On Feb. 6, theNew York Sun published aneditorial equating dissent with treason. The subject was an anti-war march planned in New York City on Feb. 15. Although theSun grudgingly conceded that the protesters “probably do have a claim under theright to free speech,” it went on to argue that anyone who marches against war with Iraq is providing “aid and comfort” to Saddam, and therefore committing treasonas defined by Article III of the Constitution:

There can be no question at this point that Saddam Hussein is an enemy of America. … And there is no reason to doubt that the “anti-war” protesters—we prefer to call them protesters against freeing Iraq—are giving, at the very least, comfort to Saddam Hussein. … The more successful the protesters are in making their case in New York, the less chance they’ll have the precious constitutional freedom to protest here the next time around.

 In sum, theSun was saying that the only way to defend free speech is to suppress it. The vileness of this argument was noted by Joe Conason inSalon; its illogic by Brendan Nyhan inSpinsanity; and its faulty grasp of the law by Eugene Volokh inNational Review Online. (Incidentally,National Review Online is thus far the only conservative publication to raise a peep about theSun editorial.) Chatterbox really has nothing to add, except to wonder how an admired journalist like Seth Lipsky, who edits theSun, could allow such fascist rantings into his newspaper.

Lipsky refused to discuss the editorial when Chatterbox phoned him. He did, however, point out that afollow-up editorial appeared in theSun on Feb. 11. It’s an interesting document. Here’s how it begins: “Quite a hullabaloo greeted our editorial supporting the decision by Mayor Bloomberg and Commissioner Kelly to deny anti-war protesters a permit to march past the United Nations this weekend.” This primes the reader for either an apology for, or a defense of, the earlier editorial. Apparently, though, Lipsky has the stomach for neither. So instead, the editorial tries to con readers into thinking that the only issue theSun ever cared about was public safety.It praises a hard-to-argue-with decision by a federal judge that forbade the protesters to march past the United Nations, which has been off-limits since Sept. 11, and instead granted them permission to hold a rally at “Dag Hammarskjord Plaza,” by which theSun presumably means Dag Hammarskjold Plaza, which is adjacent to the United Nations. The editorial ends with a jovial (if tardy)defense of the right to dissent.

Someday a righteous mob is going to march upFirst Avenue and express the opinion of many of us that the world body ought to be moved toHavana orTripoli or evenParis. Meantime we take the point the judge was making. Nothing in her opinion was directed at the bona fides of the anti-war protesters themselves, many, even most of whom are no doubt well-meaning New Yorkers.

Chatterbox’s own commitment to free speech grants theSun the right to misrepresent completely its earlier position as it (wisely) retreats from it. But theSun’s readers also have the right know how weaselly theSun is being.

[Update, Feb. 13: Intoday’s “Best of the Web” column  onOpinionJournal.com, James Taranto bravely steps in to defend theSun’s dissent-equals-treason editorial (which not even theSun seems willing to do). Arguing in the alternative, Taranto writes 1) that it was a joke; and 2) that it’s perfectly legitimate to equate dissent with treason if you don’t work for the government. Would Taranto say it’s also OK to equate property with theft if you don’t work for the government? Of course not.]