Free Speech, Media, Military, Politics

New York Times Reporters and Writers Condemn Paper For Publishing Cotton Editorial

download-1The New York Times is under fire today for publishing the opinion of Sen. Tom Cotton (R, Ark.) on the use of troops to quell the unrest following the death of George Floyd.  Journalists and opinion writers have insisted that such views should not be even published because they disagree with it.  I have strongly opposed the suggested use of federal troops on both legal and non-legal grounds. It would be an unnecessary escalation of the tensions and curtail the exercise of important free speech activities.  However, this view is shared by many and the use of troops has occurred previously in our history.  The call for effective censorship of opposing views from journalists is a chilling example of how much ground has been lost in the protection of free speech values.

Just a few days ago, I discussed how members of Congress denounced the New York Times for running a factual headline that was viewed as too neutral.

EZeJ420WkAA3szz

Various Democratic members and leaders were livid.  Hawaii Sen. Brian Schatz objected “The New York Times headline writers are going to Both Sides the country to death.” There was a time when “going to both sides” was viewed as the very definition of journalism.

download

This controversy is far more concerning given the journalists and writers condemning the newspaper from sharing an opposing view on the use of federal troops.  It does not matter that this is a prominent issue being debated, it is the reported position of the President, and it is a piece written by one of the most influential members of Congress.  All of that would seem to make it important to the discussion, even if one disagrees with the position.

Politico’s Alex Thompson cited posts from writers Taylor Lorenz, Caity Weaver, Sheera Frankel, and Jacey Fortin.

Opinion writer Roxanne Gay wrote

“As a NYT writer I absolutely stand in opposition to that Tom Cotton ‘editorial.’ “We are well served by robust and ideologically diverse public discourse that includes radical, liberal, and conservative voices. This is not that. His piece was inflammatory and endorsing military occupation as if the constitution doesn’t exist.”

First, Cotton would likely strongly disagree that he ever suggested military occupation in the use of troops, which has occurred previously.  Indeed, he wrote against that very point:

“This venerable law, nearly as old as our republic itself, doesn’t amount to ‘martial law’ or the end of democracy, as some excitable critics, ignorant of both the law and our history, have comically suggested. In fact, the federal government has a constitutional duty to the states to ‘protect each of them from domestic violence.’ Throughout our history, presidents have exercised this authority on dozens of occasions to protect law-abiding citizens from disorder.”

However, simply declaring an opposing view “inflammatory” is no license to censor or block the view from being heard.  An editorial page should be about debate and dialogue on such issues.  Even if they are inflammatory to some, our newspapers are a forum for dialogue not an echo chamber for approved messaging.

An editorial page is about opinions, often controversial, on contemporary issues.  This is one of the most discussed issues in Washington and is being raised by one of the most important members of Congress.  Yet, Chan is suggesting that the New York Times should only publish the opposing view. It is the very definition of echo journalism.  It also ignores that publishing such views often works to galvanize opposition and counterarguments.

I have no problem at all with Times opinion writer Charlie Warzel stating “[I] feel compelled to say that i disagree with every word in that Tom Cotton op-ed and it does not reflect my values.”  However, he then added that publishing that opposing view is “unacceptable and there should be resignations.”

Once again, I share the disagreement with the column. However, there is a growing orthodoxy in journalism that is now openly calling for the censorship of opposing views.  It is particularly problematic when opinion writers seek the removal of editors for allowing such opposing positions to be published.  

157 thoughts on “New York Times Reporters and Writers Condemn Paper For Publishing Cotton Editorial”

  1. I’ve twice tried to post the full response of the NYT union plus some comments of my own, but for some reason, the comments aren’t getting through (perhaps some of the text is triggering a word filter?). I’ll have to decide whether to re-compose my own response yet again, but in the meantime, here’s a link to the NewsGuild of NY’s reponse:
    https://twitter.com/nyguild/status/1268362511956545536

  2. Does anyone really read the NYT or really care what it says if they do read it? These news papers are on their last legs any way no one has bird cages any more.

    1. Ben Colder — I read TNYT, BBC News, The Guardian, online versions of several Japanese papers and 2 Australian papers daily.

    2. Ben, it’s only stupid Trumpers who link NYT to birdcages. That association let’s everyone that you’re a rightwing loser.

  3. Publish Cotton’s inane bs. Then counter point and shred it point by point. Not a hard thing to do. And counter to JT’s claim that Cotton is an influential congressman, recognize him for what he is, kind of a clueless idiot completely in the pocket of his corporate masters.

    3. You are sooo right! I heard Tom Cotton slipped off and gave some speeches to some Wall Street fat cats and got paid several hundred thousand dollars for each of them! And, now he won’t even show us a transcript of what he said!

      I have heard it said that Tom Cotton is jokingly referred to as, “The Senator from MNBA”! And Cotton’s support of bankruptcy “reform” that keeps middle class Americans from taking Chapter 7! My Lord, what a corporate shill he is!

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

      1. Agreed, Squeeky. Now get back to work at the Spahn ranch with what you’re actually good at.

    4. Publish Cotton’s inane bs. Then counter point and shred it point by point. Not a hard thing to do.

      Good point. But hmm? I just went through the entire thread and you haven’t made your counter-point case. After all, you have made an opinion on it. Was it not an informed opinion? Or is it just taking you longer than expected?

        1. Requesting to see your easy-to-make counter-point argument is more inane than you not providing it? LOL! Okay then. I’m finished with this guy.

  4. mespo727272 once again shows what a dimwit he is. Of course guilt is established in a court of law.

    Jeez, what a waste of writing space.

    1. Hey David, who among us has not seen “homicide” on the autopsy report of a deceased loved ones. Doesn’t mean anything.

      1. Bythebook — I never have. I’m of the opinion that county coroners take their responsibilities seriously.

        So a conclusion of death by homicide means just that.

        Don’t be obtuse.

          1. math geeks are not known for their sense of humor

            but while we’re at it, I like Lex Fridman’s podcast, if you guys are really into AI and stuff

    2. All Over The Place DBB:
      Hey learned one, why not try clicking “Reply” after the comment that skewers you and then posting your nonsense. it won’t enhance our view of you but it might at least help us respond to the drivel.

      1. mespo727272 — I do. It always posts at the top as a fresh comment.

        The formatting algorithm of this site demonstrates lawyer lack of logic…

        2. It might be whatever internet program you are using. If I use Iron, that’s what happens. It does not do it if I use Chrome.

  5. It’s the opinion page of a business you idiot. Of course they “censor” content everyday, all day, and twice on Sundays.

    Mean while JT pretends he’s an actual voice in opposition to another Trump outrage – the much bigger issue than non-existent free speech on editorial pages – but no column. Again. Never. But he assures us he has long………………WHATEVER. What a phony .

    1. The idiot here is you. You seem to have totally failed to understand the professors remarks. Given what I’ve read of your garbage here, that’s not any surprise. If you’re up to you, we’d all be in lockstep with the fools who want to destroy the country.

      1. Instead of denouncing me personally, why don’t you explain my failings as I have JT’s. Doesn’t need to be more than a few sentences, right? Are you up to it?

        Probably not.

    2. book says it truly,. NYT is a business. They profit off their editorial slant. And, as is true pretty much across the board., their choice of what is supposedly “news” or not is just as slanted as what’s in their editorial.

      just as we can see the business Twitter twisting, choosing, who will win and who will lose in their site by its opaque algorithms. Same google – youtube.

      The corporate behemeoths control the megaphone. Always keep that in mind.

      But if you think they are necessarily more truthful or accurate than a government news source or agency, oh, that is a liberterian pipe dream. Not necessarily at all. This is a lingering bias of the Enlightenment, that’s already failed us, politically.

      And just now the Democratic leadership has the mass media business in its pocket, but, it might not always be thus. The key issue is just who controls what assets at any given time. The key issue is not whether they are private or public. For profit or not. Only who controls them. Democratic leadership is keen on control and they exercise it widely. Even when things seem out of control– understand, it’s because they WANT it that way.

      The mature person no longer asks “what system is best.”

      The mature persons thinks “which side is working for my interests”

      and acts accordingly

      Let Professor Turley do his job and explain constitutional law and so forth

      We just need to consider what Malcolm X laid down as the standard- necessity.

      The heartland people who voted for Trump, the deplorabbles, we in flyover land, law abiding folks who are dismayed by the past week’s anarchy and violence, need to quickly realize that few if any vaunted principles will hold their adversaries back.

      And they need to grow up and start thinking the same way.

      1. I almost thought you could’ve patched in a symphony when paying homage to your deplorable homies, Kurtz. Like the surf scene from Apocolypse Now. “I love the smell of napalm in the morning”. Awesome.

