(NYT | Twitter / @mannyfidel, @ContentedIndie)

The New York Times editorial board published an opinion piece this morning about the First Amendment that stated, “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.” As it turned out, the internet had a whole lot to say about the op-ed throughout the day as memes, heated debates and hot takes caused the article, titled "America Has a Free Speech Problem," to trend on platforms like Twitter.

The piece largely consisted of picking apart a poll that The New York Times commissioned in which “84 percent of adults said it is a ‘very serious’ or ‘somewhat serious’ problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations.” The editorial board attributed public unease about the First Amendment to highly publicized controversies such as cancel culture on the left and Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill on the right.

The editorial board stressed that while, legally, the First Amendment only guarantees Americans the right to not have their speech restricted by the government, the “popular conception” of the First Amendment refers to a broader set of unwritten cultural norms that allow people to speak “affirmatively” about whatever they wish to speak about. Many on Twitter did not seem to register this distinction or found the argument it made disingenuous based on the flurry of replies to it.

The internet and social media are at the center of a conversation about how the American public sphere operates. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram hold a kind of power to direct conversations and limit the spectrum of opinions that previously did not exist (or was held by papers of record like The NY Times). What the editorial board specifically pointed out was a problem of tone and a mood of “censoriousness” that has had economic consequences for some whose speech has not been received warmly — essentially talking about cancel culture.

Many users online pointed out that the First Amendment, however, also protects the right to shame and shun, arguing that the capacity to express dissatisfaction with somebody else’s speech is just as essential as the freedom to speak in the first place.

A number of people also jokingly speculated about what rights the First Amendment might or might not protect, mocking The New York Times editorial board’s interpretation.

The debate about cancel culture and freedom of speech has been going on long enough that battle lines drawn years ago have turned into trenches for many. The NYT editorial page has often been a key sparring ground for the two sides, purportedly driving much engagement and traffic in turn. Whether this newest intervention (the editorial board indicated this article was the first of an upcoming series) will substantially change the conversation remains unclear.


Share Pin


Comments 6 total

:̶.̶|̶:̶;̶

I think the reality is that liberalism in the classical sense is on life support in the West, and while we have long had the tradition of having people in the public sphere pretend to be liberal and argue for and against things through a liberal lens they have long since lost any genuine belief in liberal values like freedom of speech and since 2008 or so, have gradually stopped pretending to care about them.

NYT is just the one paper that kinda has to pretend to care about liberal values. Not out of principle, but because it's their entire brand.

3

Blue2

Funny thing, people who cry for Freedom of Speech would also wouldn't hesitate to censor what they deemed "unacceptable" even though the laws allows it.

Gone the days of "I don't support what you said, but I support your right to say it"

3

HopHopHasan

They just want to censor their enemies. People don't even try to hide their hypocrisy because they know the hive mind will protect them anyways.

0

PatrickBateman96

The real problem is the Espionage act, which every president from Wilson onward hasn't repealed. So yeah fuck you everyone who was president from 1917-now.

0

Timey16

The problem goes to how the 1st Amendment is drafted. In it there is no difference made between private speech and corporate speech. Then in the same sentence it bans congress from EVER changing free speech.

Companies being able to ban people for their opinions is companies exercising their own free speech (after all compelled speech is just as illegal as censorship by the state, so by forcing a company to host an opinion you are in a way compelling them to "sharing" it in a way)

See the problem here? Not only are companies allowed to do it the 1st Amendment is defined in a way that it can never ever be fixed.

And no the Supreme Court Judge's opinion to treat social media as "public squares" went nowhere after over a decade of that opinion being made… because the 1st Amendment is so strongly protected a "metaphorical public square" just ain't good enough. The public square laws were for company towns meaning companies actually took upon the role of the government itself providing services and housing… thus they were held to the legal standards of a government.

6

:̶.̶|̶:̶;̶

What the government could do is repeal section 230.

They won't – because 1) it would cripple Silicon Valley's ability to compete with the likes of WeChat or TikTok 2) because Silicon Valley has pumped billions of dollars of lobbying and 3) because in exchange for the ability to keep civil immunity under 230, Silicon Valley gives the US government a) the ability to launder it's own messages on the international sphere as the ideas of private citizens and b) a mass surveillance apparatus they can tap into outside of the jurisdiction of the 4th amendment.

2
pinterest