On Monday’s episode of "The Andrew Klavan Show," the host discusses a hit piece in The New York Times and the disturbing take on free speech that the ‘former newspaper’ represents. Video and partial transcript below:
Let's just be clear about this, The New York Times does not support free speech. It does not support the First Amendment. The New York Times is now a woke sophomoric hate paper. I mean, sometimes they don't even have headlines anymore. It's just like "Trump ... grrrr" and that's what they'll say. They just have become this crazed left-wing voice of silence. If you don't believe me, take a look at Citizens United. You remember the Citizens United case? I think it was decided in 2010 by the Supreme Court. Our pal David Bossie, he made a film against Hillary Clinton, put it on TV and they took it off TV in accordance with McCain-Feingold, because they said this was a campaign contribution.
So, you can't put an anti-Hillary documentary on TV when the election is coming up because it's a campaign contribution that should be controlled by McCain-Feingold. It went to the Supreme Court. In the arguments of the Supreme Court, Alito asked the government lawyer who is defending McCain-Feingold, he said, "Look, couldn't you apply this to a book?." And the lawyer said, "Well yeah, you could censor a book because it would be — if it was anti-Hillary, because that would be a campaign contribution." And he said, "Well could it be applied to a thousand-page book that had a sentence attacking Hillary Clinton?" Ultimately the lawyer had to admit, "Yes it could." I mean, this is censorship. All these campaign finance things, we don't need campaign finance laws, they are all censorship laws. Almost every one of them is, certainly McCain-Feingold. So, they gutted McCain-Feingold and said, "No you can't do this, this is ridiculous."
Oh my gosh, you know this was Hillary Clinton. She never forgot that ... the Supreme Court of these United States could allow an anti-Hillary Clinton video to be aired. It was too much for her and she went and campaigned about it.
One of the reasons I would never have voted for her was I thought she was anti-First Amendment. So was The New York Times. The New York Times hated this. They are a corporation, right? The Times Corporation. They are a corporation. And the idea here was, evil corporations should not be allowed to speak because David Bossie had a little company that made this film and that was his corporation.
But of course, The New York Times wanted an exception for journalist corporations. Now you know you'd have to be an idiot not to have the next question occur to you: Who decides what a journalist corporation is? We can guess. We know exactly who's going to decide. Will The Daily Wire be a journalist corporation? No! No! No! No. New York Times? Oh, absolutely.
It's all about silencing conservative voices because they have lost the argument. Because they know, whenever we argue, we win the argument. Whenever they debate us, if they can't show you a picture of a crying baby; if they can't scream that you're a racist; if they can't call you hateful; if they can't call you homophobic or Islamophobic; if they actually have to argue the point at hand, they lose. And that is why they want to shut us down.