Conservative op-ed argues liberal media fuels intimidation and violence

A New York Post opinion column argues that liberal media outlets downplay violence and that left-wing activists’ rhetoric creates a climate of intimidation that threatens free speech. The piece, written by Daniel McCarthy, contends that the accountability gap stretches from late-night television hosts to campus administrators, shaping public perception and political conflict in ways that critics say embolden intimidation.

The author questions how the media cover acts of political violence and argues that some outlets and commentators frame the activity in a way that protects certain viewpoints while stigmatizing others. It notes that several outlets, including Vox and Politico, have described American society as experiencing a new form of “Red Scare,” a framing the piece says overemphasizes threats on one side while underplaying or excusing violence associated with the other. In McCarthy’s view, the violence itself is the clearest indicator of a broader pattern, and law enforcement must determine how widespread the threat is across the political spectrum. The column argues that the problem is not merely isolated incidents but a systemic approach that uses rhetoric to normalize intimidation.

The piece lays out what it calls three components of an intimidation strategy that aims to silence dissenting voices. First, it asserts that liberal elites downplay violence in the name of righteous causes while labeling Trump, the MAGA movement and conservatives as fascists, threats to democracy, or even outright Nazis. The column argues that relatively few pundits complete the thought, raising the question of what happens if those labels become widely accepted and repeated by influential figures. It cites the use of terms such as fascist or Nazi as a pretext for justifying suppression or even violence against political opponents.

Second, the article contends that the violent rhetoric translates into action, with activists and sympathizers signaling that it is permissible to confront or harm opponents who are branded as enemies. It points to examples of activists who publicly advocate against harming people while implying that violence against those deemed “enemies” is warranted. The piece mentions how such labels can be used to justify rough treatment of speakers or participants who are identified as political threats, even when those targets hold constitutional rights to free expression. The author argues that this normalization of intimidation undermines the First Amendment and free press protections by creating a climate in which dissenting voices fear harassment, injury, or arrest.

Third, the piece describes a toll on free speech that it says extends beyond mobs to institutional action. It claims that some college administrators pre-emptively veto or constrain campus speech by citing security concerns, often requiring speakers or sponsoring student groups to cover heightened security and insurance costs. The column argues that such security costs amount to a tax on ideas, effectively silencing speakers who cannot shoulder the expenses, and it argues that this form of censorship masquerades as prudent administrative planning rather than repression.

The op-ed frames these dynamics within a broader historical lens, noting episodes from recent decades as evidence of a pattern. It cites the 2020 unrest associated with George Floyd protests, describing how the media sometimes characterized riots with qualifiers that downplayed destruction and injury, thereby shaping public perception of the protests and those involved. It also points to discussions on social media pages associated with activist groups that advocate aggressive tactics and framing, arguing that such rhetoric helps to legitimate intimidation for those who oppose the agenda.

In discussing concrete examples, the column references the 2017 confrontation around a debate involving Charles Murray at Middlebury College, where protestors disrupted the event and a professor who was moderating the debate was injured. It describes these events as part of a broader pattern in which activists use rhetoric to justify pressure and intimidation, sometimes escalating to violence, to deter certain speakers or viewpoints. The author stresses that free speech rights cannot flourish if fear of harassment or physical harm prevents people from speaking publicly or inviting controversial voices to campus.

A central claim of the piece is that the rhetoric used by some liberal pundits and activists effectively provides a framing and a permission structure for acts of intimidation, while those who act on such rhetoric—whether by harassing speakers or committing acts of violence—should be identified, investigated, and held accountable. The column argues that individuals who advocate for or engage in violence in the name of anti-fascism or progressive causes, or who benefit from a culture that tolerates intimidation, must be confronted and punished within the law.

The author closes by challenging prominent media figures who condemn fascism in abstract terms but who stop short of taking action against intimidation when it affects speech they oppose. It urges readers to assess media coverage and public discourse with an eye toward how rhetoric translates into real-world consequences for free expression. The piece presents itself as a warning that permissive attitudes toward intimidation threaten the foundations of open dialogue and democratic participation.

Daniel McCarthy is the editor of Modern Age: A Conservative Review and editor-at-large of The American Conservative.