> Abstract appeals to “free speech” and “liberal values” obscure the fact that what’s being debated is not anyone’s right to speech, but rather their right to a

> Abstract appeals to “free speech” and “liberal values” obscure the fact that what’s being debated is not anyone’s right to speech, but rather their right to air that speech in specific platforms like the New York Times without fear of social backlash. Well, yeah, isn't that concerning? How can a paper of record seriously discuss & analyze controversial issues of the day if journalists are afraid to even air controversial speech? Is it not their journalistic duty to inform readers of other prominent views so they can make decisions in a democracy? Doesn't that duty lie at the heart of liberal values, isn't that why we value the abstract concept of free speech in the first place? The entire point of the Opinion section is to bring in relevant outside views into the public eye, yet the NYT editorial page editor was pushed out for allowing a sitting Congressman to say what he thinks [1]. How can the NYT credibly claim to inform its readers on what's going on in the world when they won't even publish the views of an elected representative? I don't care what you think of gender critical theory or Tom Cotton or neo-Nazi views, they are increasingly relevant in American discourse and journalists should not be hiding them from the public. If you're a journalist, use your Pulitzer-prize-winning words to contextualize it, to argue against it, to expose us to your perspective. It is cowardly to passive aggressively cut professional ties with colleagues you disagree with in order to effectively silence them. [1] https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-bennet-resigns-cotton-op-ed-306317 https://www.politico.com/news/2020/06/07/nyt-opinion-bennet-...