence, it was a bald faced lie. A lie that was backed up with White supremacist groups posing as Antifa online. Was Cotton part of that plot? I believe it is possible that he was. At the very least he was propagating that charade and he should retract it immediately.



White supremacists pose as Antifa online, call for violence - CNN

None of which is even remotely connected to the point.

 

[iguanaman]

None of which is even remotely connected to the point.

The hate inciting lies in Cotton's post were a good part of the reason for the apology. The NYT's values truth above all.

 

[Jack Hays]

The hate inciting lies in Cotton's post were a good part of the reason for the apology. The NYT's values truth above all.

The NYT betrayed their principles.

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

 

[iguanaman]

The NYT betrayed their principles.

“If all mankind minus one, were of one opinion, and only one person were of the contrary opinion, mankind would be no more justified in silencing that one person, than he, if he had the power, would be justified in silencing mankind.”
― John Stuart Mill, On Liberty

Lies are still not "opinions" they are lies.