It should not matter, the New York Times conveniently suggests, that the investigation found no evidence that Mr. Cochran had mistreated gays or lesbians. His position as a high-level public servant makes his remarks especially problematic, and requires that he be held to a different standard. And what is that standard, specifically? That he has no First Amendment rights? If so, thats the height of hypocrisy for these editors, who just days ago championed the presss freedom to ridicule religion in the public square. Apparently, the New York Times believes in the freedom of the press to attack faith, but not the publics right to hold a faith in the first place. Nobody can tell Mr. Cochran what he can or cannot believe, the editors say (somewhat ironically, since thats what they seem to be doing).
Posted on: Thu, 15 Jan 2015 02:49:41 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015