I get the feeling the NYT doesn't know that people who care about free speech feel good when it’s made clear that certain kinds of speech are not going to be punished, that speakers who were once punished are participating public debate once again, and that it's extremely clear that even false, misleading, offensive, delusional, and — gasp! — right-wing speech is explicitly welcome on X.
Is the NYT implying that those of us who take the strong free-speech position ought to heed Elon Musk's insistence that it is crucial to vote for Trump?!
Posts
54 comments:
A rearguard article from the Times to support the H Clinton/Kerry censorship wing of the Democratic Party.
When is the NYT going to be shut down over its reporting on the Russian Collusion Hoax?
"Twitter Barred Them. What Happened When Elon Musk Brought Them Back?" (NYT).
What did happen? As far as I can tell, the sun still rises in the morning.
"Is the NYT implying that those of us who take the strong free-speech position ought to heed Elon Musk's insistence that it is crucial to vote for Trump?!"
Of course it's crucial if you support the strong free-speech position. IDK how you could look at the last 4 years and conclude otherwise.
Is the NYT implying that those of us who take the strong free-speech position ought to heed Elon Musk's insistence that it is crucial to vote for Trump?!
If they are openly pushing censorship before the election, I cannot imagine what they would try to get away with, should Kamala be installed.
I do believe in free speech. Burning the flag has always been hard for me. I get it, but it still bothers me. John Paul Stevens always was against flag burning, I think. Gotta give JPS credit when you can.
I say "they would try to get away with" because with the current Supremes makeup, there no way they could weaken the 1st amendment.
The N Y Times wants only DNC speech to be free and it is obvious.
Check that 👆🏽... with Kamala and Tampon Tim, they could always pack the court.
Voting is itself the ultimate speech. And a vote for Trump is hate speech. It's actual violence. And you will be punished if you do it. - NY Times
"The N Y Times wants only DNC speech to be free and it is obvious."
They want to be able to lie (I'm thinking Russia! Russia! Russia!) and not allow people to push back.
"I get the feeling the NYT doesn't know that people who care about free speech feel good when it’s made clear that certain kinds of speech are not going to be punished"
Maybe. But quite possibly the NYT knows that it makes such people feel good and finds that very fact deplorable.
"even false, misleading, offensive, delusional, and — gasp! — right-wing speech is explicitly welcome on X"
Once upon a time the remedy for false and hateful speech was more speech. But progs learned that a more convenient remedy was repression and censorship by the anointed.
"Is the NYT implying that those of us who take the strong free-speech position ought to heed Elon Musk's insistence that it is crucial to vote for Trump?!"
Logically, yes; psychologically, no way. But Trump has always been the flawed vessel of deplorable resistance, as he is now. Vote accordingly.
"When it’s made clear that certain kinds of speech are not only not going to be punished, but that prominent individuals who were deplatformed for it are now reinstated, it sends an extremely clear signal to everyone that this speech is now explicitly welcome on the platform."
Said by someone who expects that he's going to be the one who gets to decide what speech deserves punishment.
You either have free speech or you don't. There's no such thing as "free speech, but..."
Is the NYT implying that those of us who take the strong free-speech position ought to heed Elon Musk's insistence that it is crucial to vote for Trump?!
@Althouse, when did you realize that taking a strong free speech position is extreme right wing and white supremacist?
Every single one of these people criticizing Twitter for not banning people would bitch and moan were it done to them.
I've long wondered why the left has such a fear of liberty, historically, and in our current culture. It is not by accident that those now running our media and academics- all on the left- are the most vocally supportive of censorship, limiting the speech of others, eliminating specific words, and even changing the meaning of words to later use as a weapon.
Maybe someone here could give me a better idea of why the left has such a fear of liberty?
