Hillary Clinton

Why Are the Newspapers That Condemn Donald Trump's Free-Speech Rants Endorsing Hillary Clinton?

The Donald has lousy rhetoric, but Hillary has a long track record of anti-First Amendment initiatives

|

Some day, Laura, I'm gonna punch you in the face! ||| Free Republic
Free Republic

The Houston Chronicle last week began its "Say no to Trump" editorial this way: "Presumably, we need to rush this editorial into print before President Trump makes good on his threat to 'open up the libel laws.' No doubt his pal Vladimir Putin offers a more appealing media model."

It is understandable for those in the free-speechin' business to center their objections to the anti-constitutional GOP front-runner around his serial rhetorical assaults against the First Amendment. The Chronicle is right in seeking to protect "the nation's hallowed tradition of a free press" So why, then, did the same editorial board endorse Hillary Clinton?

Trump's rhetorical record on free speech is bad, no doubt. But he has never been within a city mile of political office until launching his unlikely bid for the presidency last June. Hillary Clinton was First Lady of Arkansas for 12 years, of the White House for another eight years (and was unusually active on policy in both roles), then a United States senator for eight years (during which she was runner-up for the Democratic Party's presidential nomination), secretary of state for four years, and now the odds-on favorite to be the next U.S. president. And during this long public career she has sponsored, co-sponsored, barnstormed for, advocated, suggested, and bragged about a series of specific laws whose texts and/or ideas were found to be at least partly unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

She's awful. ||| Reason
Reason

A non-comprehensive list would include: The 1996 Communications Decency Act (parts of which were struck down by the Supreme Court one year later on free speech grounds), the 1998 Child Online Protection Act (eventually struck down by the Supreme Court in 2009 on free speech grounds), the 2002 Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (struck down by the Supreme Court in 2010 on free speech grounds), and the 2005 Family Entertainment Protection Act (an almost exact replica of which was struck down by the Supreme Court in 2011 on free-speech grounds). It's almost as if there's a pattern there!

Clinton and Trump are on the same page when it comes to mocking free-speech objections to limiting online speech in order to protect America against terrorists. (No really: One says "You're going to hear all of the usual complaints—you know, 'freedom of speech,' etc.," and the other says "Somebody will say, 'Oh, freedom of speech, freedom of speech.' These are foolish people.") And yet editorial board after editorial board condemns only Trump for these words and positions, then endorses Hillary Clinton without citing hers.

Such as The New York Times. "[W]hat future leaders might do [to free speech] is chillingly demonstrated by Donald Trump's suggestion that the United States should close parts of the Internet to combat terrorism," the Paper of Record editorialized darkly on Feb. 29. So what about Hillary? "Voters have the chance to choose one of the most broadly and deeply qualified presidential candidates in modern history" the Gray Lady gushed the month before. The Las Vegas Sun laments that Trump "flies in the face of the spirit, if not the letter, of the First Amendment," but calls Clinton "a savvy stateswoman with an established understanding of world affairs and building allegiances."

I am not claiming that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have equivalent campaign rhetoric about the First Amendment—both are disqualifyingly terrible; Trump is likely worse. But in terms of actual policy, Hillary clearly wins the booby prize. Those who would chivalrously protect free speech against the incursions of The Donald would be a helluva lot more persuasive if they acknowledged, let alone engaged with, Clinton's long, odious track record on same.

Which you can read all about right here.

NEXT: Mass Transit Meets Mass Surveillance

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Careful, Matt, you’ll get accused of being a TEAM RED apologist with articles like these.

    1. Yes, if we have any TEAM BLUE analogues to the Trump whiners, he most certainly will.

    2. I am not claiming that Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have equivalent campaign rhetoric about the First Amendment?both are disqualifyingly terrible; Trump is likely worse.

      I dunno. I kind of prefer the guy who says he’s gonna straight up cornhole me more than the creep that tries to tell me he just putting the tip in.

      1. They’re certainly easier to spot.

    3. WHYCOME YU ONL’EH BE MEAN TO TURMP?

    4. If he’s striving for balance, he got a couple thousand more hillary articles to write.

  2. Why Are the Newspapers That Condemn Donald Trump’s Free-Speech Rants Endorsing Hillary Clinton?

    Because they believe that it won’t be them that gets shut up, just those icky right-wing cranks and bloggers in their pajamas.

