Prohibited? They shouldn't be, any more than they should be prohibited from replacing their logo to a swastika. We have freedom of speech, and that's important.

Prohibited? They shouldn't be, any more than they should be prohibited from replacing their logo to a swastika. We have freedom of speech, and that's important. If the government tried to go after NYT for a swastika logo, I'd be 100% on the side of the NYT; free speech should be legal even if I disagree with it. On the other hand, I'd never visit NYT again, and I think most of the population would do likewise. This isn't as extreme, but events like this should cause the general public to adjust their views of NYT. This shouldn't be a cancel-culture style slander, but simply starting to treat NYT as a random tabloid which makes stuff up for clicks. NYT ran a hit piece on Larry Lessig too.