One of the black pills one has to swallow on the way from starry-eyed youthful idealism to mature adulthood is the realization that America, for all its liberty and glory, bestows no halo of virtue on American politicians and government workers. They all hold the potential to be every bit as evil, corrupt, and tyrannical as any commissar in the communist gulags, or any Bronze Age despot sitting on a throne of skulls. Scum like John Kerry and Hillary Clinton who are now explicitly calling for government censorship of free speech would have found a comfortable home in the Stasi of 1960 or the Gestapo of 1940.
The greatest lesson in all of human history is that if you fail to inculcate a hatred of government in your children, and a desire to constantly work to strip it of power, revenue, personnel, and prestige, then your posterity will live in slavery and terror. In all times and places, government is the #1 enemy of mankind, and those who love it for its own sake are always the most evil and worthless and untrustworthy among us.
Most of all, under no circumstances should we ever surrender the weaponry that allows us the means to resist our oppressors, if republican self-government ever fails and tyranny is thrust upon us.
"Every single one of these people criticizing Twitter for not banning people would bitch and moan were it done to them."
I don't think they can conceive that it would be done to them.
Kamala and Tampon Tim, they could always pack the court.
They've made it crystal-clear that they intend to do so, and fill it with left wing ideologues who will sweep away any of our Constitutional rights that stand in the way of permanent authoritarian one-party rule.
I commented on this, but it disappeared. I'll try to reconstruct it.
I think it's an insecurity in their positions. If no one is allowed to respond in a contrary manner they can delude themselves that no one disagrees with their opinion.
Rather than thinking about this as free speech v. censorship, it might be better to use an intent v. impact model. The Left believes that intent is all important -- and they get to determine intent. Therefore, for instance, attacking Jews on a campus is fine because the perpetrators are simply trying to promote social justice. However, making black students feel uncomfortable by committing a microaggression must be prohibited because only a racist would do that. Those of us who take the Constitution seriously, on the other hand, focus on impact. People have a right to believe whatever they want, but they do not have the right to harm others.
“Is the NYT implying that those of us who take the strong free-speech position ought to heed Elon Musk's insistence that it is crucial to vote for Trump?!”
No, I doubt it. There are a lot of NYT readers who still comment or read X There are still many anti Trump things trending on X. I like checking in to X when news is breaking, new info is being disseminated at lightening speed.
“The Left believes”… sometimes I wonder if people who say that even know any real live people on the left.
The libertarians are an anathema, a burden to progressive liberals. Abort.
I note that once again, you have attributed statements to "the NYT", without bothering to mention the lying wretch whose name is appended to them. Perhaps your understanding of the situation is maturing.
To which the only correct reply to the NYT is "Sod off you swine."
"“The Left believes”… sometimes I wonder if people who say that even know any real live people on the left."
Oh, for crying out loud, I live in freaking Madison. Almost every one of our neighbors have a Kamala sign in their front yard. And, I have a passing familiarity with my own family.
The spam folder is very active this morning.
"No, I doubt it. There are a lot of NYT readers who still comment or read X There are still many anti Trump things trending on X. I like checking in to X when news is breaking, new info is being disseminated at lightening speed."
I don't understand that as an answer. The question is whether Democrats will protect freedom of speech, including the freedom currently exercisable on X, or whether they will move to constrict this freedom.
The fact that some of them USE that freedom themselves to say what THEY want to say is irrelevant to whether they will abridge the speech of those with whom they disagree.
It doesn't matter that there is some anti-Trump speech on X. What I am asking about is the future of free speech. If that is my highest priority, do I need to support Trump? I am afraid the Democratic Party will not protect free speech and is in fact bent on destroying it.
This NYT article is stoking my fear.
I am afraid the Democratic Party will not protect free speech and is in fact bent on destroying it.
I share that fear.
Covid was a wake up call for many open minded liberals who saw the Democrat party and their house organ as relatively benign.
Liberals who refuse to acknowledge that fear show a preference to control the speech of dissenters.
"The question is whether Democrats will protect freedom of speech, including the freedom currently exercisable on X, or whether they will move to constrict this freedom."
