NYT Discovers Free Speech for Nazis, Not Protestors
When the New York Times chronicles a "battle over an activist who protested Stephen Miller," they present a tale of competing free speech rights. Yet, they fail to contextualize Miller's own extensive history of weaponizing government apparatus to silence critics and target marginalized communities. (Perhaps it's an oversight, or perhaps the paper simply preferred not to remind readers that the
architect of child separations also sought to deport student journalists.) One might recall Miller, during his tenure, championed policies that saw journalists, particularly those critical of his immigration stances, denied entry or deported. The outrage over a protest near his home suddenly feels less about free speech and more about whose discomfort the establishment deems acceptable. Is free
speech now only valid if it doesn't disturb the architects of cruelty in their cul-de-sacs?