[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
____________________