I have, in the past, joked that I have an eidetic memory, but it isn’t true. My memory is pretty good, and I have also joked that, despite my advanced age, I don’t have Old Timer’s Disease. At any rate, I do seem to have a longer term memory than the editors of The New York Times:

Once a Bastion of Free Speech, the A.C.L.U. Faces an Identity Crisis

An organization that has defended the First Amendment rights of Nazis and the Ku Klux Klan is split by an internal debate over whether supporting progressive causes is more important.

By Michael Powell | June 6, 2021 | Updated 1:13 p.m. ET

It was supposed to be the celebration of a grand career, as the American Civil Liberties Union presented a prestigious award to the longtime lawyer David Goldberger. He had argued one of its most famous cases, defending the free speech rights of Nazis in the 1970s to march in Skokie, Ill., home to many Holocaust survivors.

Mr. Goldberger, now 79, adored the A.C.L.U. But at his celebratory luncheon in 2017, he listened to one speaker after another and felt a growing unease.

A law professor argued that the free speech rights of the far right were not worthy of defense by the A.C.L.U. and that Black people experienced offensive speech far more viscerally than white allies. In the hallway outside, an A.C.L.U. official argued it was perfectly legitimate for his lawyers to decline to defend hate speech.

Mr. Goldberger, a Jew who defended the free speech of those whose views he found repugnant, felt profoundly discouraged.

“I got the sense it was more important for A.C.L.U. staff to identify with clients and progressive causes than to stand on principle,” he said in a recent interview. “Liberals are leaving the First Amendment behind.”

The A.C.L.U., America’s high temple of free speech and civil liberties, has emerged as a muscular and richly funded progressive powerhouse in recent years, taking on the Trump administration in more than 400 lawsuits. But the organization finds itself riven with internal tensions over whether it has stepped away from a founding principle — unwavering devotion to the First Amendment.

It’s a long article, thousands of words, but, shockingly enough,^[1]There should be a sarcasm tag here; I don’t find this shocking in the slightest. nowhere in the article does it mention the Times own opposition to freedom of speech.

In 1971, President Richard Nixon sought a restraining order to prevent The New York Times and The Washington Post from printing more of the so-called “Pentagon Papers,” technically the Report of the Office of the Secretary of Defense Vietnam Task Force, a classified history and assessment of American policy and operations in the Vietnam war. The Times and the Post fought the injunctions in court, the Times winning in New York Times Co. v. United States, 403 U.S. 713 (1971). The Times was all about the First Amendment and Freedom of the Press.

Of course, All the News That’s Fit to Print was to be determined not by the readers, but by the editors!

Well that was then, but it sure isn’t now. On November 29, 2018, the editors of the Times gave OpEd space to Chad Malloy to claim that a restriction on speech actually promoted freedom of speech:

How Twitter’s Ban on ‘Deadnaming’ Promotes Free Speech

Trans people are less likely to speak up if they know they’re going to be constantly told they don’t exist.

by Parker Malloy^[2]‘Parker’ Malloy is a male, born Chad Malloy, who claims to be female. The Times referred to Mr Malloy as ‘Ms Malloy,’ and the Times went along with that. The First Street … Continue reading | November 29, 2018

In September, Twitter announced changes to its “hateful conduct” policy, violations of which can get users temporarily or permanently barred from the site. The updates, an entry on Twitter’s blog explained, would expand its existing rules “to include content that dehumanizes others based on their membership in an identifiable group, even when the material does not include a direct target.” A little more than a month later, the company quietly rolled out the update, expanding the conduct page from 374 to 1,226 words, which went largely unnoticed until this past week.

While much of the basic framework stayed the same, the latest version leaves much less up for interpretation. Its ban on “repeated and/or non-consensual slurs, epithets, racist and sexist tropes, or other content that degrades someone” was expanded to read: “We prohibit targeting individuals with repeated slurs, tropes or other content that intends to dehumanize, degrade or reinforce negative or harmful stereotypes about a protected category. This includes targeted misgendering or deadnaming of transgender individuals.”

