There’s much to appreciate in an editorial that’s proven highly controversial on an issue that shouldn’t be controversial at all. That free speech has become a hot, and sore, topic proves the necessity for such an editorial. That it’s been reviled as an attack on the left, by the left, for its “bothsides-ism”* demonstrates its necessity.
So why then did the New York Times editorial board, no slouches they, open an editorial they knew would be so deeply controversial, and taken by those with whom they feel the strongest camaraderie, with these words? Continue reading
