Meanwhile, in the Middle East or where ever muslims gather.....
...
Just as it was clear that "Piss Christ" was not really about art. As the New York Times claimed, back when it was defending that form of religious provocation.
But is not any criticism of Islam considered hate speech?
I always love it when people who work in free speech/free press lecture us about the limits and evils of such things.
Why do Islamic societies hate and murder Christians and Jews?
Yup, the NYT, CNN, TIME, and all the no-mind clones are surprisingly saying the same thing.
Interesting.
My response is to call that gathering in Garland an artfest.
There, problem solved.
After all, the MSM loves piles of sh...er...Obamastuff pasted on canvas.
Meanwhile, in the Middle East or where ever muslims gather........
*cough* bullS**t! *cough*
She achieved her provocative goal in Garland — the event was attacked by two Muslims who were shot to death by a traffic officer.
_________________________________________
The dumasses at the Slimes write this as if this was a Bad Thing.
lololol
When the muzzies come with guns to assassinate the editors at the Slimes for their failure to kiss muzzie butt 24/7, I for one will cheer.
The idiots writing this bilge are so caught up in their compromises they cannot see anything clearly and are determinedly disinterested in the truth of anything. Not only was the contest won by a Muslim but many of the entries harkened to a time not many centuries ago when depictions of Mohammed were all the rage in Muslim countries.
An enraged shooter assaulting a piss Christ exhibit would not receive the same consideration from these daisies.
Yes, the contest was absolutely a quintessential expression of free speech. Liberals have lost the ground they stand on. A tsunami of stupidity will wash them away.
No, actually is isn't. This was, we recall, the paper that defended the ACLU for defending the Nazis in Skokie, whose motivations really were hatred. Those high-minded days are over and this new editorial board is interested only in the very same sort of political control that those Nazis were so long ago.
In point of fact there is no valid distinction between free speech and "hate" speech, the latter a neologism representing anything the speaker finds objectionable at the moment. Had the Times editorial board objected as vehemently to, say, Piss Christ, they might have a ghost of a case. They did not; in fact, their case is one of hypocrisy and a lust for speech and thought control.
Jerk editorial writers like those of the New York Slimes remind us of why all REAL Americans now put our 2nd Amendment FIRST!!
So, Bill Maher is a purveyor of hate speech or is he just another entitled lefty?
(Rhetorical question, I know.)
I wonder if the editorial board ever said that about something like Piss Christ or whatever anti-Israel leftist rants they might have hosted on their pages.
“Hate speech” is any speech Liberals hate to hear. It need have no other characteristic.
As I posted before, if I were a prosecutor I would argue in court that all this pro-terrorism, anti-constitutional slop is enemy propaganda(look up US vs. Chandler or similar cases to see how that ends for the perps)
It sounds like the NYT editorial board wants to determine what is protected free speech. They did such a great job in this case.
Who gets to decide what is bigotry and hate speech? The Slimes? Give me a break. I think the Slimes is anti-American. Does that mean I should be able to stop it from printing their garbage? Of course not. I consider most leftist media anti-American hate speech. I still can’t stop it. Those hypocrites don’t understand they don’t get to decide what is hate speech.
I take it the Slimes is equally opposed to gay pride marches which disgust and provoke Christians.
One might put some credence in their righteous indignation if they’d expressed even a smidgeon of it when Christian symbols were prominently treated in an insulting and provocative manner.