          2. Good article, btw. Making friends with fear. Spiritual alchemy. Awesome stuff.

        2. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KxLFdJLSho8

          It’s impossible for words to describe what is necessary to those who do not know what horror means. Horror. Horror has a face… and you must make a friend of horror. Horror and moral terror are your friends. If they are not then they are enemies to be feared. They are truly enemies. I remember when I was with Special Forces. Seems a thousand centuries ago. We went into a camp to inoculate the children. We left the camp after we had inoculated the children for Polio, and this old man came running after us and he was crying. He couldn’t see. We went back there and they had come and hacked off every inoculated arm. There they were in a pile. A pile of little arms. And I remember… I… I… I cried. I wept like some grandmother. I wanted to tear my teeth out. I didn’t know what I wanted to do. And I want to remember it. I never want to forget it. I never want to forget. And then I realized… like I was shot… like I was shot with a diamond… a diamond bullet right through my forehead. And I thought: My God… the genius of that. The genius. The will to do that. Perfect, genuine, complete, crystalline, pure. And then I realized they were stronger than we. Because they could stand that these were not monsters. These were men… trained cadres. These men who fought with their hearts, who had families, who had children, who were filled with love… but they had the strength… the strength… to do that. If I had ten divisions of those men our troubles here would be over very quickly. You have to have men who are moral… and at the same time who are able to utilize their primordial instincts to kill without feeling… without passion… without judgment… without judgment. Because it’s judgment that defeats us.”

        3. Do you like Wagner? I do. I have seen the Ring Cycle. No, the scene with the air cav which plays flight of the Valkyries is not the one for today

          The song is the one where Siegfried reforges the sword, “Nothung”

          https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwP5dkfGmlI

          In this scene, Siegfried undertakes the work of reforging his deceased true father’s sword, after he’s dismissed the lies of his cunning foster father Mime. See, Mime, he’s the fellow in that scene who looks like a rat, kind of like, um, that fellow Rosenstein! Rather like Gollum I thought, the last time I saw it on stage.

          Mime has lied to Siegfried, but Siegfried figures it out. He pressures Mime to bring forth the broken sword– and he reforges it. Reclaims his heritage, and sets out to rectify his grievances with the reforged sword, and claim his destiny

          And that is? Defeating the power of the dragons and their gold.

          That’s the song for today. Either it happens, or not

          See, this is myth reborn. Myth is not limited to one life or one situation, it is eternal. It recurs. Whatever is happening now has happened before, we are just in a new scene and setting with new costumes and names. we only have to find our place in it and proceed. Only in will and action, are the eternal and transcendent re-forged again with the temporal and particular, into one new fluid artwork of existence

      2. The NYTs brand is not opinion – that’s cheap and easy – but being the paper of record. That’s what gets it on the desks – or desktops – of CEO and administrators all over the US and it requires resources around the world and hard trained work. It’s beyond ridiculous that he and others here think that of the available sources for truth, Donald Trump is the best. Wow!

        1. I seek information. And I go to many sources but if I need a paper rag it’s the Wall Street Journal and SCMP and Straits times for me. I would buy FT but i am too cheap

          as for truth? never ask a politician for truth. Pilate summed up the attitude of every politician who has ever lived:

          “quid est veritas?”

  6. Squeeky Fromm, quit wasting space. The coroner has ruled homicide.

    1. DBB:

      And of course, the ME report spcifically said it made no judgment on culpability nor intent which is necessary for conviction. It reads:

      “Manner of death classification is a statutory function of the medical examiner, as part of death certification for purposes of vital statistics and public health. Manner of death is not a legal determination of culpability or intent, and should not be used to usurp the judicial process.”

      How can you be so dumb about things you chastise people about? You should have at least read the report, Benson.

  7. Plus, it is beginning to look like the whole underlying George Floyd may be another Michael Brown situation where the cops are not guilty of anything except maybe abusing a corpse.
    —–
    The death of George Floyd after an interaction with the Minneapolis Police Department has rocked the world and while everyone reading this believes that an officer that put his knee in the back of Floyd’s neck for close to nine minutes was the cause of death, the facts and evidence are anything but that.

    The Western Journal of Emergency Medicine says that “Excited delirium is characterized by agitation, aggression, acute distress and sudden death, often in the pre-hospital care setting. It is typically associated with the use of drugs Subjects typically die from a heart attack and the majority of the patients die before hospital arrival.”

    And combined with methamphetamine, studies indicate that fentanyl has a higher chance of inducing fatal hyperthermia. And it just so happens that hyperthermia has a direct correlation with excited delirium.

    Fentanyl is also unique among the opioids in its ability to cause muscle rigidity of the chest wall, diaphragm, and larynx. Known as “wooden chest syndrome,” it’s safe to say that the combination of this drug is a recipe for heart stoppage.

    The American College of Emergency Physicians’ White Paper Report on Excited Delirium Syndrome recommends two specific responses by law enforcement if they observe signs of excited delirium.

