a) support for her views
b) only a willingness to defend her right to spread her views
c) a brave defense of her rights to the
d) a rejection of violence
e) an alternate reality wherein her brains exit her head
At what point does it become disingenuous (and/or distasteful) to proclaim solidarity with someone in the name of free speech while saying you don’t necessarily endorse all they say? Apparently we have found a line, at least one whose breach would be required for the more pervasive trending-ness of the Internet. This time around, it would seem that the a’s have it.
Here I suggest that the je suis-ing witnessed not too many months ago is restricted for those with whom the hashtaggers believe they more broadly identify politically, i.e. in opposition to what many at that time claimed the hashtag signified, i.e. the concept not the content.
Now, it would be dishonest for me not to point out the clear distinction that none of the organizers/participants of the Mohammed drawing contest in Garland, Texas got killed. So I am left wondering whether Wilders and/or Geller would have trended in hashtag heaven had they taken a few in the noggin.
For this particular thought experiment, I posit an implosion of conflicted feelings so massive as to result in a Texas-sized sinkhole, sucking and ultimately rooting up France, segments of Spain, and bits of Benelux and carpet dropping their chunks from Louisiana to the Keys. Let’s call it New New Amsterdam, name Geert Wilders burgemeester pro tem, and recognize Candidate HRC advocating an immediate, robust military response of the let-me-be-clear variety.
Whether or not there is a limit to free speech, there is an apparent limit to what will win a wave of expression in support of it. It’s inversely akin to how people express absolute rejection of every little potshot of violence but vote for it to the 9th power on certain Tuesdays in November.