Elon Musk’s views on free speech remind me of a story from a few decades back. Holocaust deniers began targeting college newspapers, asking the editors to publish their articles. If the editors refused, the deniers argued, they would be complicit in suppressing free speech 1/x
The strategy worked. Some college newspapers published the articles, often accompanied by a statement that although they didn’t agree with the content, Holocaust deniers had a "constitutional right" to express their views. 2/x
The deniers deliberately selected college editors, of course, because they were easy targets: young, idealistic, inexperienced journalists brimming with dedication to free speech and doing the right thing, even if it’s unpopular. 3/x
But, of course, the editors failed to understand that while the 1st Amendment guarantees the right to express ideas without govt interference, it does not OBLIGE anyone to share those ideas in their own publishing platforms. Editors have a different job than ACLU lawyers. 4/x
Musk is as naïve as those young editors, he still doesn’t understand the difference. And, like many, he fails to appreciate the importance of gate keepers. That's what readers are paying for—quality, curated content. 5/x
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
What can journalism during the Red Scare teach us about journalism during the Trans Scare?
Quite a bit, I think. A thread 🧵
Reporters who covered Joseph McCarthy during his initial rise to power later regretted that they had taken a middle-of-the-road, both-sides approach. 1/
Those reporters worked for the wire services and provided the nation’s newspapers with 85% of the content about McCarthy.
Larger newspapers, who had their own columnists covering DC politics, knew exactly what McCarthy represented very early on. 2/
The NYT said McCarthy’s claims weren’t supported by the facts, and that he was engaging in “indiscriminate character assassination.” A headline in a Chicago paper read: "Has McCarthy Struck Red Gold? Commie Charges Stir Political Row”
3/
"They close churches but open liquor stores!" has become the default battle cry against public health measures on Fox News.
So, I can't begin to describe how infuriated I am that this bumper-sticker mentality found it's way onto the Supreme Court. 1/4
"It may be unsafe to go to church, but it is always fine to pick up another bottle of wine...Who knew public health would so perfectly align with secular convenience?" Gorsuch sarcastically writes in his concurrence with the majority opinion in Roman Catholic Diocese v Cuomo 2/4
But as Sotomayor points out in her dissent, "bike repair shops and liquor stores generally do not feature customers gathering inside to sing and speak together for an hour or more at a time."