    Stating that “Deescalation does not have a high likelihood of changing outcomes significantly”

    “The subjects require physical restraint (this is because if they continue to struggle it accelerates the death) combined with emergent sedation.”

    “Once the decision to do this has been made, action needs to be swift and efficient, and performed with all responders present when feasible.”

    ———–
    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    2. The county’s medical examiner ruled it a homicide.
      The physicians who carried out the independent autopsy also ruled it a homicide.

      Chauvin has been charged with second-degree murder and and second-degree manslaughter.
      Lane, Kueng, and Thao have now been charged with aiding and abetting second-degree murder and aiding and abetting second-degree manslaughter.
      They’re all free to use your theory in their defense.

      1. I can’t get the link to the article to post. I tried 3 times last night. But there is this little blurb there:
        —–

        “And before you respond with Michael Baden’s “independent” autopsy as reported by the media, understand that Baden is a hired man that also believed Michael Brown was shot in the back after looking at a diagram and that O.J. Simpson was innocent. Two specific items were noticed in his press conference that the media is not reporting.

        1. He never said it was his “expert” opinion but rather his opinion. This is to protect his integrity as an expert witness.

        2. Most importantly, Baden didn’t do an autopsy. He formed his opinion from watching the video and speaking to the family of Mr. Floyd.

        Nothing he said can be brought into a criminal proceeding. It’s simply done to sway public opinion but we will get to him in another article. Back to the actual facts…….
        ————
        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        1. If I’m not mistaken, Dr. Baden confirmed the local coroner’s judgment on all points in re Michael Brown. Since Brown had bullet wounds on his hand, arm, deltoid, and a head shot for which neither the entry nor the exit wound were to be found on the back of the head, he’d look pretty silly claiming Brown was shot in the back.

        2. That Baden based his judgment on the video was the oddest thing about his report. Not sure if he handled the body or the samples.

          It might help if they had a tertium quid in this case. If Chauvin goes to trial, I think it will be dueling experts.

            1. LOL.

              I didn’t need you to give me a link. I know how to do a quoted internet search and had no trouble finding it before I wrote my initial response. I was alluding to the fact that the author used a pseudonym.

              More importantly, s/he is **lying**. I already gave you evidence that the claims are false. But you’re silent about that.

              Why do you choose to quote a liar?
              Do you like liars?
              I don’t. I think dishonest arguments — and the people who make them, and the people who repeat them — are bad for the country.

          2. CTHD,

            Sorry to tell you but in my article the author is NOT lying. However, the article you cited contains at least one big whopper, to wit:

            ““The compressive pressure of the neck and back are not seen at autopsy because the pressure has been released by the time the body comes to the medical examiner’s office,” said Dr. Michael Baden, a forensic pathologist who performed an autopsy on behalf of the Floyd family.”

            Uh, let me do this slow so you can follow. DR. BADEN NEVER DID AN AUTOPSY. He simply talked to the family and watched the video. That was in the article I gave you, so are you lying or did you just not see it.

            Secondly, just because two people disagree about something does not mean one of them is lying. So, no, it is not clear from reading that “/he’s lying, as is clear from news reports about the autopsy carried out by Baden and Allecia Wilson.”

            Thirdly, the Hennepin Autopsy comports with the article I quoted when it says:

            “Before releasing its full report, the Medical Examiner’s Office summarized in two public disclosures that Floyd died as a result of “cardiopulmonary arrest complicating law enforcement subdual, restraint, and neck compression.” It also listed “arteriosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease,” as well as fentanyl intoxication and recent methamphetamine use as “other significant conditions.”

            The medical examiner appeared to back his conclusion that Floyd was not asphyxiated by listing a host of injuries that were absent, in particular petechiae, or pinpoint-size red spots caused by broken blood vessels that can be a sign of asphyxiation.

            Also highlighted in the report was that the autopsy failed to find “life-threatening” injuries to Floyd’s neck near his head, spine, chest, brain, skull or related to the larynx.”

            Gee, but doesn’t that line up with the ACEP report, which said:

            “In those cases where a death occurs while in custody, there is the additional difficulty of separating any potential contribution of control measures from the underlying pathology. For example,was death due to the police control tool, or to positional asphyxia, or from ExDS, or from interplay of all these factors? Even in the situation where all caregivers agree that a patient is in an active delirious state, there is no proof of the most safe and effective con-trol measure or therapy for what is most likely an extremely agitated patient.

