Column on The Times’ Phony Integrity

The Times’ Phony Integrity

Tibor R. Machan

In its October
6, 2010, editorial, “Lamentable Speech,” The New York Times stood up for
a hard line stance on the right to free speech. As the editors wrote,
“To the American Nazi Party, Hustler Magazine, and other odious figures
in Supreme Court history, add the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. and the members
of the Westboro Baptist Church in Topeka, Kan. Their antigay protests at
the funeral of a soldier slain in Iraq were deeply repugnant but
protected by the First Amendment. All of the sympathy in the case of
Snyder v. Phelps, which was argued on Wednesday at the Supreme Court,
goes to the family of Lance Cpl. Matthew Snyder, the fallen Marine. But
as the appeals court in the case observed, using words of Justice Felix
Frankfurter, ‘It is a fair summary of history to say that the safeguards
of liberty have often been forged in controversies involving not very
nice people’.”

OK, so far so good except, as one comment on the
editorial pointed out, where has The New York Times been when hate
speech laws were being passed? Why didn’t it defend the right of those
uttering hateful opinions about blacks? Well, one can only suppose that
those folks do not deserve the same protection that was provided to the
American Nazi Party or, in this case, the Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. and the
members of the Westboro Baptists Church. It would have been politically
incorrect or, to use the old fashioned term, impolitic to argue for
that.

Even more obvious is The Time’s very partial support of
constitutional integrity when one thinks where it stands on the takings
clause of the Fifth Amendment which suffered a major blow from the U. S.
Supreme Court back in July of 2005, in the case of Kelo v. City of New
London Connecticut, when it supported the confiscation of private
property for the purpose of bolstering the City’s tax based by approving
its taking of private property to be given to a private firm that was
to develop it and then pay big bucks to the city in taxes. (BTW, to
this day the property hasn’t been developed!) So while it is OK for the
court to insist on the full protection of the free speech rights of a
group of nasty bigots, it isn’t OK for it to insist on the full
protection of the equally vital constitutional principle private
property rights against the intrusiveness of city governments. Not a
sign of true integrity, me thinks; more a matter of the philosophy of “a
living constitution”!

So what is it with The Times and others
who appear to hold that the right of freedom of speech is vital–well,
except when hate speech is involved–but the right to private property,
which actually supports the former right (because, after all, unless
property rights are secure, freedom of speech or religion isn’t either),
can be dispensed with? I hazard to guess that the cherry picking of
rights is in the spirit of The Times’ pragmatic philosophy, one that
actually has no respect for basic principles in any sphere of reality.
To pragmatists everything is negotiable. And that doesn’t preclude
posturing as defenders of principle now and then, when some agenda one
is favoring may benefit from it.

What agenda might be served by
insisting on upholding the principle of the right to freedom of speech
in this case? Well, what pops to mind is that perhaps those soldiers
and their families who are being harangued by Rev. Fred Phelps Sr. and
the members of the Westboro Baptists Church aren’t fighting in a war
that The Times approves of. Another might be that The Times is not very
fond of the US Military in general. Yet another might be that freedom
of speech is only of special interest to The Times–after all, it mostly
operates under the protection of the First Amendment as it
editorializes and opines about innumerable subjects. (But to come out
and defend hate speech would be too much–The Times is too committed to
the special interests of certain groups at which such speech is often
aimed.)

No, I do not for a moment believe that The New York Times
has come to see the significance of principled adherence to the Bill of
Rights no matter how readily its editorial quotes Justice Felix
Frankfurter. Pragmatism does not forbid making use of principles when
it serves the special purpose to which a pragmatist is devoted, just as
Communists and Nazis have no trouble making use of the US Constitution
as they defend those principles that make it possible for them to attack
the very political system that’s founded on them.

One needs to
be careful not to be taken in by the phony parading of principles by
those who really, in the end, care not a whit for principles, for whom
integrity is deep down but a sign of naive fundamentalism–consider how
defending free market capitalism is ridiculed as “market fundamentalism”
by one of the favorite columnists of The Times even though most who
stand up for that system do so as a matter of their commitment to
principle!

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s