I’m sick of having to correct people in our comments because of information they get from lazy sites.
You know how these sites could be a little less lazy?
They could actually pick up the phone and call or e-mail Pamela Geller or Robert Spencer and ask them directly for the information on one of the most important stories in years – the struggle to save the ever-imperiled first amendment from the coming blasphemy laws.
I find it supremely ironic that early last month Pamela and Robert specifically asked Hot Air if they had some sort of institutionalized blackout on their work. The answer was depressing – (paraphrasing) “noooooo, we’re just focusing on other things. It’s an election year. People don’t want to focus on your specialized niche day in day out.”
But then the “Innocence of Muslims” video happened. Ambassador Stevens happened. Mona Eltahawy happened. Of course, these things were always happening, it’s just that Hot Air has a movie review to do. So many shiny squirrels.
Ace of Spades managed to cover the latest assault on free speech, the Eltahawy story, without mentioning Geller or Spencer. Weasel Zippers didn’t cover the story at all. (Talk about lazy. Is it that much effort to cut and paste like he usually does and then cut and paste one of his genius one-liners?)
A: That’s gonna leave a mark.
B: That’s a big bowl of wrong.
C: Golf clap…
D. Blank, thy name is Blank
F: Can you imagine if a conservative said this?
G: Camel Jockeys (oops… how did this one get in there? This is from WZ.1 not WZ.2)
I sound pissed don’t I? I am.
They were content not covering the important stories, why jump in now and get it wrong?
The New York Times has run a piece, and Hot Air is running with it as if it’s accurate, claiming that the MTA has changed its guidelines to be able to prohibit my AFDI pro-freedom ads. I disagree with that interpretation. The New York Times piece is inaccurate, putting as negative a spin as they can on the MTA ruling, out of their hatred for freedom and zeal to enforce Sharia blasphemy laws. Hot Air has been very late to the party and has not been following the story at all, so I’m not surprised that they’re slavishly following the Times’ lead.
The fact is, the MTA doesn’t mean that it will be enforcing the Sharia or adhering to the blasphemy laws under Islamic law. The enemedia is assuming that they will prohibit our ad, but it is not necessarily so. And if they do, we will certainly fight back. It’s fairly safe to say that the MTA is referring to prohibiting ads that genuinely incite to violence, such as ads from Occupy Wall Street calling for people to get guns and shoot businessmen and police. It’s the same as it was before. If they block us, we’ll sue again.