            Page17 of:

            https://www.prisonlegalnews.org/media/publications/acep_report_on_excited_delirium_syndrome_sept_2009.pdf
            ———-
            Sooo, some of what you said is probably just from understandable ignorance. Legally, the point I am making is that the whole Excited Delirium thing goes straight to the heart of criminal intent. There wasn’t any. Maybe or maybe not some negligence, but murder is a ridiculous charge for these officers.

            One thing you said that was not understandable ignorance is your characterization of the Law Officer report as a “lie.” There, you were simply making dumb and childishly reasoned conclusions!

            You’re welcome!

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

      2. Right now I could care less about those four cops. Im now moving on to all the other cops getting shot, murdered, attacked, pilloried, demonized, stereotyped, etc. and scared into not doing their jobs.

        The socially critical function of law and order.

        The Democratic leadership now wants anarchy, to destablize the nation and endanger further Trump’s outcome in the election. This is low intensity conflict tactics, guerilla warfare tacticsm applied to the Democrats’ own country. Sickening, as if we were an occupied population and they are here to “liberate” us by making things worse so we rebel against he whom they’ve announced is the tyrant’

        To bring forth only one thing: their own chance to be ten times the tyrant Trump has ever been!

        Watch for it. Lose in November and they will double down on this. You will have more BLM ANTIFA riots and plenty of them, to keep you off balance, scared, and remembering the punishment of chaos and violence that they inflicted on you when you dared to vote for Trump.

        Am i saying they are employing civil war tactics? Absolutely i am

        This is “FOURTH GENERATION WARFARE” and it is now HERE.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourth-generation_warfare

        Time for Trumpers, Republicans, etc. to stop worrying about whatever Massa Tom Jeff thought back in his day and update yourselves to the last hundred years of tactical thinking. You should be studying Lenin, Mao, Carl Schmitt, and William S. Lind., For starters.

        Enough of John Locke and the old tired Enlightenment mumbo jumbo. That will not carry us past the next hill. I have given you a syllabus young people who can see the Democratic leadership wants to make you slaves, I am thinking of the many law students who follow this web page, and you had best get to studying it fast. This is not your syllabus for good grades. This is your syllabus for political and strategic thinking that will help you survive and flourish in the present and coming struggles.

        1. And what about the other people who are “getting shot, murdered, attacked, pilloried, demonized, stereotyped, etc. and scared into not doing their jobs” by cops? Do you care about them too? Because along with the warranted police actions against criminals, there’s a lot of police violence right now against peaceful protesters, journalists and others.

          And are you concerned about criminals on the right, or only those on the left?

          Associated Press:
          “Three Nevada men with ties to a loose movement of right-wing extremists advocating the overthrow of the U.S. government have been arrested on terrorism-related charges in what authorities say was a conspiracy to spark violence during recent protests in Las Vegas.
          “Federal prosecutors say the three white men with U.S. military experience are accused of conspiring to carry out a plan that began in April in conjunction with protests to reopen businesses closed because of the coronavirus and later sought to capitalize on protests over the death of a Minneapolis man in police custody.
          “They were arrested Saturday on the way to a protest in downtown Las Vegas after filling gas cans at a parking lot and making Molotov cocktails in glass bottles, according to a copy of the criminal complaint obtained by The Associated Press.
          “The complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Las Vegas on Wednesday said they self-identified as part of the “boogaloo” movement, which U.S. prosecutors said in the document is “a term used by extremists to signify coming civil war and/or fall of civilization.”
          “Stephen T. Parshall, 35, Andrew T. Lynam Jr., 23, and William L. Loomis, 40, were being held on $1 million bond each in the Clark County jail Wednesday, according to court records.
          “Each currently faces two federal charges — conspiracy to damage and destroy by fire and explosive, and possession of unregistered firearms — along with multiple terrorism-related state charges.”

          Your claim that “The Democratic leadership now wants anarchy” is bullsh*t.

          If you truly care about the country, don’t introduce sh*t like that into the discussion.

          1. boogaloo bois

            boogaloo bois are not Republicans and they aren’t white nationalists either.
            they are gun nut crazy anarchists who are too batsheet insane to sit around listening to boring ANTIFA lectures about anarchist ideology. they just want to get it on

            i followed them on the internet a little, the past month, they are totally nuts

            and they are indeed praising the rioting. generally, the racists on the internet are not.

            you have to realize that in any society there are like 1/10 of 1% or so of people who are psychotic and will make up any excuse for mayhem if they get the chance. they must be identified, isolated, and removed. or if that’s not possible, eliminated

            don’t get this one twisted up. boogaloo bois are not “right wingers” whatever whatever

            and anyhow there are about 10,000 acts of riot arson and looting have done the past week, of course you could find one pack of nutty white kids besides the usual suspects and the antifa freaks if you wanted to.

