I appreciated the Jan. 8 editorial in The Bee about answering terrorism’s war against free speech. The Editorial Board’s solution to limitations on free expression is more free expression. I agree wholeheartedly and civilized people should be able to discuss issues based on their beliefs and experiences.
I wonder why, in the aftermath of the Benghazi attack, however, the New York Times (“A Deadly Mix in Benghazi” by David Kirkpatrick, Dec. 28, 2013) failed to make any effort to support “free expression” and agreed completely with President Obama’s proposed cause of the attack on the Tunisian Consulate in Benghazi.
In the New York Times’ “extensive interview” process, it concluded that no al-Qaida or other organized terrorist groups were associated with the attack. “Anger at the (satirical) video motivated the initial attack.” Also “the attack does not appear to have been meticulously planned.”
No mention of support for free expression from the Times. Just wondering why.
Never miss a local story.