In one post, I’d written:
There’s a rich history of satire, isn’t there, from Chaucer and Defoe to Swift and Thackeray to Spitting Image and Private Eye, a noble tradition.
D for Doom replied:
I’m not sure that satire is so noble. It’s usually driven by hatred and its purpose is to undermine existing institutions. There’s no more potent weapon than mockery and it’s a weapon that has wrought a great deal of destruction on traditional Britain, particularly as it’s been wielded by the traitorous scum at the BBC and by nasty little creeps like the Monty Python crew.
“Traitorous scum” – do wish D for Doom would not mince his words so, would come out and say what he really thinks. 🙂
We’re back to the age-old, aren’t we? How far can freedom to act and express oneself go? A good test case is Sarah Sanders and Red Hen:
Would it be right or wrong for DJT to send in these boys?
Conservative commenters [yes, there is such a thing, D for Doom, as distinct from CINOs and global socialists] almost universally put the point, in line with what we think, that that woman had every right to refuse service in a private enterprise, for whatever reason she chooses – but we also have the right to withdraw our custom.
If a gaycake baker can refuse, so can this bint. Voltaire would approve.
That woman could also point out that, according to the rule of harm to others, she had affected one person – Sarah Sanders – but Sarah saying it in a tweet sends it to millions, even billions across the world.
And DJT and son also giving their opinions sends it even further. We’re on about the Clinton Crime family and what happens to people who cross them – should our side be circumspect? Is sending in the IRS for a full audit OTT?
Turn this right around and ask, “Are you going to stop DJT’s right to speak,” which is something the MSM have certainly been trying to do?
In short, where’s the line?