Newton's (real) law: The consequences of free speech is tasteless and offensive behavior....

[Be sure to click through if the complete images do not post on your browser]

There are those who think it's funny to declare other human beings as hunting targets:

Then again, there are those who think it's funny to paint all gun-owners as crazed killers:

There are those who think it is appropriate to compare socially conservative Christians to Al Qaeda:

There are those who think it's within the bounds of good taste to use maimed babies as props in political cartoons:

There are those who think its appropriate to make retard jokes about Downs Syndrome children:

There are those who use images to suggest that our soldiers are mindless killers:

There are those who think it's OK to portray people with different political views as willing to kill the helpless:

There are those who suggest that violence is the appropriate penalty for those in the previous administration:

... and I'd often truly like to be able to shut some of them up.

And then I remember the consequences of eliminating all those tasteless and offensive types of speech as too dangerous to be permitted:

Comments

downwithabsolutes said…

Thank you, Steve, for this excellent post. The feigned outrage on display by DL on this topic is gut-bustingly laughable and it's something I've been saying for years re: cartoons, posters and other propaganda that offend.

DL is only empowering those groups who are intentionally setting out to offend others by, get this, ACTUALLY getting offended!!!

They need to just get over it. Much better for the blood pressure.

May 6, 2009 at 9:12 PM

Anonymous said…

Steve,

It looks like you had some fun today.

anonone

May 6, 2009 at 9:46 PM

Hube said…

DL: "Ground Zero for all Things Idiotic."

May 7, 2009 at 8:43 AM

A Libertarian Martin Luther King Jr. Day post

In which we travel into interesting waters . . . (for a fairly long trip, so be prepared) Dr. King's 1968 book, Where do we go from here: chaos or community? , is profound in that it criticizes anti-poverty programs for their piecemeal approach, as John Schlosberg of the Center for a Stateless Society [C4SS] observes: King noted that the antipoverty programs of the time “proceeded from a premise that poverty is a consequence of multiple evils,” with separate programs each dedicated to individual issues such as education and housing. Though in his view “none of these remedies in itself is unsound,” they “all have a fatal disadvantage” of being “piecemeal,” with their implementation having “fluctuated at the whims of legislative bodies” or been “entangled in bureaucratic stalling.” The result is that “fragmentary and spasmodic reforms have failed to reach down to the profoundest needs of the poor.” Such single-issue approaches also have “another common failing — ...

A reply to Salon's R. J. Eskrow, and his 11 stupid questions about Libertarians

Posts here have been in short supply as I have been living life and trying to get a campaign off the ground. But "11 questions to see if Libertarians are hypocrites" by R. J. Eskrow, picked up at Salon , was just so freaking lame that I spent half an hour answering them. In the end (but I'll leave it to your judgment), it is not that Libertarians or Libertarian theory looks hypocritical, but that the best that can be said for Mr. Eskrow is that he doesn't have the faintest clue what he's talking about. That's ok, because even ill-informed attacks by people like this make an important point: Libertarian ideas (as opposed to Conservative ideas, which are completely different) are making a comeback as the dynamic counterpoint to "politics as usual," and so every hack you can imagine must be dragged out to refute them. Ergo: Mr. Eskrow's 11 questions, with answers: 1. Are unions, political parties, elections, and ...

More of This, Please

Or perhaps I should say, "Less of this one, please." Or how about just, "None of them. Ever again. Please....For the Love of God." Sunshine State Poll: Grayson In Trouble The latest Sunshine State/VSS poll shows controversial Democratic incumbent Alan Grayson trailing former state Senator Dan Webster by seven points, 43 percent to 36 percent. A majority of respondents -- 51 percent -- disapprove of the job that Grayson is doing. Independents have an unfavorable view of him as well, by a 36/47 margin. Grayson has ignored the conventional wisdom that a freshman should be a quiet member who carefully tends to the home fires. The latest controversy involves his " Taliban Dan " advertisement, where he explicitly compares his opponent to the Taliban, and shows a clip of Webster paraphrasing Ephesians 5:22 -- "wives, submit to your husbands." An unedited version of the clip shows that Webster was actually suggesting that husba...

Search This Blog