In an opinion article posing as a news story, The New York Times launches an illiberal and wrongheaded attack on free speech. At least we know where they stand.

Federalist
David Marcus

There is nothing new about The New York Times running bizarre progressive agitprop. But thankfully these articles are more often relegated to the opinion pages. Not so today, as a headline purporting to be news, on page 1A above the fold, offered the absurd opinion that conservatives have “weaponized free speech.”

In the place of anything remotely resembling facts or serious empirical evidence, the article by Adam Liptak relies mainly on quotes from “experts” who think government needs to compel bad guys to shut up. William F. Buckley comes to mind while reading the mealy-mouthed assault on our greatest and first freedom, specifically his observation that “Liberals claim to want to give a hearing to other views but then are shocked and offended to discover that there are other views.” Indeed.

Yes, Speech Is A Weapon

The first and most obvious refutation of this laughably illiberal word salad of nonsense is that of course speech is and always has been a weapon. Has anyone at The New York Times ever heard the phrase “The pen is mightier than the sword”? Or is that the kind of old-timey expression concocted by racist, colonialist white guys to subjugate nice people?

Of course speech is a weapon: the most powerful one that exists. The British understood this when Thomas Paine changed the world with a pamphlet, launching the deadly violence of the American Revolution and ultimately the natural rights protections that the Times so casually tosses aside today.

Just like a gun, speech is a weapon that can be used for good or ill, and there is no basic understanding or a priori definition of which is which. For some, hunting is not only a leisure activity, but also a real source of food. For others, hunting is an inhumane and even evil practice. The gun is neutral in this debate, just as speech is neutral in the debate over who should have the freedom of it.

Liptak presents speech not as a neutral force, free to be used by anyone with any position, but rather as a right that inherently privileges those already in power. This suggests in a dangerously wrongheaded way that speech cannot and will not overcome the obstacles those in power impose. But the entire history of human civilization shows us that this idea is stuff and nonsense.

Conservatives Are Bad

Here is Liptak, and his gaggle of experts’, basic objection to conservatives being allowed to talk: “The Supreme Court has agreed to hear a larger share of First Amendment cases concerning conservative speech than earlier courts had, according to the study prepared for the Times. And it has ruled in favor of conservative speech at a higher rate than liberal speech as compared to earlier courts.”

Not surprisingly, what is lacking here is even one single example of the Roberts court limiting liberals’ free speech. In the place of such evidence are a hodgepodge of opinions from former chief justice William Rehnquist and jurist Robert Bork. What, if anything, these two esteemed individuals who last stepped foot in a courtroom long ago have to do with the current Supreme Court is not explained, except to brutishly indicate some kind of hypocrisy that flat-out doesn’t exist.

Maybe, at the risk of engaging in crazy talk here, what’s happening is that conservative speech really is under attack. Maybe those Liptak quotes who have grave and sincere sentiments about the harm speech can cause only think conservatives cause such harm. Oddly, there is no mention of Antifa or other progressive forces that promote violence and destruction.

Perhaps the uptick in cases involving conservative speech is not some conspiracy hatched in the basement of the Federalist Society, but a result of government and social leaders especially marginalizing conservative speech. Maybe the Supreme Court is hearing these cases because they exist. Maybe they aren’t hearing cases involving progressive speech because conservatives aren’t trying to suppress progressives’ speech as much as the reverse.

Will the Real Liberals Please Stand Up?

In fairness, the Times article gives passing mention to liberal thinkers who are comfortable with the inherent dangers of free speech. These are voices we need to amplify. The “I abhor your views, but will die defending your right to express them” crowd, once the solid center of liberal thought, has been pushed to the side. Their dangerous, toxic, misogynist, privileged, and uncaring willingness to allow “bad people” to say things is now being called out.

I recently participated in a panel at the Smithsonian Museum about the arts in our society. Peter Schjeldahl, the longtime head art critic at The New Yorker, was among the panelists. Afterwards, while smoking cigarettes outside the venue, Peter said to me, “So, you’re a conservative?” I nodded. Then he said, “I’m an old, mushy liberal, but I might be a conservative now.” It’s easy to see why.

In the late ’80s, this was a guy in the middle of the fight about censorship of art. He, like me, belongs to a generation of artists and critics for whom free speech was the sun and the stars, the oxygen that gives breath to creative expression. What I believe he meant was not that he wants tax cuts and fewer environmental regulations, but rather that he does not want to live in a society that by law limits what he can see, read, or experience.

