Given that a hatred of free speech is a hallmark of actual fascism, perhaps the kids at Antifa, if they finally wanted to get their targeting right, could pay a visit to the newsroom of The New York Times.

There they will find many willing adherents to the proposition that only one side on any subject —their side— has a right to free speech.

Close

The reporters are up in arms after the Times published an op-ed by Senator Tom Cotton (R-AR) that called on the federal government to use federal troops to quell the violent riots over George Floyd’s death. Kudos to the Times itself for publishing the piece.

“NYT reporters in a rare open revolt over the opinion side running Tom Cotton’s op-ed calling to deploy the military to ‘restore order,'” tweeted Politico‘s Alex Thompson. He referenced posts from Times writers Taylor Lorenz, Caity Weaver, Sheera Frankel, and Jacey Fortin.

Here’s a Times reporter and anti-free expression crybaby venting her neuroses on Twitter.

She went on to a very strange hypocrisy that she likely did not notice: “As a NYT writer I absolutely stand in opposition to that Tom Cotton ‘editorial’…

Who do you think would win the Presidency?

By completing the poll, you agree to receive emails from LifeZette, occasional offers from our partners and that you've read and agree to our privacy policy and legal statement.

We are well served by robust and ideologically diverse public discourse that includes radical, liberal, and conservative voices.” Compare the two sentences. Yeah.

Sewell Chan, a former Times man, also tweeted: “As a former @nytimes Op-Ed editor I am reluctant to weigh in on my alma mater. But the decision to publish @SenTomCotton calling for troop deployments to quell unrest falls short of sound journalistic practice.”

It probably falls short for Mr. Chen because he feels any views opposing his own fall short and thus should not be published.

These were the allegedly offending words of Senator Cotton: “These rioters, if not subdued, not only will destroy the livelihoods of law-abiding citizens but will also take more innocent lives. Many poor communities that still bear scars from past upheavals will be set back still further. One thing above all else will restore order to our streets: an overwhelming show of force to disperse, detain and ultimately deter lawbreakers.”

Cotton continued to make a solid case, offering, “This venerable law [the Insurrection Act of 1807 that allows the federal government to put down unrest. George Bush the Elder used it in L.A. during the Rodney King riots. And these riots are much worse than that op-ed], 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.”

He went on, “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.”

One guy, clearly addled beyond belief, blamed the nefarious Times for conspiring with Cotton to plot “domestic massacres.”

Fox News media analyst Howard Kurtz got it right: “This is so revealing about the culture of the New York Times because the paper did the right thing… The idea of an op-ed page is to foster some kind of debate.” Apparently not, according to reporters at the Times. They’re much happier with a left-wing echo chamber.