From nitsnotyourbusiness at gmail.com Tue Aug 20 01:40:38 2019 From: nitsnotyourbusiness at gmail.com (Not to be mentioned It's not your business) Date: Tue, 20 Aug 2019 03:40:38 +0200 Subject: [Kentucky-Vendors] Freedom of seepch in the States, revised and critically oppugned Message-ID: 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