#Babylon bee new york times update
#Babylon bee new york times free

It remains to be seen if the far Left and the current emphasis on deplatforming will evolve into a significant new way of limiting free speech – as of now I would say no, as it gets a ton of attention and makes people quite angry. To my mind this line is a bit arbitrary unless, again, it is somewhat driven by property rights, in which case the introduction of a physical product that one pays for and claims ownership of is categorically different. As soon as you are selling a physical product that someone can physically own and keep in their home, however, we see it as common sense that of course you are not allowed to make empirically false claims about it. You can say that chelation cures autism and Pizzagate was real and fluoride is a mind control agent of the government. If you are selling a more ethereal products such as a blog, book, or media personality, this is still, so far as I know, totally legal. For example, people have the right to spread all kinds of empirically false misinformation – until they are selling a physical product, in which case it’s illegal to make a false claim. On the other hand, I think limits on free speech are much more likely to come from this area as well. That someone has the right to speak as they choose when occupying their own land, for example, is about as sacred a principle as the right to own land itself. Slightly off topic, but on free speech in general – it seems to me that our intuitions about free speech in the US are at least partially tied to our intuitions about property rights. Only when speech is carefully policed, with your betters determining what can be said and what cannot be said, can speech truly be “free.”Īnyone disagreeing with this op-ed is welcome to submit complaints directly to the office of Kim Jong Un and also report to the nearest labor camp. What I’m arguing for is silencing those whose speech your majestic rulers-namely, me-find to be potentially seditious. Look, I am not calling for repealing free speech entirely.

It must be held in tension with other values, such as equality, safety, good citizenship, worshiping me, and stamping out anyone who would be foolish enough to speak up against our utopia. Yes, free speech is a glorious pastime of our wonderful, prosperous empire, but it’s not the only one. Using “free speech” as a cop-out is intellectually dishonest and morally bankrupt. Just a small excerpt from the column, which you can see in its entirety by clicking on the screenshot: Today’s column, “Free speech is killing us,” is especially good, because it’s not only a satire of Andrew Marantz’s New York Times column that I discussed yesterday, but says what I think that Marantz, deep in his heart, would have wanted to say. “Previously, Times reporter Kevin Roose wrote a defamatory piece that claimed we ‘capitalize on confusion’ and that we have a ‘habit of skirting the line between misinformation and satire,’ whatever that means.”ĭillon also took issue with the Times’s characterization of Snopes’s coverage of the Babylon Bee.I don’t usually look at the Babylon Bee, a satire site that many have mistaken for “real news”, but maybe I should check it out more often.

“These characterizations from the Times are nothing new,” Dillon said. īabylon Bee CEO Seth Dillon railed the Times’ smearing of the satirical outlet as a source of far-right misinformation as “defamatory,” and said the Bee’s legal counsel has contacted the paper. In 20, Facebook often dealt with far-right misinformation sites that used ‘satire’ claims to protect their presence on the platform, Mr.

#Babylon bee new york times update

Isaac wrote the following, including an update to the article on March 22: