New York Times Editorial Board Sparks Furor Online With Op-Ed Shredding Cancel Culture

JOHANNES EISELE/AFP via Getty Images
The New York Times editorial board sparked a passionate conversation online Thursday after publishing an op-ed titled, “America Has a Free Speech Problem.”
In the editorial, the board dubbed cancel culture a “burden” and ripped into both the American left and right for infringing on free speech.
The board diagnosed the problem as: “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.”
“This editorial board plans to identify a wide range of threats to freedom of speech in the coming months, and to offer possible solutions,” they continued, previewing upcoming content from the paper.
The board went on to write, “This social silencing, this depluralizing of America, has been evident for years” and charged “for a strong nation and open society, that is dangerous.”
“The political left and the right are caught in a destructive loop of condemnation and recrimination around ‘cancel culture,’” the board continued before explaining how they believe we got to this point:
Many on the left refuse to acknowledge that cancel culture exists at all, believing that those who complain about it are offering cover for bigots to peddle hate speech. Many on the right, for all their braying about cancel culture, have embraced an even more extreme version of censoriousness as a bulwark against a rapidly changing society, with laws that would ban books, stifle teachers and discourage open discussion in classrooms.
“But the old lesson of ‘think before you speak’ has given way to the new lesson of ‘speak at your peril.’ You can’t consider yourself a supporter of free speech and be policing and punishing speech more than protecting it,” the board added.
The op-ed includes polling data commissioned by the Times to illustrate its argument that Americans are increasingly afraid to speak their minds.
The article takes direct aim at progressives, arguing they believe policing speech “has provided a necessary, and even welcome, check on those in power.”
“But when social norms around acceptable speech are constantly shifting, and when there is no clear definition of harm, these constraints on speech can turn into arbitrary rules with disproportionate consequences,” the board warns, in a stern rebuke of “cancel culture.”
The editorial quickly began trending on Twitter after it was published and many on the left angrily condemned it.
Rep. Ted Lieu (D-CA) responded, writing, “Dear @nytopinion: I served on active duty to defend the right of any person to say stupid, racist shit. That doesn’t mean I have to respect or coddle people who say stupid, racist shit. I have the right to shame and shun people who say stupid, racist shit. Get it New York Times?”
Dear @nytopinion: I served on active duty to defend the right of any person to say stupid, racist shit. That doesn’t mean I have to respect or coddle people who say stupid, racist shit. I have the right to shame and shun people who say stupid, racist shit. Get it New York Times? https://t.co/vPEyp9jmxD
— Ted Lieu (@tedlieu) March 18, 2022
Jeff Jarvis, a CUNY professor, condemned the editorial as “appalling” and “pure moral panic.” Jarvis kicked off a long Twitter thread, arguing, “The both-sidesism of The New York Times comes out in full force from its editorial board as it equates the left criticizing hate and the right burning books.”
This is appalling. The both-sidesism of The New York Times comes out in full force from its editorial board as it equates the left criticizing hate and the right burning books. Pure moral panic. A 🧵. 1/ https://t.co/0zQumjCIHh pic.twitter.com/XdqznFrBR3
— Jeff Jarvis (@jeffjarvis) March 18, 2022
Daily Beast columnist Wajahat Ali wrote in response, “Retweet if you want the New York Times to add more columnists who write about the rise of fascism instead of adding more who always complain about cancel culture.”
Retweet if you want the New York Times to add more columnists who write about the rise of fascism instead of adding more who always complain about cancel culture.
— Wajahat Ali (@WajahatAli) March 18, 2022
Below are some more reactions to the editorial:
There is no right to protection from being shamed or shunned. It’s in fact a public obligation to shame and shun dangerous or sociopathic opinions. https://t.co/FcfDineCBa
— Chris Espinosa (@cdespinosa) March 18, 2022
The First Amendment right to force other people to endure my terrible opinions https://t.co/xjQVwUHnuq
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 18, 2022
Our NYT journalism is being banned from being taught by name in state law. Let me repeat: Our New York Times journalism.
— Ida Bae Wells (@nhannahjones) March 18, 2022
1/ Folks responding to the NYT editorial by claiming that shaming and shunning pose ZERO implications for freedom of speech, that allowing people to shame and shun is simply part of free speech: I don’t think you really believe that as categorically as you’re claiming here.
— corey robin (@CoreyRobin) March 18, 2022
The fucking New York Times does it again. The EDITORIAL BOARD for Christ’s sake.
There is absolutely no such thing as a “fundamental right” to voice your opinions in public “without fear of being shamed or shunned.” This is lunacy. pic.twitter.com/hri9ASyzuB
— Sam Hoadley-Brill 🙏 RIP CHARLES MILLS 🐐 (@deonteleologist) March 18, 2022
If the New York Times doesn’t want people being shamed or shunned for bad opinions, they can help by no longer running columns by Dowd, Brooks and Stephens.
— Kevin M. Kruse (@KevinMKruse) March 18, 2022
Dear @nytimes editorial board: regarding your op-ed today, what is the source of this right? Is it God-given? If so what’s the scriptural source? Constitutional? Under what clause and recognized in what cases?
— StandWithUkraineHat (@Popehat) March 18, 2022
Comments
↓ Scroll down for comments ↓