NY Times straight-up attacks free speech: ‘The First Amendment is out of control’

A Supreme Court ruling had the New York Times saying “the quiet part out loud” with an attack targeting “*your* freedom of speech.”

Leftist bureaucracy has readily been summed up as rules for thee but not for me, and Tuesday The Gray Lady grew a shade more drab with an op-ed bemoaning the pinnacle of the Bill of Rights. Penned by Columbia University law professor Tim Wu, who previously served as a special assistant to President Joe Biden on the National Economic Council, the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision to remand the two NetChoice cases gave cause for the headline, “The First Amendment Is Out of Control.”

“The judiciary needs to realize that the First Amendment is spinning out of control,” argued Wu after suggesting, “Monday’s Supreme Court decision in the two NetChoice cases greatly adds to the problem,” that the First Amendment now supposedly “mostly protects corporate interests.”

“While the Supreme Court remanded both cases to lower courts for further factual development, the court nonetheless went out of its way to state that the millions of algorithmic decisions made every day by social media platforms are protected by the First Amendment,” he wrote. “It did so blithely assuming that those algorithmic decisions are equivalent to the expressive decisions made by human editors at newspapers.”

In response to the op-ed, self-described “free speech absolutist” Elon Musk took to his own social media platform X and surmised, “The New York Times is attacking *your* freedom of speech!”

Tacking on to the tech entrepreneur’s assertion that the newspaper wanted to be treated differently than the rest of society, Utah Sen. Mike Lee (R) added, “Surely The New York Times doesn’t want the First Amendment repealed or narrowed–unless it’s granted special privileges others don’t have. I suspect that’s the point.”

In their decision Monday that was overshadowed by the 6-3 ruling on former President Donald Trump’s immunity, the Supreme Court sent the challenges to a Florida and Texas law back to the lower courts and wrote, “Today, we vacate both decisions for reasons separate from the First Amendment merits, because neither Court of Appeals properly considered the facial nature of  NetChoice’s challenge. The courts mainly addressed what the parties had focused on. And the parties mainly argued these cases as if the laws applied only to the curated feeds offered by the largest and most paradigmatic social media platforms–as if, say, each case presented an as-applied challenge brought by Facebook protesting its loss of control over the content of its News Feed.”

Wu attempted to justify leftist desires to be the arbiters of free speech with a reference to the monarchical rule of all things as he added, “By presuming that free speech protections apply to a tech company’s ‘curation’ of content, even when that curation involves no human judgment, the Supreme Court weakens the ability of the government to regulate so-called common carriers like railroads and airlines — a traditional state function since medieval times.”

“What is wrong with these people?” asked Stanford School of Medicine professor Dr. Jay Bhattacharya. “The American people should never permit anyone who thinks that way anywhere near the levers of power. They are a danger to basic human rights of [us] all.”

His reaction came in response to Committee to Unleash Prosperity President Phil Kerpen who wrote, “Former Biden White House antitrust guru Tim Wu, who coined the term ‘net neutrality,’ take to the New York Times with an all time ‘say the quiet part [out] loud’ headline.”

Kevin Haggerty

Comment

We have no tolerance for comments containing violence, racism, profanity, vulgarity, doxing, or discourteous behavior. If a comment is spam, instead of replying to it please click the ∨ icon below and to the right of that comment. Thank you for partnering with us to maintain fruitful conversation.

Latest Articles