I defend freedom of speech for a living. I respect many signatories of this letter, but I think it's misguided in several important ways. /1 https://twitter.com/Harpers/status/1280721522454171649

The First Amendment prohibits government from suffocating civil society by punishing speech because of its content or viewpoint. Without robust freedom of speech from governmental censorship, protest, dissent & social movements cannot long survive. /2

But within civil society, individuals and organizations are free to define their own terms of debate. That’s not censorship. It’s society in action. Nothing in the First Amendment does or should ensure that outrageous speech will not result in social opprobrium. /3

A civil society actor need not “tolerate” a viewpoint it abhors by providing a platform for it. One who espouses that viewpoint is free to seek another platform or build their own, but they have no right to compel another to host it. /4

The letter is long on rhetoric and short on citations, but to the extent I can identify an example from its parade of horribles, James Bennett is the “editor fired for running controversial pieces” such as the Tom Cotton op-ed. There are two problems with that frame. /5

First, James Bennet wasn’t fired because Cotton’s piece was “controversial.” He was fired because he defaulted on basic journalistic standards by failing to read the piece or ensure rigorous fact checking and quality control. /6

Second, it is within the purview of the New York Times to decide a major newspaper should not provide a platform for the henchman of a proto-authoritarian racist demagogue to incite the gunning down of protesters, and that any editor who disagrees may find other employment. /7

Cotton can still publish elsewhere. Bennet can still edit or write elsewhere. Neither is silenced. But none of us is obligated to amplify or pay them. /8

When a white supremacist sits in the White House cheering on white supremacists & attacking the constitutional foundation of our republic, it is naïve to believe “exposure, argument, and persuasion” by themselves will win the day. /9

Much as one might wish it were different, we do not live in a debating society. We live in a country permeated by systemic racism & threatened by proto-fascist demagogues & white supremacists. /10

A major newspaper or other cultural institution cannot pretend to neutrality. It must choose whether it will use its power to defend the constitutional foundation of our republic or amplify those who would destroy it. /11

I don’t want the government to have censorship powers, because that power would inevitably stifle protest & dissent. But the right to freedom of speech exercised by Tom Cotton gives me or the New York Times the power to refuse to amplify his message. /end.