New York Times Declares That Conservatives Take Unfair Advantage Of The First Amendment
Conservative groups, borrowing and building on arguments developed by liberals, have used the First Amendment to justify unlimited campaign spending, discrimination against gay couples and attacks on regulation https://t.co/3QBUPJC5vc pic.twitter.com/lPDGwxFSKG— NYT Politics (@nytpolitics) June 30, 2018
As I posted a little earlier in the week, this past week was when the Supreme Court stepped in an saved free speech from progressives. There has been an unsettling push on the left–by advocacy groups, law professors, and by federal judges participating in the “long march through the institutions”–to make free speech a collective right that is the sole property of the government and of certain privileged demographic groups and to suppress the idea that free speech, even unpleasant and hurty-pants speech, belongs to individuals. To be fair, a lot of alleged conservatives have bought into the idea that free speech encompasses only speech that gets you invited to the right cocktail parties and they are only a hop-skip-and-jump away from embracing the idea that speech belongs to groups.
This trend of conservatives winning Supreme Court cases on First Amendment grounds has caught the attention, and ire, or the New York Times. Behold: How Conservatives Weaponized the First Amendment.
The title comes from Justice Kagan’s dissent in the Janus case:
There is no sugarcoating today’s opinion. The majority overthrows a decision entrenched in this Nation’s law—and in its economic life—for over 40 years. As a result, it prevents the American people, acting through their state and local officials, from making important choices about workplace governance. And it does so by weaponizing the First Amendment, in a way that unleashes judges, now and in the future, to intervene in economic and regulatory policy.
The article is fairly dishonest and/or juvenile in its analysis. It insists, for instance, in calling free speech cases brought by conservatives as “conservative speech” cases when, in fact, the principles in Janus and in NIFLA apply equally to progressive causes. These cases were only brought because conservative speech was being restricted by progressive forces once they’d gained near absolute power in various locations. The most interesting thing is the way it catalogs the left’s blatant hostility to any speech that does not conform to leftist ideology.