Endorsing authoritarianism last Friday, the San Francisco Chronicle lamented that the city’s transit agency won’t discriminate against those who favor immigration restrictions.
At contention is San Francisco’s decision to allow a group, Progressives for Immigration Reform, to post anti H-1B visa advertisements at its BART stations. And while the group’s posters pertain to an exigent political issue (whether H-1B allows too many U.S. technology jobs to go to lower paid foreign citizens) the Chronicle seems to think this is illegitimate speech.
Of course, the Chronicle’s reporting has to at least retain the pretense of balance and objectivity.
So to make its case, the newspaper does what many liberal media outlets love to do and regurgitates the Southern Poverty Law Center. As the Washington Examiner’s Becket Adams explains, the SPLC has very little interest in objectivity or honesty.
Yet it is the tenor of the Chronicle’s piece that is most alarming. In its reporter’s grilling of the BART advertising team, there seems to be very little acceptance of BART’s position.
The Chronicle notes the BART officer’s statement that the First Amendment requires the posters to be shown, but then focuses on wailing complaints from liberal passengers. It thus fosters the underlying suggestion that speech from groups such as Progressives for Immigration Reform should be restricted.
It’s no secret that the Chronicle’s immigration page is defined by opinion. Still, this particular article is of special concern.
What the Chronicle is not advocating amnesty, but calling for censored speech. And whatever you think about immigration policy, calling for restricted speech is about as un-American as it gets.
