[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

How could an opinion piece, about what policy the author thinks should be brought to bear, put people in danger? Just by suggesting the use of military force? Are the NYT also not allowed to publish opinion pieces suggesting military intervention abroad, either? The position that the state should intervene to stop any further rioting and looting, and should use the military to do it, even if it prevents otherwise lawful protests from happening, is a legitimate perspective. I think it's clearly a bad idea (especially the part about using the military), but it's certainly a view you could rationally attempt to defend in an opinion piece.

This sounds like more of the "speech is violence" rhetoric you often hear nowadays as an attempt to suppress opposing viewpoints. I dunno, as I say I haven't read the thing so I guess I'll reserve judgment. Maybe the dude is actually calling for something more than a public policy measure - for example, if he's calling for vigilantism. But yeah... this element of the left is just the worst.

I'm not sure what the first amendment has to do with it. Presumably the government didn't force them to run the piece, and isn't stopping them from running whatever else they'd like.

Should you read an article before defending it, or by questioning critique of it?