What the New York Times doesn't get about free speech and "cancel culture"

[Nevilledog]

Link to tweet

https://www.salon.com/2022/03/18/what-the-new-york-times-doesnt-get-about-free-speech-and-cancel-culture/

One can only hope that Friday, March 18, 2022 will mark the nadir of the moral panic over "cancel culture" that has gripped not just the American right, but also the upper echelons of elite journalism upset by the hoi polloi commenting aloud about their writing. Because that is the day the New York Times editorial board published an editorial equating actual government censorship with the "fear of being shamed or shunned" for expressing an opinion in public.

Really, "equating" is an overstatement. The editorial makes it quite clear that the board sees shaming-and-shunning as exponentially worse than actual government censorship.

"For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned," the diatribe about mean tweets begins.

And right away, we see the fundamental flaw in the argument replicated throughout all 2,500 words of this ill-advised editorial: Shaming and shunning are also forms of free speech. Rude, over-the-top or idiotic at times, perhaps — but if someone calls you a name on Twitter over an opinion you've expressed, that is just as much of an exercise of free speech as the opinion that triggered the name-calling.

*snip*

[NewHendoLib]

1. What a brutal op Ed. I penned a scathing response, but they

Haven't posted it... Yet.

[Nevilledog]

2. I gave them consequences....I canceled my subscription

[SheltieLover]

4. Good for you!

[gratuitous]

3. It's something we have to understand

Our betters at the company whose motto is "All the News That's Fit to Print" are not accustomed to being questioned, criticized or ridiculed. We're supposed to be consumers of their product, not reviewers or critics. If we have an opinion that is anything less than glowing praise, we can just bloody well keep that to ourselves. Who do we think we are, anyway?

[SheltieLover]

5. Kicking for visibility

[crickets]

6. A rebuttal well articulated and well deserved. K&R

[LetMyPeopleVote]

7. The NYT takes both siderism to an extreme degree

This is from one of the lawyers on Twitter who I follow and like.

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[mahatmakanejeeves]

8. Said lawyer retweeted this on Saturday morning:

StandWithUkraineHat Retweeted

I protect your right to shame and shun people for their speech. Imprisoning someone for that would violate me.

Link to tweet

[kentuck]

9. If you are unable to defend your position...

...don't make it.

[Towlie]

10. Yes, I posted about that a few hours earlier. The paradox should have been obvious to them.

 
←

But it was gratifying to see my observation echoed by a professional journalist.

My earlier post: https://www.democraticunderground.com/100216497377

[LetMyPeopleVote]

11. For this thread

Link to tweet