HOME / chatterbox: Gossip, speculation, and scuttlebutt about politics.

Dissent Equals TreasonThe New York Sun lacks the courage of its fascist convictions.

By Timothy NoahPosted Tuesday, Feb. 11, 2003, at 5:05 PM ET

On Feb. 6, the New York Sun published an editorial equating dissent with treason. The subject was an anti-war march planned in New York City on Feb. 15. Although the Sun grudgingly conceded that the protesters "probably do have a claim under the right to free speech," it went on to argue that anyone who marches against war with Iraq is providing "aid and comfort" to Saddam, and therefore committing treason as defined by Article III of the Constitution:

RSS

There can be no question at this point that Saddam Hussein is an enemy of America. ... And there is no reason to doubt that the "anti-war" protesters—we prefer to call them protesters against freeing Iraq—are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein. ... The more successful the protesters are in making their case in New York, the less chance they'll have the precious constitutional freedom to protest here the next time around.

In sum, the Sun was saying that the only way to defend free speech is to suppress it. The vileness of this argument was noted by Joe Conason in Salon; its illogic by Brendan Nyhan in Spinsanity; and its faulty grasp of the law by Eugene Volokh in National Review Online. (Incidentally, National Review Online is thus far the only conservative publication to raise a peep about the Sun editorial.) Chatterbox really has nothing to add, except to wonder how an admired journalist like Seth Lipsky, who edits the Sun, could allow such fascist rantings into his newspaper.

Lipsky refused to discuss the editorial when Chatterbox phoned him. He did, however, point out that a follow-up editorial appeared in the Sun on Feb. 11. It's an interesting document. Here's how it begins: "Quite a hullabaloo greeted our editorial supporting the decision by Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly to deny anti-war protesters a permit to march past the United Nations this weekend." This primes the reader for either an apology for, or a defense of, the earlier editorial. Apparently, though, Lipsky has the stomach for neither. So instead, the editorial tries to con readers into thinking that the only issue the Sun ever cared about was public safety. It praises a hard-to-argue-with decision by a federal judge that forbade the protesters to march past the United Nations, which has been off-limits since Sept. 11, and instead granted them permission to hold a rally at "Dag Hammarskjord Plaza," by which the Sun presumably means Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, which is adjacent to the United Nations. The editorial ends with a jovial (if tardy) defense of the right to dissent.

Someday a righteous mob is going to march up First Avenue and express the opinion of many of us that the world body ought to be moved to Havana or Tripoli or even Paris. Meantime we take the point the judge was making. Nothing in her opinion was directed at the bona fides of the anti-war protesters themselves, many, even most of whom are no doubt well-meaning New Yorkers.

Chatterbox's own commitment to free speech grants the Sun the right to misrepresent completely its earlier position as it (wisely) retreats from it. But the Sun's readers also have the right know how weaselly the Sun is being.

[Update, Feb. 13: In today's "Best of the Web" column on OpinionJournal.com, James Taranto bravely steps in to defend the Sun's dissent-equals-treason editorial (which not even the Sun seems willing to do). Arguing in the alternative, Taranto writes 1) that it was a joke; and 2) that it's perfectly legitimate to equate dissent with treason if you don't work for the government. Would Taranto say it's also OK to equate property with theft if you don't work for the government? Of course not.]

E-mail Timothy Noah at .

E-MAIL

RECOMMEND... Get Slate RSS Feeds

Timothy Noah is a senior writer at Slate.

COMMENTS

Remarks From The Fray:

Ah, Mr. Noah might not agree with our position, but he will fight 'til he's almost out of breath for our right to express it. The question remains, though, as to what kind of people you find over on the war side. Sure, there's a large number of real-politik types that are being regretfully, if foolishly, convinced of the wisdom of the war. There's a number of neo-imperialists that don't pretend to be concerned with humanitarian principles and want war for the booty. But the rank and file seem to be just a lot of "good germans"-- like the one that wrote that Sun editorial, and the millions who read it without wanting to puke.

Certain negative characteristics seem to surround and support the drive for war. Fear is one-- fear of tiny little Iraq, confusedly mixed with fear of nasty Al Qaeda. Ignorance is another-- the insistence on facts never proven or clearly disproved. Racism and intolerance is a third-- shown against Muslims, Europeans, and Americans who oppose the war. Hypocrisy is a fourth-- claiming moral outrage against Saddam while ignoring our own sordid involvement with him, or the evil characters that populate the gov'ts of many of our allies. Playing God is a fifth-- the idea that we, by force of arms, can forge a world that is more suitable to our values and designs, as if we had either the right or the might to accomplish that. And finally, the lying. Lying 24/7. Lying when even the truth might have been sufficient.

My momma wouldn't want me to hang around with people like that, even if I did think the war was a good idea.

-- doodahman

(To reply, click here.)

Well, the Sun does have one over the top paragraph where they suggest that the police should identify the protestors to preserve the possibility of a future treason prosecution. That's clearly over the top, and the Sun obviously doesn't want, in the end, to criminalize the protest.

The rest of the op-ed, though, is more or less a restatement of Orwell's early statements about pacifism. If the Sun's ed board is right that Saddam represents a serious danger to the US, and if the protestors actually had a chance in heck of dissuading the Bush administration, then the ed board is right to point out that the protestors are putting US lives and the very government that guarantees their civil rights at risk.

The only crazy part is how seriously the Sun takes the protestors.

-- J_Mann
(To reply, click here.)
(2/11)

What did you think of this article?

Join The Fray: Our Reader Discussion Forum

POST A MESSAGE | READ MESSAGES