Translation: any reference to a ‘transgender’ person’s biological sex or birth name can earn a person a suspension or permanent removal from Twitter. In mocking Twitter’s recent whine about Nigeria blocking all of Twitter within that country, and stating, “Access to the free and #OpenInternet is an essential human right in modern society”, William Teach noted:

My old account was given time-outs and suspensions many times before being permanently suspended. They never told me why the last. My new account has been given a few timeouts and a 7 day suspension (that one was for scientifically noting that the gender confused have many more mental health issues and a higher percentage of suicidal thoughts and suicide, and it’s a really bad idea to have them around military grade weapons).

Twitter, and, seemingly, The New York Times, will never agree to publish any opposition to the notion that girls can be boys and boys can be girls.^[3]I asked if Three Dog Night should be canceled because in their song Joy to the World they wished joy to all the boys and girls without including the intersexed, the non-binary, the questioning, etc. Questioning the acceptance of ‘transgenderism’ is simply not to be allowed, but, to Mr Malloy and the editors of the Times disallowing that promotes freedom of speech.

That was hardly all. Ten and a half months later, the Times gave OpEd space to one of its own staffers, Andrew Marantz, to argue against the freedom of speech:

Free Speech Is Killing Us

Noxious language online is causing real-world violence. What can we do about it?

By Andrew Marantz | October 4, 2019 | 6:01 AM EDT

There has never been a bright line between word and deed. Yet for years, the founders of Facebook and Twitter and 4chan and Reddit — along with the consumers obsessed with these products, and the investors who stood to profit from them — tried to pretend that the noxious speech prevalent on those platforms wouldn’t metastasize into physical violence. In the early years of this decade, back when people associated social media with Barack Obama or the Arab Spring, Twitter executives referred to their company as “the free-speech wing of the free-speech party.” Sticks and stones and assault rifles could hurt us, but the internet was surely only a force for progress.

No one believes that anymore. Not after the social-media-fueled campaigns of Narendra Modi and Rodrigo Duterte and Donald Trump; not after the murder of Heather Heyer in Charlottesville, Va.; not after the massacres in a synagogue in Pittsburgh, two mosques in Christchurch, New Zealand, and a Walmart in a majority-Hispanic part of El Paso. The Christchurch shooter, like so many of his ilk, had spent years on social media trying to advance the cause of white power. But these posts, he eventually decided, were not enough; now it was “time to make a real life effort post.” He murdered 52 people.

As we noted here, the editors of the Times considered this such an important article that they added a title graphic of a statuette of Auguste Rodin’s The Thinker on fire.

Freedom of Speech, it seems, matter only to the editors of the Times when it is their freedom of speech, and of the press, that is in question. Greg Bensinger, a member of the Times’ Editorial Board, celebrated Facebook’s banning of Donald Trump.

The editors of the Times, and the rest of the credentialed media, have never gotten over the halcyon days in which they were the gatekeepers, the arbiters of what did, and did not, get published. Rush Limbaugh started to break their hold, by attracting a huge audience to his talk radio show, and then the internet destroyed it completely, allowing anyone with a computer to self-publish. On twitter, on Facebook, on blogger.com, people can publish their thoughts for free, and while yes, I do pay for this site, I really don’t pay that much. I guess that it was easier for the editors of the Times to support the freedom of speech and the press when they were the ones who determined just who got to exercise the freedom of the press. The #woke^[4]From Wikipedia: Woke (/ˈwoʊk/) as a political term of African-American origin refers to a perceived awareness of issues concerning social justice and racial justice. It is derived from … Continue reading got mostly liberal editorial page editor James Bennet fired because he agreed to print an OpEd piece by a sitting United States Senator with which they disagreed, and ran off liberal columnist Bari Weiss because, horrors! she is Jewish and mostly supports Israel.

Freedom of speech, of the press? Not something really allowed at The New York Times!

So, yeah, I was amused when the Times told us of the ACLU’s struggle with freedom of speech, without mentioning their own lack of support for it.
_______________________________
Cross-posted on American Free News Network