[counterpunch]

Freedom of speech should and does have limitations.

This isn't "freedom of speech", which is not actually a Constitutionally protected right. It is freedom of the press which is.
While we all may agree that it was not in our nation's best interest, and while we may all hate the NYT -- in no small part because they do not and never have cared about the nation's best interest -- we shouldn't let that cloud our judgement. The first two amendments are the most important for securing a lasting freedom, and I wouldn't go trying to disregard either selectively.

[conservative in nyc]

This isn't "freedom of speech", which is not actually a Constitutionally protected right. It is freedom of the press which is.

Huh? Freedom of speech is a constitutionally protected right:

Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.