            1. You claim “boogaloo bois are not Republicans and they aren’t white nationalists either,” but I doubt that you know whether these 3 men are or aren’t registered as Republicans / are or aren’t white nationalists. So why on earth would you pretend to know something you don’t know instead of just being honest about it?

              If I’m mistaken, and you CAN prove that Parshall, Lynam Jr., and Loomis aren’t Republicans or white nationalists, then present your evidence.

          2. “there’s a lot of police violence right now against peaceful protesters, journalists and others.”

            We have seen civilian deaths due to the protestors and millions of dollars destroyed. If those peaceful protestors permit themselves to be intermingled with criminals then they have to accept that the fact that while police go after criminals peaceful protestors might unintentionally get hurt as well.

            One doesn’t need too many violent people to create a lot of violence in a large crowd. We have seen that with Antifa. Right now we can see what type of people are supporting violence. They are bailing out people that were arrested whether or not the ones arrested were violent looters or not. We are not seeing your kind sending money to the retired black police officer David Dorn who was killed by your friends. We don’t see them supporting the families who have lost loved ones or businesses they worked their whole lives for. Your support goes to those that killed people and destroyed their businesses.

            CTHD, you are a violent individual and will use anything in your power to push yourself where ever you wish to go. I am beginning to think that you are the one that needs to be locked up

              1. It’s good that you have a spellchecker. Without it you would be a total waste.

                FYI, there are more errors above. I don’t spend a lot of time reviewing my typing skills.

  8. The echo chamber thing is bad enough, but the whole snowflake response is just totally stupid. What, are they afraid somebody throwing a molotov cocktail is going to be shot? You can bet your sweet a$$ if somebody was throwing a Molotov cocktail at them, or their home, or their family – then troops would be fine. In fact, a whole damn army would be better!

    On top of that, you don’t just have one or two of the NYTers being stupid. No, you get the whole stupid lemming effect. As if adding numbers to STUPID makes it less STUPID. I wonder if there is a way to talk one or two of them into jumping off a bridge, or off the Empire State Bldg. Maybe the rest would follow and we would be rid of the whole rotten, stupid bunch of them!

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

    1. The “snowflakes” in this are the supposed tough guys with the AR15 to supposedly protect them from an overbearing federal government cheering on the fat idiot to protect their sorry butts from the big bad Antifa thugs who lust after their women. Poor little babies.

      1. Oh, you are an alcoholic! I have noticed that they wake up grouchy, less-than-coherent and irritable and stay that way until they get some booze in them. This is a treatable condition, you know.

        Squeeky Fromm
        Girl Reporter

        2. On his Civility Rule page, Turley says “I will delete abusive comments when I see them or when they are raised to me. If the conduct continues, I will consider banning the person responsible.”

          I don’t think he reads comments any more, but he does sometimes act when someone emails him links to abusive comments.

          If you do not stop posting so many personal attacks, I may decide to go through some of your comments and send him links to some of the many abusive ones, asking him to consider banning you. Of course, that choice would be up to him, just as the choice is yours whether to rein in your desire to insult people.

          1. I don’t always insult you. Only when you say something stupid. Oh wait. . .

            Plus, you NEVER responded to my CTHD Goes to Starbucks comment which was NOT insulting at all, and was very relevant. I spent a lot of time writing that so that you could understand the legal issues vis a vis Flynn.

            Squeeky Fromm
            Girl Reporter

  9. Turley’s point is well taken, but there is more. Not everything should be printed but printworthiness should depend on quality, not on susbtantive content, although the two are not necessarily easily distinguished. For example, Eric Holder saying at a major law school that due process does not require judicial process should not warrant him an op-ed to the same effect in the NYT because the opinion is so beyond the pale of constitutional understanding that it is less than meritless. But where the opinion meets a minimum standard of plausibility and is “in the zone” then it is entitled to be printed.

    The trouble is that the NY Times does not typically extend the same courtesy to the left when it is “in the zone”, whether of policy or law, as it does to the center and right. I do not remember ever seeing, for example, an op-ed in the NY Times by Marjorie Cohn of Thomas Jefferson law school, former president of the National Lawyers Guild, on any significant constitutional question relating to war or emergency powers about which she writes frequently, and who could be expected to side with Turley here on the issue of whether calling troops out now would be constitutional. I am not holding my breath for the Times to publish her op-ed as a counterpoint to Cotton’s.

