WhatFinger

Free Speech, First Amendment

NYT graciously admits the 1st Amendment applies to Conservatives – ‘part of the bargain’

By Robert Laurie ——--August 1, 2018

American Politics, News | CFP Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us

NYT graciously admits the 1st Amendment applies to Conservatives--'part of the bargain' “Have conservatives hijacked the First Amendment?” That’s the question posed by your political betters at The New York Times. No, really. They’re actually asking that. “To be sure,” they lament, “conservatives and corporations are invoking the First Amendment, and sometimes winning.”

ACLU (and the Times) has decided that free speech is important

According a new op-ed, folks on the left are “increasingly” making the claim that Republicans have “weaponized” the First Amendment. It seems the scary words are just too much for some to bear. Spoken or written ideas are simply too potent, too effective, to be considered anything other than military-style assault words. Fortunately, the New York Times is bigger than that. They’ve just run an editorial written by David Cole. He’s the national legal director of the American Civil Liberties Union. You may know them as the organization that occasionally cares about a subset of constitutional issues they agree with. Despite the allegedly-serious argument that “the First Amendment’s very neutrality is problematic, because in an unequal society, the amendment will favor the haves over the have-nots,” the ACLU (and the Times) has decided that free speech is important.
Oh, dear New York Times, thank you so very, very, much for enlightening us.
“Have conservatives hijacked the First Amendment? Critics are increasingly making this claim, maintaining that under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the First Amendment, once an important safeguard for progressive speech, has become a boon to corporations, conservatives and the powerful. But in most instances, the First Amendment doesn’t favor speech of the right or the left; it simply takes the government out of the business of controlling speakers by virtue of what they say. It often empowers the powerless. And most important, it helps check official abuse. To be sure, conservatives and corporations are invoking the First Amendment, and sometimes winning. In Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, the Roberts court deployed the First Amendment to guarantee that corporations can engage in unlimited campaign spending. A recent study found that the Roberts court has more often protected conservative than liberal speakers.”
I literally have trouble believing this was published in a major American newspaper. I understand that the left is furious over recent losses. I get that they despise the fact that the constitution is designed to limit government power. I’m aware that they view it as a nuisance. However, I was raised in a time when the left-wing mantra was: “protect the speech you hate to guarantee the speech you love.” What happened to them? Where did that thinking go?

Support Canada Free Press

Donate
The very fact that the New York Times felt this was worth printing suggests that the left has drifted closer to the fascist black hole than most of us (who are already deeply jaded) have suspected. Think about it. This means that the left is so enamored with the idea of eliminating free speech that the New York Times – itself a leftist-statist standard bearer – felt it necessary to admonish them. As they put it:
…these developments should not lead liberals or progressives to lose faith in the First Amendment. For starters, the amendment’s core requirement is that the government must remain neutral regarding the content and viewpoint of speech. As a result, a decision protecting conservative speech will equally support liberal speech.
Well… “duh.” I honestly don’t know how else to respond. An NYT editorial has deftly pointed out that the U.S. Constitution applies to every U.S. citizen. Shocker.
The fact that conservatives benefit from the First Amendment is not something to bemoan. It is part of the constitutional bargain. It simply means the First Amendment is operating as it should, neutrally preserving the lifeblood of democracy.
Yes, Mr. Cole. We agree. Conservatives have always agreed with this. Maybe you should spend a little more time focusing on the left – because that’s the source of calls to eliminate free speech. We’re glad you’ve finally noticed …and we’re deeply concerned that you had to.
Subscribe

View Comments
Robert Laurie——

Robert Laurie’s column is distributed by HermanCain.com, which can be found at HermanCain.com

Be sure to “like” Robert Laurie over on Facebook and follow him on Twitter. You’ll be glad you did.

VIEW Comments

Sponsored