Very strange article in the Washington Post, about a town that declined to use pretextual zoning to violate the rights of a church with offensive practices, that doesn't even speak with anyone who argues that following the First Amendment is a good thing. washingtonpost.com/religion/2020/…
We get this quote from a Northwestern sociologist who says the First Amendment is racist, nothing from anyone about how it protects the rights of disfavored minorities. 
I understand that news outlets are hiring staff who disproportionately subscribe to a very specific, left-wing ideology that is heavily influenced by academia, but they should still understand that's not the whole audience they're writing for.
On a smaller note, I'm unclear what justification there is for offering anonymity to this source who only expresses an opinion. WaPo policy contemplates anonymity for *information* that is important to a story, not for opinions. washingtonpost.com/news/ask-the-p…
Really this is on the editor. You could easily cut these two paragraphs, you don't need to convince the person who said this banal thing to go on the record.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