    1. I blog naked. So I’m safe?

  3. it cannot be a case of principals before principles, since I have it on good authority that media bias is a teatard myth.

    1. Of course there’s media bias. What is it you think Faux News puts out?

  4. Should the new york times be allowed to put out articles within 30 days of primaries since they are a corporation? Crickets from progs.

    1. They have redefined “press” to mean “those granted special privileges and recognition from the government” rather than the means of producing and distributing speech.

  5. HERPADERP!!! MUNNY IZ NOT SPEEECH!!!! KKKERPERAYSHUNZ ISNT PEEPL!!!

    1. Haha which is funny cause corporations are made up of people. Just like unions.

      Union lobbying = good
      Corporation lobbying = bad

      Amusing to me when the unions conflict with the enviro folks. See ownership of big oil

  6. That first picture: What’s up with the Bride-of-Frankenstein, mushroom-cloud hair?

    Actually, that whole picture is a hair museum.

    1. I demand this post be removed. It’s triggering me.

      1. In some circles, the word “triggering” is deemed to be triggering. SJW derp is devouring itself.

        1. Well, it’s evocative of gun violence and rhymes with a racial slur. I can see who SJW derps would eventually take issue with it.

        2. I have been complaining about trigger warnings triggering me for about a year. It has availed me naught.

    2. “That first picture: What’s up with the Bride-of-Frankenstein, mushroom-cloud hair?”

      She didn’t look like that until Bubba got within arm’s reach of her butt.

    3. That hair is amazing. And it pretty much explains the hole in the ozone layer.

    4. More importantly, where is Bill’s left hand?

  7. Who’s Bride of Frankenstein over on the right?

    1. Damn. Same time stamp and everything. Good thing I ponied up for H-n-R premium.

      1. So you gave the squirrels some nuts, then?

        “Nothing sexual”

  8. why would newspaper editorial pages ignore what a Dem candidate says. Truly a mystery, it is.

    1. And ignore the obvious evidence that she’s an un-indicted felon? A real head-scratcher, there.

    2. Yeah, it’s not like there’s been decades and decades of preceding examples of this sort of behavior from the big city Newspaper editorial writers.

  9. I just scrolled down to the AM links. Just a glance of the blogposts and attached art… that’s a lot of Trump…

    1. Yeah…I find myself reading less on Trumpentage.

  10. pulling the FBI files of people on her Enemies List

    “getting” the guy who made that video

    dirty tricks against those who speak out about Bill’s sexual assault

    nonstop bitching that the Supreme Court didn’t make it a felony to criticize her but her SCOTUS appointments will fix that shit

    vs.

    Trump will sue you and lose

    1. yet somehow Trump is likely worse.

      Never mind the entire history of Herself and the various things she has done. Focus instead of DT and what might maybe kinda think about doing.

      1. He was saying trumps rhetoric was worse. Hillary tries to hide it fro. The little kiddies.

  11. The mole poblano I made over the weekend came out pretty good. I think I burned the chilis slightly, so I was a little worried, but I was able to adjust and was reasonably satisfied with the end result.

    1. Mmmmm…..mole…. say, what were we talking about in this thread?

      1. Exactly

    2. I’ve always struggled with mole. Even soaking it in milk won’t get rid of the gamy flavor, and brining just seems to make it more rubbery.

      Any suggestions?

      1. Clean it first?

        1. You mean, like, with a cloth?

      2. I don’t eat moles. I prefer them tried and convicted. Unless they are helping me.

    3. So where is dinner and when should I arrive?

      Where do you get your peppers? I have plenty of unprocessed chocolate, but no place to get good peppers?

  12. Folks i am thinking about being a prog now. For normal people the cognitive dissonance would be too much to bear. But being a prog you don’t have to think logically or critically or consistently. Must be nice to shut off the brain and go on auto drive (emotion) all the time. Would do wonders for my stress.

    1. I dunno…it’s got to be exhausting to be so angry and upset about everything all the time.

      1. True. How about i pull a prog and pick and choose which parts i like (see prog when they say want to be like norway/sweden/denmark etc)

        1. We will just leave out the regulation and free market stuff

        2. How about i pull a prog

          Is that what we’re calling it now?

          1. Yes. Proggying is now a verb.

    2. If those loonytarians dare use logic and evidence against you, just yell at them that logic and evidence are bad. I’ve seen this done.