    This is a less formal editorial-board driven censorship which is nonetheless of the same character that former NYT editor Bill Keller alluded to proudly after the Times was caught delaying the publication of information about NSA mass surveillance until after the 2004 election, way before the Snowden disclosures. Enlarged public understanding of late of how these tendentious editorial decisions serve centralized political power (particularly the Democratic Party but not always), instead of holding it to account as the media is supposed to do, has discredited the Times’ rank subservience to the status quo and its making any outrage appear legitimate, e.g. torture by not calling it torture until it threatens the credibility of the entire paper. This completely justified perception of the Times, I believe, is the misshapen source of these misguided calls to censor Cotton’s opinion.

  10. mespo727272 has once again demonstrated the position of the Empty Skullites.

    Except for the BB shot ratteling around to make noise.

    🎰

      1. He’s 77, and collecting Social Security and TIAA-CREF annuities in his dotage.

        I knew a philosopher who, after 42 years of teaching, began behaving peculiarly. This went on for nearly five years. I spoke to a student who was in just about the last class he ever taught. All but five students dropped the course. His description, “All he did was talk about his woodpile. Then he gave us all D’s”. His retirement was announced some months later. The word on the street was that the provost had told him he could retire or they would invoke a clause in the faculty handbook regarding professors unable to perform the duties of their office and fire him. The Alzheimer’s diagnosis was made a few weeks after the end of the semester. He lived another three years. Not long after, people in the office had seen him making photocopies of the contents of his wallet. He explained that he’d been losing things lately. I had a pleasant phone conversation with him just before he died. He was still able to function at some level. He was 77 at the time he died.

  11. Tom Cotton should resign. He clearly has no respect for our Constitution or our people. As to not publishing his screed, I think it’s good that we see how really antiAmerican these individuals all.

    1. The last word in the sentence should be “are”. It’s better to know what these individuals are thinking.

  12. It’s another minor indication of how rancid the left is, and how it is escalatingly impossible to live with them. What’s to do?

    1. “Wants to do?”
      ****************
      Well a civil war cost us 750,000 lives but did settle things. That seems excessive to me though. How’s about we have a plebiscite on which way we’re going? They’d never take that route given the Left’s perpetual minority status. So I guess we’re back to option 1. I like being on the side with the military and all the guns and ammo. Knowing which bathroom to use is a decided plus, too.

      1. “given the Left’s perpetual minority status”

        Hmmm. The Democratic candidate won the popular vote in 6 of the last 7 presidential elections. (Yes, I’m aware of the role of the EC, and I also know that the EC vote doesn’t determine who is in the “minority” in the electorate). But maybe you’re using some other unspecified measure.

        1. Commit:
          About half the electorate votes and about 2/3 are registered. Current polling of all Americans shows the sentiment is decidely pro-America and not pro-socialist. Throw out the soy boys and the drug-addled crowd in the left and you have a fighting force that couldn’t storm a well-attended lemonade stand defended by a few grade school kids.

          2. You’ve posted the name of the law firm where you work. Do your clients and potential clients know what you say on comment boards?

            Most people on the left — like most Americans throughout the political spectrum — are pro-America. I’m one of them. When you cannot discuss it honestly, you’ve lost the argument, and your repetitious ad hom only further undermines your responses.

      2. mespo727272, I wish it were true that the Civil War settled things. The left and protestors seem to imply that the war never happened and slavery is still everywhere (or some variation of slavery). The head of BET wants $14 trillion in reparations. My great grandfather served in the Union Army and came home partially disabled, yet this didn’t hold back him or future generations back from being productive and successful members of society. That said, if the government is going to give reparations to all AA, will descendants of Union soldiers get reparations beyond the tiny monthly pension they were given for disabilities and for their widows?

    1. Paul:
      I’m not sure why the woke NYT say their black writers are at risk. Are they anarchists in the streets? Maybe it’s because they think being a patronizing white cracker makes them virtuous when they say that? Or maybe because the fall back position when you’re dead wrong in an argument is “you’re a racist!”

      1. Because journalists are being targeted and attacked….in the UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!

        1. JH:
          It’s a trick question ‘cause there can’t be. There are no journalists left in America. They just activists with microphones and hairspray.

            1. I would say rather, that the true journalists are the citizen journalists. They are very active now and pretty much the only hope. The corporate mass media is defunct. Withering on the vine, reduced to the status of a vehicle for advertising, agitation, and little more. It has little or no social purpose.

              But the legacy media and their new bulldog Twitter wants to bully and shut down the budding movement of citizen journalism

              Here’s a tip of law to the budding citizen journalists.

