Veteran journalist Dan Froomkin is upset with the editors of the New York Times over a recent editorial:
It’s hard to imagine a more fundamental misreading of the freedom of speech – or an organization whose credibility depends more on understanding it correctly – than today’s lead editorial from the New York Times editorial board.
The First Amendment asserts a right to free speech. It does not assert a right to not be criticized for speech. In fact, it protects critical speech.
And the protection is against government action, not against other people.
He does make a point. If senior journalists don’t support or even understand freedom of speech, who will?
There are some complexities Mr. Froomkin doesn’t address, however. When governments or elected officials reach out to social media giants, asking them to ban or curb opinions with which they disagree, those are in fact violations of freedom of speech.
“If senior journalists don’t support or even understand freedom of speech, who will?”
Seriously? There are precious few of those journalists right now, replaced by advocates.
“When governments or elected officials reach out to social media giants, asking them to ban or curb opinions with which they disagree, those are in fact violations of freedom of speech.”
You mean like Hunter Biden’s laptop? As I predicted. Not a peep from ABC, CBS, NBC, NPR………
The Supreme Court, using creative reasoning, incorporated the Bill of Rights against the States. They likewise discovered the right to an abortion in the penumbra of the Bill of Rights. So, there is precedent for discovering that the Bill of Rights also applies to companies controlling communications, like the social media.
The social media could also be regulated as common carriers like telephone companies, which have to provide service to anyone requesting it, and which cannot censor communications.
In the US we have enjoyed two forms of free speech.
First, there is 1st Amendment, constitutional free speech that applies against the government.
Second, and equally important in my view, is the culture of free speech by which we may (within reason) speak our minds publicly without being shamed or shunned. Think of the famous Norman Rockwell painting of the citizen speaking at the town meeting.
It is the threat to our culture of free speech that seems to be the NYT editors’ concern. And, for once, I agree with them. Today, a substantial number of influential persons and groups believe that speech may, even must, be suppressed if the views expressed are inconsistent with their political or social agendas.