Bill Maher on Free Speech and Charlie Hebdo

I have to admit that I’m no fan of Bill Maher. His views and mine diverge to the point where we could barely shout across the political canyon to one another.

However, as sometimes happens in my encounters with left-wing libertarians (Nat Hentoff comes to mind), I often find myself agreeing with Mr. Maher, even as his snide way of expressing himself sets my teeth on edge.

The following monologue is a case in point. You can tell from the muted reaction of his (liberal) audience that Bill Maher has entered into territory that is too politically incorrect for their tastes. His conclusions, however, are spot-on.

Caveat: Mr. Maher uses some vulgar imagery and phrasing in the this clip:

Hat tip: Vlad Tepes.

6 thoughts on “Bill Maher on Free Speech and Charlie Hebdo

  1. I think you could describe Hentoff as a First Amendment fundamentalist. I’m heading that way myself.

  2. Yes Maher goes there, but he still doesn’t get it. Holocaust denial is not about free speech. It is also not “just an opinion” that should not or cannot be criminalised. Its not a science and it is not in question; no debate is needed. Holocaust denial it is a vicious agenda with the intention to besmirch, denigrate and desecrate the existence of the victims with the intention to prepare the ground for future genocide. This is part of the Islamic agenda (Jew-hatred is in the Koran) and just about every Muslim I have ever known is for it. Enough is enough.

    • It’s also used by neo-Nazis to cleanse the image of the old-style Nazis. So it’s understandable that countries which were once ruled and oppressed by Nazis would wish to ban it.

  3. Maher is a tool of the same people who import Islam in the first place. Conflict generation-management is the name of the game.

    • I agree with much that Bill Maher has to say, Pete, and don’t regard myself as anyone’s “tool”.

  4. Stopped listening to this [epithet] when he claimed that the 9/11 terrorists were “brave” for doing what was essentially the gigantic and grotesque equivalent of sucker-punching someone.

    That these [epithets] were also willing to die in the crashes of the jetliners is not proof that they were not “cowards”, but simply that their were homicidal AND suicidal maniacs.

    In Maher’s mind, this was some kind of display of”courage”. (Failing to understand that death, to someone trapped in Islam, may be their only escape and relief.)

    He then compared the jihadis to the “cowardly” Navy personnel who fired cruise missiles from the “safety” of their ships when the military response unfolded, failing to understand that all armed service, even in peacetime, has more dangers than he has the slightest clue about.

    But, if he riles up his fellow progressive delusionalists, now, with a small shred of sanity – finally– then fine. He becomes a less-useful idiot for their general insanity. But why did it take him a decade to discover the core malignancy of Islam.

    That slow a reader? (The Koran is shorter than the New Testament, after all.)

Comments are closed.