      1. Logic and evidence are cis-heteropatriarchal constructs to impose the will of linear thinkers on the oppressed.

      2. It’s not that evidence and logic are bad, it’s that our concepts of what constitute evidence and logic are driven by our societal assumptions, and that therefore they are riddled with white supremacist notions that rob non-Westerners of their Ways of Knowing.

    3. Folks i am thinking about being a prog now.

      You don’t do that before becoming one of those.

    4. Also one advantage of being prog…i can just use name calling and or tell you to “check your” something to win the argument.

  13. Safety net = upper middle class handouts apparently. Free college, free daycare, free maternity leave, free life savings in form of SS.

    These things would never ever encourage folks to be dependent and or cause people to alter their behavior

  14. a series of specific laws whose texts and/or ideas were found to be at least partly unconstitutional on First Amendment grounds.

    When you say ‘partly unconstitutional’, Matt, do you mean plain old ‘unconstitutional’, ‘more unconstitutional’, or ‘extra unconstitutional with a side of FYTW’?

    I mean, it’s one thing to say “I’m going to stitch the mouths of every Muslim immigrant shut.” but it’s quite another to try and pass a bill that says “We need to stitch the mouths of every Muslim immigrant shut… and issue more parking tickets.” or a bill that says “We need to reform immigration policy… and give women free birth control.”

    I ask because I’m told libertarians like to make these sorts of distinctions sometimes.

    1. I mean that in some cases, “parts” of the law have been held to be “unconstitutional.”

  15. “Such as The New York Times. “[W]hat future leaders might do [to free speech] is chillingly demonstrated by Donald Trump’s suggestion that the United States should close parts of the Internet to combat terrorism,” the Paper of Record editorialized darkly on Feb. 29″

    Realistically, what is the difference between the New York Times and a random left-wing blog at this point? Those three black women attacked a guy, then claimed he’d attacked them while yelling racial slurs and the New York Times’ main concern was that conservatives were using this for their own talking points.

    They didn’t care that people took to the streets to protest on behalf of women who had engaged in an assault. They didn’t care that people are now using ‘victimhood’ to attack other people while shielding themselves from blame. No – all that matters is that lies by leftists might help the right.

    1. Ive seen progs advocate for the government regulation of fox news since it is false propaganda. No one could possibly have differing views!

      I get fox news is sensational and over the top sometimes but do cover different material than the left outlets… it is ironic considering the sites i see these calls on…ie thinkprogress

      What amuses me is they are so deluded that they think everyone would be a leftist if not for those pesky dissenters.

  16. My Hillary, my Hillary, right or wrong, my Hillary!

  17. Trump can not make America great again. Trump is a billionaire because he has mastered crony capitalism, not free market capitalism.

    Trump wants his own version of big government.

    Trump says anything that is beneficial to his goals at the moment in time that he says it. Which means what he says will always be changing to fit his current wants and needs.

    Trump’s next book should be titled “The Art of BS.”

    We can not have a thin-skinned, hot headed, narcissistic, egomaniac in charge of our military, foreign policy and nuclear codes.

    Choose limited federal government. Stop making millionaires out of our politicians and lobbyists. Stop increasing the power of connected corporations.

    1. Your ability to copy-and-paste the same comment on multiple threads is quite impressive!

    2. Which means what he says will always be changing to fit his current wants and needs.

      Obama is nothing like that.

      /derp

    3. ‘We can not have a thin-skinned, hot headed, narcissistic, egomaniac in charge of our military, foreign policy and nuclear codes.’
      But it worked so well with Obama.

  18. I would have liked to see Roy Innis at the debates. Even at 81, he’d still have kicked the shit out of those fools.

  19. Because Hillary Clinton puts the letter D after her name.

    You’re welcome.

  20. Why Are the Newspapers That Condemn Donald Trump’s Free-Speech Rants Endorsing Hillary Clinton?

    Because they’re a bunch of hypocritical cunt waffles?

  21. Meet your next president, Gary Johnson.

    1. Gary Johnson is meeting his next president?

  22. The press cannot help itself. They are in deep trouble, because the internet has taken away their readers and the source of their revenue, but they still consider that they are the trendsetters and gatekeepers for ideas. They stay very close to the politicians, in the belief that the politicians will save them, somehow.

    They have effectively become full-fledged enemies of free speach/free press, in order to ensure their own survival. At this point they function almost entirely as a propaganda machine for the statists

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.