Teacher, Teacher call on me! I'm raising my hand! I know the answer!
The fear derives from others having the ability to object, and a tendency to do so. The fear is what is acted on: No one can be allowed to object, if there is any chance that the objection could be successful.
There is a clear and step-wise progression to tyranny in a society. I lived near Venezuela for many years and watched it happen under Chavez, step-by-step. They still haven't reached the bottom, 25 years later - but they're getting close.
California is on the same downward staircase, a dozen or so steps ahead of the rest of the country.
The fear of liberty is the base insecurity of cowards, and it drives them to band together and use a craven 'Safety in Numbers' approach to dominating everything. Also, it's the reason that pure Democracy always ends in chaos.
Maybe we need a working definition of who is to be considered a "prominent individual". I have no idea who was banned, other than Donald Trump, who is clearly is one. The information superhighway bypasses the markeplace of ideas these days.
As Original Mike says; it's the insecurity of their membership in the elite. They are not like earlier elites such as Vanderbilt, Rockefeller or Carnegie who made their money through business and most likely didn't give a damn if the NYT turned on them because in the end; they were still fantastically rich. Flash forward and you have our modern day elites who, for the most part, are "elite" because they were elected to Congress or they're in sports or entertainment. All of that can be very fleeting, even for the Tech Billionaires.
And don't rule out plain old cognitive dissonance as a factor either.
"The question is whether Democrats will protect freedom of speech..."
With respect, Hasn't that question has already been answered? And the secret answer was uncovered by the Twitter files, after much digging and FOIA petitioning.
And since this was a clandestine effort, there are probably people who are still being silenced as we speak, on Facebook, Google, Tik Tok and others, at the behest of the government - this, we can infer, because the injunction preventing it was overturned at the request of the same bunch.
I think your fears are well supported and merited.
I don’t believe that Democrats will constrict freedom of speech. If the accounts are foreign election influence operations, that might be a different thing.
I went and read the entire article and I think the author is worried about platforms like X disseminating massive disinformation that threatens this nation’s elections and are only there to sow chaos and fear. Even if X turns out to do just that I still doubt Democrats would censor it. There would be massive blowback from Democrats as well as Republicans.
Voting for Trump won’t guarantee freedom of speech as he has his own ideas about shutting down publications and networks that he doesn’t like because they insulted him or wrote things he says are untrue, or some other reason.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/10/media/fcc-rosenworcel-trump-cbs-license-60-minutes/index.html
“In recent days, the former president has lambasted the Harris interview, accusing CBS News of editing the sit-down with correspondent Bill Whitaker. On Thursday, Trump used his Truth Social platform to again take aim at what he alleged to be “a giant Fake News Scam,” accusing “60 Minutes” of replacing Harris’ answers with another to “make her look better.”
“60 Minutes is a major part of the News Organization of CBS, which has just created the Greatest Fraud in Broadcast History,” Trump wrote. “CBS should lose its license, and it should be bid out to the Highest Bidder, as should all other Broadcast Licenses, because they are just as corrupt as CBS — and maybe even WORSE!”“
And it bears pointing out that not only do our modern elites not owe their status to wealth accumulated through trading in markets that are unlikely to go away anytime soon; most of them do not employ others. Trump and Musk are very old school elites in that regard.
If the accounts are foreign election influence operations, that might be a different thing.
Only a fool would trust a Democrat politician or anyone working for the government when they claim that this or that voice on the Internet is a "foreign election influence operation."
In fact, most such claims from Democrats and their government lackeys have proven to be falsified election influence operations themselves, often with a big dose of foreign involvement. Steele dossier anyone? Alfa Bank?
Odd on a platform owned by an arch-MAGAist. But the lesson probably escapes you.
