In another showing of proof that the fake news is in fact the enemy of the people, the New York Times Magazine has published an article arguing that the biggest threat to free speech…is free speech itself.

Feminist author Emily Bazelon believes that government and corporate censorship must be used to save free speech, and she made her case very poorly in an op/ed riddled with Orwellian doublespeak.

“It’s an article of faith in the United States that more speech is better and that the government should regulate it as little as possible. But increasingly, scholars of constitutional law, as well as social scientists, are beginning to question the way we have come to think about the First Amendment’s guarantee of free speech,” Bazelon wrote, effectively arguing for an end to the Bill of Rights.

Trending: Chinese Billionaire Dissident Leaking Hunter Biden Emails Says There Will Be “10,000” More Pictures After Sex Tape

“They think our formulations are simplistic — and especially inadequate for our era. Censorship of external critics by the government remains a serious threat under authoritarian regimes. But in the United States and other democracies, there is a different kind of threat, which may be doing more damage to the discourse about politics, news and science. It encompasses the mass distortion of truth and overwhelming waves of speech from extremists that smear and distract,” she wrote, using left-wing blather to justify shredding the U.S. Constitution.

Bazelon is arguing that since freedom of speech allows people like Trump and his supporters to speak freely, it must be sharply curtailed. This way, her liberal agenda can be protected from any dissent or challenge that is allowed under the evil 1st Amendment (which, after all, was written by slave owners!).

“This concern spans the ideological spectrum. Along with disinformation campaigns, there is the separate problem of “troll armies” — a flood of commenters, often propelled by bots — that “aim to discredit or to destroy the reputation of disfavored speakers and to discourage them from speaking again,” Jack Goldsmith, a conservative law professor at Harvard, writes in an essay in “The Perilous Public Square,” a book edited by David E. Pozen that was published this year,” she wrote.

Goldsmith, who Bazelon inaccurately describes as a conservative, is actually a prominent anti-Trump writer. He even wrote a book, “After Trump,” calling for wholesale changes to the U.S. political system in order to make sure nobody like Trump can ever get elected again.

Bazelon argues that “critical voices” need to be protected from free speech in order to save free speech, or something.

She wrote: “Either way, it’s often grimly effective at muting critical voices. And yet as Tim Wu, a progressive law professor at Columbia, points out in the same book, the ‘use of speech as a tool to suppress speech is, by its nature, something very challenging for the First Amendment to deal with.'”

“As we hurtle toward the November election with a president who has trapped the country in a web of lies, with the sole purpose, it seems, of remaining in office, it’s time to ask whether the American way of protecting free speech is actually keeping us free,” Bazelon wrote in her concluding paragraph.

She was pilloried in the reply section to her drivel on Twitter, in which she was correctly identified as a monster:

My God you are dangerous.

— Rudy Havenstein, wearing a jet pack near LAX. (@RudyHavenstein) October 15, 2020

Social media and disinformation (lies) is nothing new. People have been fed lies in the media for centuries.

Read a newspaper from the 1790s, it’s filled with complete fabrications spewed by one side of the political isle at the other side.

People figure out what truth is

— Rob Mahrt (@robmahrt) October 15, 2020

A journalist arguing against the First Amendment…

— NH (@TwoQuoque) October 15, 2020

This really isn't open to debate.

All nine of our Justices (including RGB) are absolutely definitely opposed to weakening the 1st Amendment. As they should be.

I get that some people may be in favor of limiting Free Speech. That's why we have a Constitution.

— Analyst (@MeDCD23) October 15, 2020

This is terrifying and shameful but unsurprising.

— Bob Smith (@GenericBobSmith) October 15, 2020

Whenever the NYT has a story like this, I'm sometimes reassured to find the top comment going "eh this is dumb"

Comment even references the one of the previous bad NYT articles on speech! pic.twitter.com/LbMxTcJtDA

— Rational Thinker 69 (@Rationalist69) October 15, 2020

Nice bait and switch.
You *start* with "best way to protect free speech".
You end with: "balancing free speech w/ other values."

Therefore, "protecting free speech" was NEVER your goal, and you were dishonest to start with that sentence.

— Gitabushi the Anti-Fascist (@Gitabushi) October 15, 2020

We don't have free speech in the UK it was stolen away from us.

The US needs to treasure what it has.

— Horambe (@Hobojebus) October 15, 2020

That is THE fundamental democratic value. Un UK right now the police can arrive at your door for saying adult human female on social media.

— jeffrey churchill (@chilljat) October 15, 2020

"Balancing" free speech is not protecting free speech. Balanced free speech is totalitarian propaganda.

— Guillermo del Boro (@evilbillslade) October 15, 2020

This is about as sensical as the NPR story in defense of looting.

— Ken Meyer (@CampSakima) October 15, 2020

It’s worth nothing that this is the type of speech that Bazelon wants to have censored. This “empowered woman” cannot handle being subject to scrutiny from outside of her privileged echo chamber. Bazelon is another shining example of why ratifying the 19th Amendment may not have been such a great idea.