              You do not have to go to college to be a journalist

              You do not need to work for a newspaper.

              You do not need to belong to their pet unions.,

              You do not need fancy words.

              You do not need paying advertisers supporting you.

              You do need to be able to see, record, and report facts

              and be guided by truth

              if you can do that much alone, then you will be better than 90% of those who are in the corporate “media” rackets.

              PS the First amendment explicitly PREVENTS government from “licensing” journalists.

              If they want to see your credentials? You identify yourself and your purpose.

              That is all that is legally required for “credentials”

              Police and newspapers know this alike, but they both pretend otherwise.

              What i just said is the true law. You can look it up. Don’t take an ex newspaperboy like Seth’s word for it, and don’t take the cop’s word for it when he wants you to go home.

              You are a journalist if you say you are and you report facts truly. That is all it really is.

              1. Actually, no. Everything you cited would make you an editorialist, not a journalist.

                1. actually no Maybe if I feel like it later I will pull the citations. but you could always look it up yourself since Im not your research clerk

                  oh wait, i forgot, i have to teach you guys for free every day now.

                  the salient point i am making is that journalists are not licensed.
                  big newspapers and their unions CANT presume to license journalits any more that states or federal can.

                  this is basic 1st amendment law. I[‘ll get you started on the authority, from wiki:

                  “Freedom of the press from governmental interference under the First Amendment does not sanction repression of that freedom by private interests (326 U.S. 20[clarification needed]). Justice Hugo Black wrote, “The First Amendment … rests on the assumption that the widest possible dissemination of information from diverse and antagonistic sources is essential to the welfare of the public … Freedom to publish is guaranteed by the Constitution, but freedom to combine to keep others from publishing is not”.[8] — Asssociated Press V United States (1945)

                  1. See I am stupid but Turley is smart

                    Turley got a job teaching kids law

                    I just take time off my paid work and show up and do it for free

                    But then again no law school would hire me for a tenured position anyways, so who cares, i’ll just cast these pearls out there as a public service.

        2. Justice Holmes – and by both sides. Nobody loves them. 🙂

          1. Paul:
            Rats and snakes are hard to warm up to. Unlike puppies. It’s a biological thing I suppose. Or maybe Biblical.

        3. So are police officers. Was there a point to trying to make? Because, from what I’ve read lately, there are a number of dead cops in America in the last week, but no dead journalists.

  14. The Leftist Press are such patent hypocrites. It’s why they getting nonread so often and laid off to boot. Let the Marxist corporate press die, it’s gone to seed.

  15. I want to write an op-ed entitled “The World is Flat”. Will TNYT publish it?

    After all, it’s the position of the Flat Earth Society. 🙂

  16. We need to distinguish between a free press and an agenda driven arm of one political ideology. Calling MSNBC a news organization is hypocritical at best and a lie in actuality.

  17. Let’s be clear – the “call for censorship” is almost entirely by Democrats/liberals and has been for the last 30 years. Originally, Democrats and the Press created censorship by constantly using ad hominem language to talk about every issue. Racist, homophobic, xenophobic, sexist was the start of every argument and they rarely presented cogent thoughts in follow-up. Since they weren’t aggressively challenged and since conservatives avoided using the same tactic, they became emboldened and have started actually calling for suppression of speech and begging their counterparts in the media to make it happen. Most had already obliged. This is all just the process used by the authoritarians and agitators like Alinsky. Orwell said it so well.

    PS – Liberty2nd is clearly a logical fallacy troll.Must not be able to piece together a cogent argument so he starts singing ad hominem. Really strange and I doubt he’s an American.

    1. A free and unfettered press has always been the enemy of tyranny. 2+2=4, always.

    2. I have never seen any evidence that Saul Alinsky ever supported censorship. Bringing his name into this discussion is a non sequitur.

  18. Newspapers always censor what they publish. The criteria they use to do so is far more opaque than transparent, but they own the paper, so they have the right to do so. Often, there are more than two sides to an issue. The constant refrain that “both sides” should be heard leaves out other views. I prefer hearing them all.

  19. The US has become a giant petri dish as protestors have marched shoulder to shoulder during a pandemic. In the coming weeks troops and for that matter police may become irrelevant.

  20. Southerners have usually objected to the use of federal troops. “Damn Yankees!” They would say. Now we have a Cotton picker agreeing and a. DC lawyer named Turley, disagreeing. Where did Turley go to high school?
    “Oh! Way down South in the land of Cotton. Old times there are not forgotten! Look away! Look away! Look away, Dixie Land.”

Comments are closed.