Cotton had already tweeted his desire to send in military. The New York Times could have covered the fact of a Senator desiring fascist atrocity as extensively as they wanted to. Instead they let him make his case for fascist atrocity.
This is, and I gulp, tiresomely specious.
Literally nobody is saying the NYT should be legally prevented from publishing Tom Cotton's op-ed.
People are criticizing the decision as dangerous and harmful and wrong. Which is ALSO free speech.
Literally nobody is saying the NYT should be legally prevented from publishing Tom Cotton's op-ed.
People are criticizing the decision as dangerous and harmful and wrong. Which is ALSO free speech.
The idea that the only way to inform the public Cotton is an authoritarian racist is to give him space in the paper of record to make a positive case for using the military against peaceful protesters is a notion so baldly scurrilous it doesn't even rise to the level of contempt.
