New York Times' editorial board: free speech is a "fundamental right" not to be "shamed" or "shunned"



“Attacking people in the workplace, on campus, on social media and elsewhere who express unpopular views from a place of good faith is the practice of a closed society.”

Holy shit is that a bad take.

Shaming and shushing is how we set acceptable norms in human society. It has always been that way, from when Ogg wouldn’t stop being a dick to everyone and we asked him to leave the cave, right up to now.

There has never been, nor should there ever be, a universe where everyone gets to spew whatever they want from their pie holes with no repercussions. You have a right to say it. You do not have a right to say it without consequences. This is so, so basic. To see the NYT get this so wrong is really disappointing. If I had a subscription, I would cancel it.


Fuck Off NYT. All ‘free speech’ means is that our government can’t pull a Putin and just imprison anyone that says anything they don’t like.

It’s NOT “freedom from consequences.”


Also, stop worrying whether what you’re going to say is acceptable or not and just stop generalizing according to race.


Wow what a shockingly terrible take from the op-ed section that hired Bret Stephens and Bari Weiss and didn’t die from embarrassment ten minutes later


Ding! Ding! Ding!

Yep, the NYT editorial is absolutely defining free speech as “the right to say some stuff, and force nobody else to say anything unkind about what you just said” which is starts off as 100% free speech and then makes an abrupt u-turn into “my free speech means you don’t have any, so simmer down and shut up”

It is so absurdly not free speech that they really ought to have just made up a new phase with the word speech in it, but not free. “Polite speech”, or “Speech without consequences”.


“This is the shit sandwich everyone else has been eating since time immemorial and now you get to eat it too, you stupid fucking soaks.”

epic mic drop. Perfectly sums up what should be so fucking obvious.


It also includes the cop out of “from a place of good faith.” Much like “sincerely held religious beliefs,” whether you’re speaking in good faith is something anyone can lie about. So intentional trolls and “just joking” bros and Sarte’s anti-Semites can claim good faith while undermining the value and the very concept of meaningful dialogue…which slips back in to the Paradox of Tolerance.

And why are random anonymous editors allowed to thus undermine the value of dialogue as they are doing by stating that no one else can cancel the bad faith, “but, no, I swear I’m being sincere” trolling of others?

What’s their practical suggestion? Everyone can speak but no one can respond to one another because it might be perceived as critical? No one can demand the Nazis literally calling for race wars and genocide be deplatformed? Fuck that.


Free speech is a fundamental right. It’s truly a shame that the NYT is so illiterate that it doesn’t know what that actually means.

From yelling racist things in a predominately minority neighborhood, to yelling fire in a crowded theater, to telling your employer exactly what you think of them, there have always been common sense curtails to what you can say. You are free from official, governmental reprisal, but that’s as far as it goes.

Before you lecture us, NYT, perhaps do a little research into what you’re writing about. I know research is so 20th century, but indulge us. And if you have an issue with what I’m saying… well, you’re free to castigate me in return. Because THAT is how free speech actually works.


So basically, “Waaah, stop being mean to ignorant white folks who say racist stuff because they just don’t know any better! You need to tolerate their bullshit and it’s YOUR job to educate them. …oh shit P.S. uh we totally don’t support Nazis though whew that was close”


Oh, for fuck’s sake. Why is it so hard for some white people to understand: being subject to racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia (or just being an asshole) is exhausting, emotionally and intellectually; a subtle display of racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia is still racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia; no one owes you the effort to educate and/or just deal with your ass (and certainly not anyone who is being subject to your racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia). It doesn’t matter if you don’t have “bad intentions” or aren’t “a bigoted person;” your intentions don’t matter at all (leaving aside the issue that people don’t want to admit their own bigotries, even - especially - to themselves). In demanding that people must deal with you, you’re demanding emotional labor from others to which you have no right.

It’s also fucking outrageous that the NYTimes hasn’t been giving anywhere near this kind of attention to actual right-wing censor culture which is literally banning - and burning - books, criminalizing speech, and doing real harm. I guess all that doesn’t hurt their fucking feelings…

Also, the emphasis on “no shunning” means they think they have a right to make people listen to it.

Oh, I think responding is okay with them - because that forces people to listen to and engage with whatever they’re saying, ultimately on their terms. What upsets them is the idea that people will actively be not listening to them in the first place (because of what they previously said), I think.


Given that a large number of the people who seem to advocate this view are of a certain persuasion, I expect they’d settle for “freedom speech”. We’d all know whose “freedom” they were concerned about, wouldn’t we!


Shaming and shushing is how we set acceptable norms in human society .

It’s also how we’ve controlled society in not such a nice way though. A lot of now acceptable things were “shameful” in the not-so-distant past. That’s kind of the problem. We all support shaming of things we feel unacceptable, but feel that shaming of things that we think are fine is itself unacceptable.

Unsurprisingly shitty take, since it’s at least the second iteration of this shitty take at the fucking NY TIMES.


So, when a random guy takes advantage of SB8, the state of texas remains at arms length?

Well, yeah. People support things they support and oppose things they oppose. That fact tells you shockingly little about the inherent value of supporting and opposing in themselves though.


Sure, but part of how that was changed was the shaming of the shaming speech. If we had all been “polite” about al the speech it is more of a “first talker wins” situation (or in reality it is actually going to be a “speech closest to the norms of society wins, everything else is rude dissent!”).


How dare people object to attempts to normalize far-right extremism!

I bet this editorial was triggered by an incident at Yale. (Couldn’t read all the NYT article.)

The Toronto Star’s Heather Mallick was suckered by a classic example of the Trojan Speaker Strategy. (And Nicholas A. Christakis works for Koch-funded organizations.)

How dare protestors be upset by a speaker who is chief lawyer of a lawyer organization that advocates this:


This part made me especially furious:

“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.” (from NYT editorial)

Not furious just because it is true, but furious bc the NYTimes then says that the right’s behavior of Censorship and book bans and using the LAW to silence speech (which is against the Constitution, you dumb NYT editorialist) is somehow equivalent to the left’s refusal to give privately owned platforms to the very people that are telling lies and trying to use the law to silence opinions. “Both-sides” is BS when one side is saying “don’t spew racist crap” and the other is trying to outlaw teaching actual history.

This whole piece is disingenuous and not in good faith. It appears to have been written by someone like MTG or Bobo the CO Clown. The writer should be fired, and the NY Times should hold their collective head in shame for years to come.


So free speech is a right unless it’s protesting something.

Yeah that sounds like the nyt.