Skip to comments.SHAMEFUL: NY Times Magazine's Cover Story: Free Speech Threatens Democracy
Posted on 10/21/2020 11:26:19 AM PDT by Signalman
Emily Bazelon, staff writer for the New York Times Sunday magazine and a professor at Yale Law School, earned the Sunday Magazines newest cover story an 8,000-word jeremiad against free speech. The cover itself was ironic and oh-so-clever: Free Speech Will Save Our Democracy, with an online-style warning label overlaid that suggests such thinking is naive: Disputed by Third-Party Fact Checkers.
Bazelons screed is more relevant and sinister now, after both Twitter and Facebook proudly censored a New York Post expose about alleged emails from Hunter Biden showing his father Joe had met with Vadym Pozharskyi, an adviser of the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings. Thats the firm that paid Hunter $50,000 a month to serve on the companys board while his father served as vice president.
Bazelon saw a right wing using conspiracies and lies to steal the election for Trump.
"The conspiracy theories, the lies, the distortions, the overwhelming amount of information, the anger encoded in it -- these all serve to create chaos and confusion and make people, even nonpartisans, exhausted, skeptical and cynical about politics. The spewing of falsehoods isnt meant to win any battle of ideas. Its goal is to prevent the actual battle from being fought, by causing us to simply give up .Trumps election put him in the position to operate directly through Fox News and other conservative media outlets, like Rush Limbaughs talk-radio show, which have come to function in effect as a party press, the Harvard researchers found.
While virtually every other news network and media outlet is part of the anti-Trump resistance.
"Its an article of faith in the United States that more speech is better and that the government should regulate it as little as possible. But increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendments guarantee of free speech ."
After laying out the fundamentally optimistic vision of the First Amendment, the author fully reveals the revised mindset, now popular at the paper, that the First Amendment at present is just a cudgel used by the rich for in their own self-interest. A peculiar position for a business that relies on the First Amendment, but in this case political ideology trumps journalistic principle.
"The Supreme Court has also taken the First Amendment in another direction that had nothing to do with individual rights, moving from preserving a persons freedom to dissent to entrenching the power of wealthy interests. In the 1970s, the court started protecting corporate campaign spending alongside individual donations. Legally speaking, corporate spending on speech that was related to elections was akin to the shouting of protesters .
"If Trumps deeply conservative third Supreme Court nominee, Amy Coney Barrett, is confirmed, the court will most likely become more committed to its path of using the First Amendment to empower corporations. Somewhere along the way, the conservative majority has lost sight of an essential point: The purpose of free speech is to further democratic participation ."
Or so sayeth Bazelon.
"The dearth of competition for factual accuracy among conservative outlets leaves their audiences vulnerable to disinformation even if the mainstream news media combats it ."
As usual, its all Ronald Reagans fault, with media mogul Rupert Murdoch as his sidekick.
"But public trusteeship for broadcast and diverse ownership began to unravel with the libertarian shift of the Reagan era. In the mid-1980s, the administration waived the F.C.C. rule that barred a single entity from owning a TV station and a daily newspaper in the same local market to allow Rupert Murdoch to continue to own The New York Post and The Boston Herald after he bought his first broadcast TV stations in New York and Boston."
She pushed back a little near the end, bringing up cancel culture and posing a good question aimed rather too politely at a shameful free-speech squelching incident at her own paper:
"Why is Tom Cottons Op-Ed beyond the pale but not an October Op-Ed by Regina Ip, a legislator in Hong Kong, who defended police officers filling the streets and arresting hundreds of pro-democracy demonstrators?"
But then shes back to praising authoritative sources on the coronavirus pandemic, like W.H.O. and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention . The disgraced World Health Organization covered up for Communist China and didnt recommend mask-wearing until June.
Bazelon notoriously earned a reporter byline during the papers sordid coverage of sexual assault allegations against a teenage Brett Kavanaugh, despite clearly betraying her hostility toward the nomination on Twitter. Her scoop? Kavanaugh allegedly threw ice during a brouhaha at a Yale University bar in 1985.
I can boil down Bazelon’s essay, “Shut up, I’m talking”.
The First Amendment is the foundation of the American experiment. Take that away and the structure collapses.
What very bad person this professor is.
The New York Times needs to find a more suitable home for its new HQ—
Then they can publish a lengthy article from “distinguished” professors and health “experts” explaining the health benefits of eating dogs and cats and...
The Bill of Rights was written by dead white slaveholders—and the New York Times wants it _gone_ in their Commie Utopia.
This needs to be broadcast.
Folks need to know what is at stake.
“Bazelon saw a right wing using conspiracies and lies to steal the election for Trump.”
Here she spins a lie and a conspiracy theory about alleged right wing lies and conspiracy theories.
The NY Times can go to hell. I wouldn’t insult my parakeets by lining their cage with the NYT.
If we’re going to gut the 1st amendment - and I’m 100% against that - can we at least START with banning freedom of the press.
But only for publications like this that are already in favor of that.
“The New York Times needs to find a more suitable home for its new HQ
They’re close, right across the street from the Port Authority Bus Terminal, one of the ugliest pieces of brutalist architecture in New York.
Good. Shut down the Times.
Of course free speech threatens democracy, as it should do!
So, what’s this law school professor’s understanding of law? of government? of US history?
As most on FR know, the US was not founded as a democracy. It was founded as a federal republic (”and to the Republic for which it stands”).
So, what’s this “our democracy” that this uneducated professor (sorry for the redundancy) speaks of?
Free Speech threatens everything and always has.
That’s the whole idea of allowing it.
And for the millionth time, the USA is not a democracy.
It’s a good thing, then, that America is a constitutional republic ... not a democracy.
Anyone who does not support the bill of rights needs to be executed or exiled to North Korea.
And the Norks don’t want them.
From WP: In Great Britain, Brutalism was featured in the design of utilitarian, low-cost social housing influenced by socialist principles and soon spread to other regions across the world. Brutalist designs became most commonly used in the design of institutional buildings, such as universities, libraries, courts and city halls. The popularity of the movement began to decline in the late 1970s, with some associating the style with urban decay and totalitarianism.
IOW, brutalism looks to me like Bauhaus on steroids. With a hangover.
Teddy Kennedy was ticked off at a column directed at him by BH columnist Howie Carr.
Kennedy managed to shepherd through a law banning newspaper/tv station ownership in the same market.
USSC told Congress that Kennedy's law was a Bill of Attainder directed at "Murdoch", and therefore illegal.
(FWIW, the NYT used to own a radio station or two. I'd occasionally tune it (high AM frequency) driving at night when there wasn't anything local that was interesting. It was a classical station.
Now that I think about it, The Chicago Tribune owned WGN at some point. The call letters meant "World's Greatest Newspaper".)
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.