‘Offensive Art’ and Double Standards at the NY Times

FrontPage Magazine ^ | May 8, 2015 | Arnold Ahlert

[Steve_Seattle]

The NYT and other liberals have a two-pronged response to controversial art:

1. If the art is offensive to Muslims, feminists, gays, or blacks, it will either be the subject of a tepid defense drowned in qualifications and sermonizing, or it will be condemned outright.

2. If the art is offensive to Christians or conservatives, it will be defended as an example of bedrock free speech, core Constitutional values, and the kind of thing our forefathers fought and died for. And - typically - there will be explanations of how the art is really not what it seems to be, i.e., that it is complex and subtle and uplifting, and that people are misunderstanding the meaning of the urine and the dung.

Thus, you can depict George Bush as a monkey or hang a derisive painting of a nude Sarah Palin in a bar, but a rodeo clown can't put on an Obama mask. You can exhibit "Piss Christ," but not Mohammad cartoons. You can portray Ronald Reagan as senile and stupid, but you can't mention Hillary's age. And on and on.

[aimhigh]

I don’t remember liberals condemning the movie, Redigulous.