New York Times Publishes Contentious Op-Ed On 'America's Free Speech Problem,' Setting Off Massive Debate Over First Amendment

The New York Times editorial board published an opinion piece this morning about the First Amendment that stated, “Americans are losing hold of a fundamental right as citizens of a free country: the right to speak their minds and voice their opinions in public without fear of being shamed or shunned.” As it turned out, the internet had a whole lot to say about the op-ed throughout the day as memes, heated debates and hot takes caused the article, titled "America Has a Free Speech Problem," to trend on platforms like Twitter.

Any time I see First Amendment trending, I brace myself for the shitshow.

— Brandy Mai (@crisistalker) March 18, 2022

The piece largely consisted of picking apart a poll that The New York Times commissioned in which “84 percent of adults said it is a ‘very serious’ or ‘somewhat serious’ problem that some Americans do not speak freely in everyday situations.” The editorial board attributed public unease about the First Amendment to highly publicized controversies such as cancel culture on the left and Florida’s “Don’t Say Gay” bill on the right.

The editorial board stressed that while, legally, the First Amendment only guarantees Americans the right to not have their speech restricted by the government, the “popular conception” of the First Amendment refers to a broader set of unwritten cultural norms that allow people to speak “affirmatively” about whatever they wish to speak about. Many on Twitter did not seem to register this distinction or found the argument it made disingenuous based on the flurry of replies to it.

Am I to understand a major newspaper's editorial board went full "you can't ban me, mods, I have the first amendment" and they decided to print it.

— Contented Independent (@ContentedIndie) March 18, 2022

Jfc pic.twitter.com/eolZsJmztD

— Treyf Posting (@PostingTreyf) March 18, 2022

The internet and social media are at the center of a conversation about how the American public sphere operates. Platforms like Facebook, Twitter and Instagram hold a kind of power to direct conversations and limit the spectrum of opinions that previously did not exist (or was held by papers of record like The NY Times). What the editorial board specifically pointed out was a problem of tone and a mood of “censoriousness” that has had economic consequences for some whose speech has not been received warmly — essentially talking about cancel culture.

Many users online pointed out that the First Amendment, however, also protects the right to shame and shun, arguing that the capacity to express dissatisfaction with somebody else’s speech is just as essential as the freedom to speak in the first place.

Opinion | I didn’t have my facts straight and was wrong. Due to the First Amendment, that’s now your problem.

— Justin and 9 others (@JustinRosenth11) March 18, 2022

Again, just an incredible survey question. Conflating bigoted speech, which to be fair can cause harm, with ANTI-DEMOCRATIC SPEECH.

Maybe the real First Amendment is the anti-democratic overthrow of the government friends we make along the way. pic.twitter.com/ML1X9BTelu

— Jeremy Littau (@JeremyLittau) March 18, 2022

A number of people also jokingly speculated about what rights the First Amendment might or might not protect, mocking The New York Times editorial board’s interpretation.

telling the hr lady at work that not allowing me to wear crop tops to the office violates my first amendment rights https://t.co/u2HUmjv2rW

— fireball apologist (@itsellieee) March 18, 2022

The First Amendment right to force other people to endure my terrible opinions https://t.co/xjQVwUHnuq

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) March 18, 2022

not liking my tweets is a violation of my first amendment rights https://t.co/5LwEHqishC

— manny (@mannyfidel) March 18, 2022

The debate about cancel culture and freedom of speech has been going on long enough that battle lines drawn years ago have turned into trenches for many. The NYT editorial page has often been a key sparring ground for the two sides, purportedly driving much engagement and traffic in turn. Whether this newest intervention (the editorial board indicated this article was the first of an upcoming series) will substantially change the conversation remains unclear.