> which got the editorial page editor fired, and a main argument was that publishing it threatened the lives of NYT employees
The official editorial note makes no mention of this:
> An editors’ note posted late Friday noted factual inaccuracies and a “needlessly harsh” tone. “The essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published,” the note said.
In the end, criticisms of one for-profit newspaper aren't all that compelling to "free speech". In the same way we don't force a Christian church to allow any atheist to debate evidence against the existence of a god _in_ _a_ _church_, we don't force private companies to publish that which the company doesn't want to publish.
So long as the discussion is happening somewhere in society, I don't know that we must insist that _all_ conversations are happening _everywhere_.
The official editorial note makes no mention of this:
> An editors’ note posted late Friday noted factual inaccuracies and a “needlessly harsh” tone. “The essay fell short of our standards and should not have been published,” the note said.
In the end, criticisms of one for-profit newspaper aren't all that compelling to "free speech". In the same way we don't force a Christian church to allow any atheist to debate evidence against the existence of a god _in_ _a_ _church_, we don't force private companies to publish that which the company doesn't want to publish.
So long as the discussion is happening somewhere in society, I don't know that we must insist that _all_ conversations are happening _everywhere_.