The Patriot Post® · NY Times Finally Admits Cancel Culture Is Real

In a recent article, the New York Times editorial board finally admits that “America Has a Free Speech Problem.” Furthermore, the Times ties this problem to the “cancel culture” phenomenon.

The Times writes, “For all the tolerance and enlightenment that modern society claims, Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.” And in the very next paragraph: “This social silencing, this depluralizing of America, has been evident for years, but dealing with it stirs yet more fear. It feels like a third rail, dangerous. For a strong nation and open society, that is dangerous.” The editorial later identifies this as cancel culture.

So, fresh off its stunning admission that Hunter Biden’s laptop was a real scandal in 2020, has the Times for the second time in a week seen the light? Well, not entirely. As the long article continues, it becomes evident that the editorial board lays most of the blame for cancel culture at the feet of its most frequent victims (conservatives) and not those most responsible for creating the current cultural intolerance (radical leftists).

While the Times acknowledges that recent polling demonstrates a majority of Americans see cancel culture as a real problem, the article spins the censoring of speech more onto conservatives. For example, the article points to the recently passed parental rights law in Florida as an instance of conservative encroachment on free speech, describing it as “Florida’s ‘Don’t Say Gay’ bill, which would restrict what teachers and students can talk about and allows for parents to file lawsuits.”

That is a disingenuous and false reading of the law. Furthermore, the Times acts as if government-run schools have no rules guiding what curriculum students are taught. Does the Times feel the same way about teachers advocating their religious beliefs in class?

What may have been the reason leading to the Times’s printing of this article was the recent anti-free speech protest at Yale Law School. When two speakers on either side of the political divide were coming together in defense of free speech, a bunch of activist students decided it was something they couldn’t bear to have take place. The protesters got so rowdy and threatening that, as The Wall Street Journal reports, “The speakers were escorted from the event by police for their safety. It’s not too much to say that the students were a political mob.”

The scene was so bad that it prompted DC Circuit Court of Appeals Senior Judge Laurence Silberman to pen a letter to his colleagues on the bench in which he advised a bit of discernment concerning students’ future jobs. “The latest events at Yale Law School in which students attempted to shout down speakers participating in a panel discussion on free speech prompts me to suggest that students who are identified as those willing to disrupt any such panel discussion should be noted,” he said. “All federal judges — and all federal judges are presumably committed to free speech — should carefully consider whether any student so identified should be disqualified for potential clerkships.”

The Left doesn’t like free speech because it allows people to express ideas that diverge from its loudly expressed new cultural orthodoxy. It desires a monopoly on thought because it desires to control how people think about a litany of topics from gender identity to climate change. To support free speech by definition means to be in favor of tolerating the expressions of at times odious and bad ideas, as well as even “misinformation” — you know, leftist ideology. Free speech requires hard work, thoughtful engagement, and seeking and elevating the truth over feelings or ideology, believing that the truth is powerful enough that it will eventually win out over contrary voices and wrong ideas. Objection to free speech is the siren song of the lazy and often dimwitted culture warrior who just wants everyone to be forced to agree with him.