I am a writer. I write books. I am not allowed to comment at the New York Times. They have removed my voice with an arrogant indifference. The word indifference can and does translate to the word hate. Scott is an extraordinary writer. Takes no prisoners. I doubt he would take on the issue of the blacklist at the New York Times. The New York Times has a list of the writers on the planet who are not allowed to comment. Example: Humor. You will wind up on the list. Sarcasm is protected speech. Why. Because humorists from the 18th Century took on King George and even people who had no politik thought of it as quite funny. You can poke pomposity and get away with it. The writers of the First Amendment knew that speech would have to be protected or it would become power’s victim. Ridicule is important even at the New York Times. Comments at the gates. Comments at the gates. Run for your lives. The tone of comments are so filtered, they are beginning to sound alike. To disagree with the New York Times is simply not allowed. Comments are not unlike hieroglyphics in that they exist to tell a story. NYT thinks we might say bad words (columnists are allowed these words). But if we use even one, we are rendered back to the indifferent darkness. AO Scott can say anything he wants. And that is fine. That is how it should be. But we are only allowed to react to writing at the New York Times if we follow the arrows on the sidewalk toward submission. I would argue that ideas are dangerous.