[Congressional Record Volume 166, Number 113 (Thursday, June 18, 2020)]
[Senate]
[Pages S3090-S3091]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]



                          The First Amendment

  Mr. GRASSLEY. Mr. President, in 3 weeks, America will celebrate 
Independence Day. For 244 years, Americans have fought, marched, voted, 
petitioned, legislated, published, protested, and died to defend and 
build our blessings of freedom. The American experiment has plenty of 
battle scars and growing pains handed down from one generation to the 
next.
  The first half of 2020 shows us there are plenty of historical wounds 
to heal and challenges to overcome.
  In the interest of public health, stay-at-home orders limited 
individual freedoms that many Americans take for granted, including the 
right to earn a living or to worship with fellow believers.
  Just as the economy began to reopen, the shadows of racial injustice 
darkened America's doorstep. All people are created equal, but not all 
people are treated equally.
  The unconscionable suffocation of George Floyd at the knee of a 
police officer in Minneapolis struck a chord of unity to end racism in 
America. Hundreds of thousands of people have gathered to exercise 
their First Amendment rights. They march to protect racial injustice 
and police brutality.
  Unfortunately, some exploited the peaceful protests to riot, loot, 
vandalize, and burn. These criminal acts were not protected by the 
Constitution. It is obvious they weren't protected. They were 
antithetical to the laws of the land protecting life, liberty, and 
domestic tranquility.
  All of this led one of my colleagues, the junior Senator from 
Arkansas, to submit an essay to the New York Times. In his opinion 
piece, he advocated why he thought the President ought to use his 
authority to deploy Active-Duty military forces to uphold the law and 
public order, as had been done by Presidents in past instances of civil 
unrest.
  The Times op-ed pages accepted his column and published it online 
under the headline: ``Bring in the Troops.''
  Within hours, the newsroom was in a frenzy. The leftwing rallied 
their troops to stop the press. The New York Times, as we know, prides 
itself as the ``paper of record.''
  Since 1851, it has served as an influential platform to gather and 
report the news and to hold government accountable. Policemen keep the 
public peace. Journalists are the policemen of

[[Page S3091]]

our political system to keep the political system honest and open and 
transparent.
  The New York Times opinion pages ostensibly provide a space for the 
free exchange of ideas and thought-filled conversation on issues of the 
day. I have long counted journalists as the constables of the fourth 
estate. They serve a very vital role in bolstering our system of checks 
and balances. They have a responsibility to set the tone for open 
dialogue.
  Last week, the New York Times flunked this standard. The Gray Lady 
ghosted Senator Cotton's opinion piece after a meltdown in its ivory 
tower and when the ivory tower workforce hyperventilated.
  It is certainly reasonable to disagree on the merits and to debate if 
recent events rise to the level of past riots that justified invoking 
the Insurrection Act.
  I certainly think we should be hesitant to deploy our military forces 
domestically, even in difficult situations.
  But the overheated reaction by alleged journalists even to have this 
debate raises the question, Do they consider themselves neutral 
reporters or activists for a certain world view?
  Even a casual reader is able to read between the lines and know that 
the New York Times ascribes to a left-leaning ideology, but the mutiny 
in their newsroom seems to cross the line from journalism with a 
leftwing bias to political activism and ideological conformity.
  Sadly, last week the New York Times lowered the bar of journalistic 
integrity. It snubbed a voice of dissent and rebuked the free exchange 
of ideas.
  The First Amendment protects five fundamental freedoms that sets 
America apart as the leader of the free world: freedom of religion, 
speech, press, assembly, and the right to petition the government.
  The Constitution does so because the expression of diverse opinions 
is necessary to preserve liberty.
  Within 4 days of publishing Senator Cotton's commentary, the New York 
Times caved to an ideological revolt in the newsroom.
  Under mob rule, the casualty among its ranks was none other than the 
editorial page editor. He was forced out of his job for having the 
audacity to publish an opinion of a U.S. Senator.
  At first, the publisher made a feeble effort to stand on principle, 
defending, in his words, ``openness and a range of opinions.'' Within a 
few days, the publisher threw James Bennet under the bus.
  It is a sad day for journalism, a sad day for the free press. These 
actions damage the wall dividing the newsroom and the opinion desk. 
They solidified their silo of leftwing thought. Canceling dissenting 
views is a very slippery slope. Sooner or later, it mutes the exchange 
of ideas in a free society.
  As a student of history, I know that freedom has often been 
threatened by those who are convinced their views were on the right 
side of history.
  I offer a bit of wisdom without malice to the New York Times: Don't 
back down from the First Amendment. Swapping your free press for party-
line propaganda and punishing dissent is not a good look. Ask the 
people of North Korea, China, and Iran.
  On Independence Day 2020, I encourage members of the media and all 
Americans to step out of your comfort zones and seek to understand 
other viewpoints.
  Before we can expand America's promise, end racism, and beat the 
virus, we must come together as Americans. No matter one's race, 
politic, creed, wealth, celebrity, remember, we are bound together by 
self-evident truths ``that all men are created equal, that they are 
endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among 
these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.''
  I want even a leftwing newspaper to be a responsible policeman for 
our political system.
  Mr. President, I yield the floor.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio.
  Mr. BROWN. Before Senator Portman and I do our unanimous consent, I 
just can't believe what I heard.
  Senator Grassley, going to the floor and talking about the media that 
way, when his majority--they owe their majority to Rush Limbaugh and 
FOX News, and they swear allegiance to a President of the United States 
who has lied thousands of times and then attacks the media every time 
they disagree with him or call him out, attacks the media as fake news, 
is just shocking to me.
  The PRESIDING OFFICER. The Senator from Ohio

                          ____________________