I'm a little late for the party but here's a good one from the Federalist: "The New York Times Beclowns Itself With Fake News About Free Speech - In an opinion article posing as a news story, The New York Times launches an illiberal and wrongheaded attack on free speech. At least we know where they stand."
It's amazing that a newspaper - of all forums - should call for the abridgment of the First Amendment but the NY Times just can't help itself. That bubble is impenetrable.
Extra - Legal Insurrection: "Who's afraid of the 1st Amendment?"
7 comments:
The word "beclown" packed some rhetorical punch at one time. That time was somewhere around 2005.
The word "beclown" packed some rhetorical punch at one time. That time was somewhere around 2005.
"I can't come up with a single thing I'd dare say that supports the substance of the NY Times article, but this post's attack on the suppression of free speech must be countered! I know - I'll simply imply that it's outdated and irrelevant."
Wow, you're dumb. But since my biggest fanboy demands it...
The Times article is equitable and objective about the uncomfortable or unexpected repercussions of free speech defense, both absolute and conditional, for each political faction, both today and historically. The article discusses liberals' "naïveté" and "distress" and conservatives' "nervousness" about certain rulings, and exposes the shifts among many on both sides. It quotes a liberal scholar who is pleased with the "common sense" developments in First Amendment law that have gone the conservatives' way. It quotes a conservative lawyer commending the right's philosophical trek to liberal territory.
Only someone with an axe to grind (hello there, Federalist writer!) would find only "bizarre" and "absurd" "fake news" in this "word salad of nonsense." Only someone flogging a pre-calcified agenda could read the Times piece, say "nuh-UH" several times, and after what he and his editor may have thought was a rebuttal, conclude with an imaginary psychodrama in which the brave Federalist hero mans the ramparts to the point of death against the New York Times' nonexistent desire to silence him.
The Federalist writer declares the Times offered nothing "remotely resembling facts or serious empirical evidence," while relying on an anecdotal, wholly irrelevant smoke break to buttress his own view. He simultaneously insists that "conservative speech really is under attack" because of course it is (facts and empirical evidence to follow).
The Federalist writer snorts at the Times' high-faluting "gaggle of experts" while citing just one supporter of his correct views: the art critic at the New Yorker. Who said nothing about free speech, but was trending conservative in his personal life. But how can a series of overt First Amendment quotes from multiple SCOTUS justices of both political perusasions, from Cato Institute and ACLU lawyers, and from law professors and deans ever hope to carry the same weight as an off-topic chat with an art critic, described as "what I believe he meant"?
The Federalist writer is repulsed by the "headline purporting to be news, on page 1A above the fold, offer[ing] the absurd opinion that conservatives have 'weaponized free speech.'" Too bad he didn't read deeply into the Times article, all the way down to its fourth sentence, to learn that that quote is taken directly from a Justice Elena Kagan dissent.
Which may also explain why the Federalist writer thinks the Times presents nothing "remotely resembling fact." The Times link to a 17-page study of sixty years of Supreme Court freedom of expression cases and its methodology doesn't arrive until the article's 16th sentence.
The Federalist article is an example of the paucity of thought that very often accompanies empty attack words like the used-up "beclown." But the article isn't outdated or irrelevant, as you falsely claim I "implied." It's just junk. It misrepresents what the Times article says, and then the Federalist writer says exactly what he would've said anyway on any occasion, even without an article to "refute."
As usual, the beclowner is the beclowned. And the fact that such vacuous, kneejerk hackwork was passed along here as "a good one" doesn't reflect well on this blog's filter.
Happy now?
There now. Bravo for an effort that was at least more substantive than offhandedly implying the article was outdated and irrelevant.
The Times article is equitable and objective about the uncomfortable or unexpected repercussions of free speech defense, both absolute and conditional, for each political faction, both today and historically.
I challenge any human being to read that first sentence and not fall asleep.
Only someone with an axe to grind... You mean, like an opinion writer?
...the absurd opinion that conservatives have 'weaponized free speech.'" Too bad he didn't read deeply into the Times article, all the way down to its fourth sentence, to learn that that quote is taken directly from a Justice Elena Kagan dissent.
I think I failed to read down to the next sentence in your comment - the one where you explained how that means the opinion isn't absurd.
A responsible journalistic organization would never have hired this little scamp (Ali Watkins), but at the (New York) Times, which is hell-bent on turning its formerly white male newsroom into a model of “diversity,” being female trumped all other considerations, and the newspaper is clearly grooming Watkins for bigger things. But now that the truth is out about how this particular reporter got her scoops (fucking her sources - ed.), a responsible journalistic organization would have fired her.
The Times, alas, is not that journalistic organization.
more substantive than offhandedly implying the article was outdated and irrelevant.
Simply repeating your false statement doesn't make it truer. This isn't Fox News. Stop beclow... er, being a putz.
So far, the retorts have been:
"Too long; didn't read"
"It's his opinion, man"
"SCOTUS justice or Gray Lady headline, same thing"
"What about that unrelated Times reporter who's a whore?"
Excellent rebuttals. You "two" should apply to the Federalist; you're clearly overqualified to write for them.
"What about that unrelated Times reporter who's a whore?"
Excellent rebuttals. You "two" should apply to the Federalist; you're clearly overqualified to write for them.
Guess I'll have to translate it for you - what is printed on the pages of the New York Times isn't believable or credible. Can you dig it?
Post a Comment