How far can one go?

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?

3 comments for “How far can one go?

  1. john in cheshire
    June 26, 2018 at 3:55 pm

    I’d say everyone has a right to say what they want whenever they want but they don’t have a right to a public platform to say it and they don’t have a right to be upset if they discover that actions have consequences.

    With President Trump’s response, it’s somewhat like a person coming to the defence of a friend who has been gratuitously attacked by a stranger.

    For the restaurant, yes, they have the right to refuse service to anyone but don’t whine if in doing so your business suffers. And if you are hellbent on pursuing someone out of your restaurant to try to prevent them eating elsewhere then don’t be surprised if there’s a backlash.

    It’s no wonder there’s also a Red Hen restaurant, unconnected to the lefty bigots in Virginia, who have taken steps to tell people it’s nothing to do with them, because they know there will be a backlash and the innocent could be hurt in the process.

  2. Errol
    June 26, 2018 at 8:17 pm

    Trump would have been better off comparing the treatment of Sarah Sanders – turfed out for her political views – with the treatment of Rosa Parks. After all, there’s someone demanding someone move simply because theyy don’t like them.

    That’s prejudice. Pure, blatant, open, disgusting prejudice.

  3. June 27, 2018 at 7:27 am

    Things have moved on. Two reports:

    One on Twitter by a US conservative said it was not Sarah Sanders who was followed over – she and family went home – but the leftwing in-laws and it was them who were pursued and harangued. LOL.

    The second, by Chuckles, who had done his homework, said the woman was also head of the local association of businesses and of course has had to resign from those.

Comments are closed.