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.
So, the Times is all for Freedom of Speech and of the Press, right? Friday saw this from the Editorial Board:
by The Editorial Board | Friday, March 18, 2022
For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.
This social silencing, this depluralizing of America, has been evident for years, but dealing with it stirs yet more fear. It feels like a third rail, dangerous. For a strong nation and open society, that is dangerous.
How has this happened? In large part, it’s because the political left and the right are caught in a destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination around cancel culture. Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech. Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.
Many Americans are understandably confused, then, about what they can say and where they can say it. People should be able to put forward viewpoints, ask questions and make mistakes and take unpopular but good-faith positions on issues that society is still working through — all without fearing cancellation.
There’s a lot more from the original, but either the Editorial Board have a very short memory, or they are hypocrites.
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.
That the editors of the Times considered this an important article is demonstrated by the title graphic, a bit more ornate than is typical. It was spread full sized across the screen, taking up both the width and depth of my fairly large-sized monitor. This was a can’t-not-notice display, something the editors use to grab your attention.
A couple more paragraphs down, and Mr Marantz said this:
The question is where this leaves us. Noxious speech is causing tangible harm. Yet this fact implies a question so uncomfortable that many of us go to great lengths to avoid asking it. Namely, what should we — the government, private companies or individual citizens — be doing about it?
Mr Marantz’ article continued with several suggestions, which boiled down to one thing: the government should set up some sort of approved publication space to tell us the truth. What a great idea!
Mr Marantz’s OpEd piece followed, eleven months after, Chad Malloy’s
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 | 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.”
The final sentence, paired with the fact that the site appeared poised to actually enforce its rules, sent a rumble through certain vocal corners of the internet. To trans people, it represented a recognition that our identity is an accepted fact and that to suggest otherwise is a slur. But to many on the right, it reeked of censorship and “political correctness.”
Twitter is already putting the policy into effect. Last week, it booted Meghan Murphy, a Canadian feminist who runs the website Feminist Current. Ms. Murphy hasn’t exactly supported trans people — especially trans women. She regularly calls trans women “he” and “him,” as she did referring to the journalist and trans woman Shon Faye in a 2017 article. In the run-up to her suspension, Ms. Murphy tweeted that “men aren’t women.” While this is a seeming innocuous phrase when considered without context, the “men” she was referring to were trans women.
There’s more at the original.
The policy to which Mr Malloy referred would apply to this site as well, as we do not lie here: males are males and females are females, and the sexes simply cannot be changed.
That, however, is not my point in this article. My point is that the Times very deliberately published OpEd pieces calling freedom of speech sometimes harmful — sometimes meaning when conservative opinions are expressed — and celebrating the silencing of some speech. Were I to submit this article to the Times, or any other organ of the credentialed media, for publication, it would be disallowed because I referred to Mr Malloy as Mr Malloy, while the stylebooks used by almost all organs of the credentialed media insist on using the honorifics, pronouns and names preferred by the ‘transgendered’ rather than doing something really radical and telling the truth.
Back to the editorial first cited:
However you define cancel culture, Americans know it exists and feel its burden. In a new national poll commissioned by Times Opinion and Siena College, only 34 percent of Americans said they believed that all Americans enjoyed freedom of speech completely. The poll found that 84 percent of adults said it is a “very serious” or “somewhat serious” problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations because of fear of retaliation or harsh criticism.
This poll and other recent surveys from the Pew Research Center and the Knight Foundation reveal a crisis of confidence around one of America’s most basic values. Freedom of speech and expression is vital to human beings’ search for truth and knowledge about our world. A society that values freedom of speech can benefit from the full diversity of its people and their ideas. At the individual level, human beings cannot flourish without the confidence to take risks, pursue ideas and express thoughts that others might reject.
Most important, freedom of speech is the bedrock of democratic self-government. If people feel free to express their views in their communities, the democratic process can respond to and resolve competing ideas. Ideas that go unchallenged by opposing views risk becoming weak and brittle rather than being strengthened by tough scrutiny. When speech is stifled or when dissenters are shut out of public discourse, a society also loses its ability to resolve conflict, and it faces the risk of political violence.
Really? Tell me more, please!
As we previously noted,
The Philadelphia Inquirer, in one of
its first stories on Will Thomas, the male University of Pennsylvania swimmer who now claims to be female, calls himself “Lia,’ and swims for Penn’s women’s team, deleted all of the comments from readers noting that Mr Thomas is male, not female, documenting some of those deleted comments with screen captures. The
Inquirer had previously closed comments on most articles but left them open on sports stories, and Mr Thomas’ swimming victories are sports stories.
Oops! I guess that didn’t work for them!
The Times’ Editorial Board can tell us all they want how they support freedom of speech and of the press, but the truth is that they support their freedom of speech and their freedom of the press. Editors and publishers in general absolutely hate the fact that the rise of the internet took away their ‘gatekeeping’ function, and now anybody can publish whatever he wishes, without having to first be approved by someone else.
We noted 
