[Kentucky-Vendors] Freedom of seepch in the States, revised and critically oppugned

[Not to be mentioned It's not your business]

Hey daddy, what has Atheism brought to the world? Once upon a time,
there was an ape named Roger. He resembles Atheism in its eminently
skankiest fashion. He assumes that we have been randomly developed out
of stochastic evolution. He attempted out of malice, nescience,
prejudice and detestable disposal, to futilely marginalise my status.
He moderates a list dedicated to blindness issues called blind
democracy. Members typically post about politics therein. I used to
often post about faith. I was naturally mocked by Roger and foully
dissed by someone named Joe. I refer to them as of conniptions. I
specifically made their contacts fully visible to others. When I
wholly exposed Roger’s miserable ignorance, he wickedly banned me from
posting to the list. Throughout the course of my communication with
Americanism’s major representatives, I noticed the subsequent
proposition. Many Americans due to incessantly heritable intolerance,
bigotry and superbia, declined to be criticised by those whom they
unjustifiedly deem as inferior. That’s what I truly despise about this
manner of maltreatment. I metaphorically call this the viciously Trump
based temperament. Americans promote themselves as allegedly the
primal guardians of incomparably  unparalleled liberty. Nonetheless,
their promulgation of being so is somewhat circumscribed. So for
instance, nearly three months ago, the New York Times issued an
apology for publishing what was somewhat viewed acidulous caricature
to certain group of people. It depicted the Israeli prime minister as
a guide dog with Magen David labeled on his face and has his leash
held by Donald Trump, featuring a blind man. The portrait received
enormous critique from both Jews and guide dog owners in the States,
whom mostly are manipulated and funded by the Zionist lobby therein.
Thereupon, the broadly recognised newspaper apologised and discarded
the depiction. A question, what if a portrait published by a prominent
magazine or newspaper anywhere in the west aped prophet Muhammad, for
instance, on what is considered offensive to Muslims, would the
publishing source apologise if we demand them to? Moreover, up until
now, no one apologised for the defaming caricature of prophet Muhammad
that was deliberately published in a Danish magazine and a Norwegian
newspaper on the same day. When Muslims demanded an apology  right
then, they were told it’s freedom of expression. Why couldn’t the New
York Times respond with the same justification explicitly evinced by
the two Scandinavian publishers back in 2006? The New York Times
apologised for publishing this caricature because of Jews not the
blind though. All the blind I knew whom criticised the caricature are
ostensibly pro Israeli and of the right political wing in America.
Gay, Lesbian, Bisexual, Transgender and Transsexual, all are protected
against discrimination or harassment by federal authority. If someone
 singles out or provokes people based on sexual orientation, he could
be sued and thence, punished by law for exerting invidious practice.
If someone wrote, spoke or displayed a banner that contains what is
considered antisemitic rhetoric by white Christian standards, he will
be subjected to tough consequences. He must apologise and dispose his
publication which allegedly reflects his right of free expression. If
someone spoke rudely to an individual with darker skin, he might be
viewed as a racist, he might be criticised by some, but he most likely
won’t be sanctioned or coerced to apologise and utterly extinguish his
publication. Nonetheless, if someone comes near the Jews, he must
extinguish his post out of the press. Despite the fact that it is
suppose to be his right of free expression, Jews and Israel are of an
unbroken redline. They are untouched, a boundary that should not be
passed, a critical edge for negotiation or compromise. If someone
speaks abusively of Islam, slanders it and marginalises its tenets, he
might be criticised but most likely his free expression won’t be
touched and he would not be forced to apologise. What is that called
folks? Leastwise, hypocritical, duplicitous and absolutely
illusionary. The proposition that the United States has uniquely
unrestricted scope of free expression and this has no identical model
in the whole world or specifically the Middle East is emphatically
counterfeit, vacuous. Please, respect our rate of awareness and don’t
lie to us again. The concept of freedom is deliberately filtered out
according to their own interest. If someone assaults Islam etc, he is
protected with the broad banner of free expression. However, if the
same amount of criticism was posed to the Jews by the same person, he
will instantly be labelled with anti-Semitism. That’s just a fact and
it couldn’t be dismissed. Nearly ten years ago, a pastor based in
Gainesville  Florida, announced that he will burn copies of the Koran.
He has done so because he thought, assumed etc, that what he has done
right then reflects some sort of ahem, solemn memorialisation to those
who have died on 9-11, and that the Koran is impeached of inspiring
terror, hence, held accountable. Despite the fact that he has been
critically criticised by many right then, he was still allowed to
openly opine his conviction, promote his act and even broadcast his
burning of the Koran. The video of the Koran being burned is still
available online until this moment. That has occurred in Obama’s era,
which would be described as relatively moderate and somehow impartial,
compared to what we have now. So, imagine, just imagine, if someone
who belongs to Islam would have desecrated a Jewish symble, if they
were peaceful to him, they would leastwise mark him with antisemitism
labeler. Would American media interview whom they consider Islamic
extremeists and hear their perspective? This is unlikely to happen in
million years. That’s why I sternly reaffirm, that your conception of
perfected liberty is quite bruised. The concept of free expression is
somewhat slanted and, promptly exclusive to certain people. I hope we
see this shameful situation significantly change in the near future.
The de facto based condition of us here in the Muslim world being
treated condescendingly won’t last forever. This decisive fact shall
be genuinely recognised. Islam is certainly greater than to be
diminished by negative stereotype and detrimental notions.
  ,


Mustafa