“60 Minutes is a major part of the News Organization of CBS, which has just created the Greatest Fraud in Broadcast History,” Trump wrote. “CBS should lose its license, and it should be bid out to the Highest Bidder, as should all other Broadcast Licenses, because they are just as corrupt as CBS — and maybe even WORSE!”“
Nice jiu-jitsu on Trump's part. If government gets to decide who has free speech, he's going to use that power to the max to attack the Left. I think this is admirable. Smash the filth with the weapon they forged to use against us.
It is remarkable how concerned these people are about other people saying things. They really just don't want to have anyone hear any voice but their own. Their product is inferior, and can only survive if all competition is suppressed.
OM, but do you associate with them? My daughter and family live in Monona, she doesn’t resemble most of the commentary here describing “Leftists.” She’s a Democrat.
"I don’t believe that Democrats will constrict freedom of speech."
How can you possibly say that?. It completely ignores their actions the last 6 years.
“Only a fool would trust a Democrat politician or anyone working for the government when they claim that this or that voice on the Internet is a "foreign election influence operation."
Only a fool would believe Trump would protect their freedom of speech.
FCC chair denounces Trump’s calls for CBS to ‘lose its license’ over Harris’ ‘60 Minutes’ interview
“Federal Communications Commission chairwoman Jessica Rosenworcel denounced former President Donald Trump’s “threats against free speech” Thursday after he attacked CBS and called for the network to “lose its license” over a recent “60 Minutes” interview with Vice President Kamala Harris.“
“60 Minutes is a major part of the News Organization of CBS, which has just created the Greatest Fraud in Broadcast History,” Trump wrote. “CBS should lose its license, and it should be bid out to the Highest Bidder, as should all other Broadcast Licenses, because they are just as corrupt as CBS — and maybe even WORSE!”“
The fact that the Democrats have not only abandoned free speech but are openly hostile to it has lost them a lot of voters.
There are still a lot of people out there who don't like to be told how to think.
"OM, but do you associate with them?"
Yes, Inga, I associate with my neighbors (I lived in my current house for 30 years). And my family. And let me tell you, neither are shy about stating their political beliefs. I, however, keep my mouth shut. I can't imagine something worse than being on unfriendly terms with my neighbors.
*I have lived*
“60 Minutes is a major part of the News Organization of CBS, which has just created the Greatest Fraud in Broadcast History,” Trump wrote. “CBS should lose its license, and it should be bid out to the Highest Bidder, as should all other Broadcast Licenses, because they are just as corrupt as CBS — and maybe even WORSE!”“
He's not incorrect about what CBS did. Purposely editing content to make a major candidate appear better than they are is journalistic fraud. Since MAJOR political operatives on the democrat side have called specifically for punishment of people who present "false" information, he is just turning the tables. It is a fair rhetorical device to rub the left's nose in their own standards saying the CBS should be hoist by it own petard. Saying that they SHOLD be is different than actively advocating for policies to do just that, which is what the left is doing. You really need better comprehension skills.
And YOU are the living, breathing leftist we can all point to to demonstrate what the leftists believe. You present the evidence on nearly every post, sometimes several times.
Ah, so this is censorship you like. Got it. And you need to take off your Trump blinders.
Just like Trump telling Jewish Americans how to think.
“Former President Donald Trump criticized Jewish Americans who don't vote for him in speeches aimed at addressing antisemitism Thursday night in Washington D.C., while claiming that if he is not elected in November, Israel would be "eradicated."
"If I don't win this election, and the Jewish people would really have a lot to do with that if that happens, because at 40%, that means 60% of the people are voting for the enemy. With all I've done for Israel, I received only 24% of the Jewish vote. You should have your head examined, because it will face an unceasing, bloody war to obliterate the Jewish state and drive Jews out of the Holy Land. It's only because of the Democrat hold or curse on you. You can't let this happen. 40% is not acceptable, because we have an election to win," Trump said.”
You are flailing and failing, Inga.
You believe anything the Party tells you to believe, yet you cannot seem to believe that Tampon Tim and Kamala-lala-ding-dong will be true to their word about censoring statements that they call "misinformation".
Post a Comment