Media rag Hollywood Reporter ought to learn that if they’re going to puke out political propaganda, they should pick people with actual political accumen to deliver it — not 2 professionals in “shouting incoherently into their microphone”.
They rightfully make fun o’ some nobody celebrity for making a threatening photo o’ Hairpiece with his head decapitation, & then rightfully make fun o’ her narcissistic moaning ’bout what a victim she is for doing so. But then they stupidly turn it into an attack on “political correctness”, or whatever, e’en though she’s the 1 accusing her opponents o’ being “politically correct”. Indeed, she’s doing what right-wing clods do all the time: someone rightfully attacks her for saying something hateful & stupid, & she claims that they’re violating her “freedom o’ speech” much in the same way that calling people racist is a “violation o’ freedom o’ speech”.
After a small snippet o’ fantasy history ( duh, ¿what’s the “Alien & Sedition Act”? ¿What kind o’ low standards did the schools that these ol’ conservatives go to that none o’ these idiots know basic American history? ) they cite a study that shows that the minority o’ Millennials believe racist speech should be illegal & the majority say that “hate speech” — presumably actual threats, since that’s the only way one could differentiate it from merely racist speech — should be illegal. This is as it has always been, just as how slander & shouting “¡Fire!” in a theater is illegal. This is as opposed to people back in the 60s who thought ’twas OK for the government to violently suppress political protests — O, wait, many o’ them still do.
They then turn this incoherent rant into an advertisement for some movie that is an incoherent rant gainst colleges & their “safe spaces” & their “triggers” & their hip-hops. This always bewildered me. ¿How is not being allowed to say things @ a college the same as not being able to say things @ all? I’m not allowed to say all kinds o’ things @ all kinds o’ places, & am not e’en allowed to be on many other premises — ¡including colleges! Hell, only a tiny few people are admitted into colleges; that’s far mo’ discriminatory than the few admitted into colleges but s’posedly silenced. This is ‘specially the case since most examples are famous people who probably aren’t e’en smart ‘nough to graduate a college being protested @ colleges ( ‘course the right to protest speakers isn’t a kind o’ speech that needs to be defended, ’cause anti-PC rhetoric is always Orwellian ).
[ Since I’m lazy, just imagine I included that xkcd comic where the stick figure gives the author’s opinion on free speech for 6 panels, like everyone else &mdash ¡Psyche! ¡It’s the 1 with the vagina, ‘stead! ]
The fact that these 2 are trying to argue that the mere prospect o’ threatening speech ( which they invented — as they themselves said, nobody said anything ’bout suppressing speech, so what relevance this has to their shallow ad can only be that they truly want people to buy their garbage ) that is directly threatening the life o’ the President is modern society going to far is evidence that they’re either brain dead or liars. ¿You truly expect me to believe the FBI would tolerate such a public figure pulling that back in the 60s, 70s, or 80s?
If anything, it shows that freedom o’ speech is healthier now than it’s e’er been. Sure, you can get banned off Twitter or banned from giving speeches @ a college, just as how you could always get kicked off newspapers for the same for centuries; but there’s nothing stopping them from starting their own websites or colleges… Well, ‘cept capitalism — but I’m going to presume these 2 aren’t exactly jumping to “smash capitalism”, or whatever.
We already know America’s doomed ’cause its media is filled with “left-wing” idiots who think drawing pictures o’ someone decapitated & crying ’bout people rightfully calling her stupid for doing so is intelligent discussion & “right-wing” idiots who don’t e’en know basic American history, law, or anything beyond mindless curt sentences.