I have written in these pages about the dangers of free speech absolutism, about the responsibility that free speech places on citizens to wield it wisely and with measured moderation. But when The New York Times is blaring fake news on its front page in an attempt to sway public opinion in the direction of shutting down speech, it is clear that those who wish to silence me are far more dangerous than those who say things I find abhorrent.

Free speech is all we’ve got. And if The New York Times or liberal Supreme Court justices want to take my pen or anyone else’s, well, they can take it from my cold, dead hand.

Link

quote:

Yes, Speech Is A Weapon

Words have lead to the deaths of more people throughout history than all firearms combined. And our founding fathers were smart enough to realize the value that they both still had in a free society no matter how dangerous they each can be if used incorrectly. So much so that they were enshrined as the first amd second amendments.

Perhaps so, but the liberals have used the First Amendment as a crowbar to ensure that liberal activists have as many advantages as possible, that conservatives have as few First Amendment rights as possible, and that liberal journalists are treated as a new, special class of citizen - even a "fourth branch" of government. Thus, it's hilarious to hear the New York Times talk about 'weaponizing' the First Amendment after the vehement arguments their lawyers made in the Pentagon Papers case, and it's equally hilarious to hear Elena Kagan claim that the Supreme Court has turned the First Amendment into a sword given her role in the gay wedding cake case. Howl, you hypocrites!

Beclown... I like it. What a fantastic word.

I'm going to include some quotes from the Leftist Stalks Kent State Gun Girl; Takes Photos & Threatens to Assault Her in Restaurant, because there's an important point to be made.

Re: "liberals" vs. "leftists"

quote:

Originally posted by sigmonkey:
A rose by any other name is still gonna prick you just as hard.

Those who wish to argue silliness in what the definition of "is" is, press on with your enlightened and erudite selves.

I will, because the distinction is important.

We've discussed, here on SF, many times in the past, how much of the membership, perhaps even most, is more libertarian than they are conservative. Well, the dividing line between libertarianism and liberalism is a very fine one.

Liberals, true liberals, as opposed to the authoritarian leftists that claim to be "liberals," are waking up to the fact that the left no longer represents them. We should be finding common cause with them, not lumping them in with leftists.

And there's plenty of common cause to be found, as you'll see below.

quote:

Originally posted by BGULL:
To paraphrase an old saying(nowadays the cool kids call it a meme): “You can always tell a liberal, but you can’t tell them much”.

At best insufferable, at worst tin horn wannabe dictators.

Yeah, liberals can be insufferable, and no mistake. But "tin horn wannabe dictators?" Once again: Conflating authoritarian leftists with liberals. "Do your own thing, man": If ever there was a liberal catch phrase: That's it. Hardly authoritarian.

A liberal will insist that what people do in the privacy of their bedrooms is their own business. A liberal might even be inclined to say "So what if they want to get married? What's it to you?" A liberal will not insist you have to help them with their wedding by baking them a cake. A leftist will, though.

An interesting article just popped-up on Quillette yesterday. (If you don't know what Quillette is, you'd be well-served to look into it.) It's an article about the First Amendment, the New York Times piece and, more broadly, what is becoming an authoritarian left attack on freedom of speech. A small excerpt:

quote:

I’ll get back to “weaponizing” in a moment, but I’d like to point out that the Times is presenting these two campus radicals as liberals, which is ridiculous. They are both theorists of the far left, purveyors of critical legal studies; MacKinnon considers herself a “post-Marxist.” Such people are leftists, not liberals.

The notion that people who attack American traditions of free speech and First Amendment are liberal, of all things, is patently absurd. If you are skeptical of free speech absolutism, then you are not a liberal for that reason alone: what is more essential to American liberalism than a strong commitment to free speech?

This is exactly the argument I've been making for years.

These creatures of the left aren't liberals. Liberals are more "I disagree with what you say, but I'll defend your right to say it," whereas leftists are all about free speech being great, as long as it's approved free speech.

Here's the full article: The New York Times Comes Out Against Free Speech. It's a good read. And this is as important an issue as the RKBA, IMO.

Free speech is not their enemy, it is the truth.

Cnn and other media can lie about issue after issue, this is ok.
When the truth comes out about their dirty dealings, well we cannot have the truth being told, we are losing voters. That is the problem the left has.