Quit yer bitchin'
One of the stand-bys of the right-wing playbook is never to engage with what their opponents actually say, but instead with some preposterous caricature of what they say--straw men being so much easier to knock down. Thus John Hawkins at Right Wing News huffs:
Yes, in the world according to Dadahead, people who disagree with him don't have a right to speak at all, not even to groups of supporters who want to hear their message. But free speech is a right reserved for human beings, is it not? And in Dadahead's world, people who disagree with him apparently do not rise to that level. Instead, to him, Horowitz is a "hallucination," an "evil spirit," who's spewing out "chimpanzee screechings," so it's OK to throw things at him if he tries to speak. That's the sort of "nuanced" opinion that most people probably associate with the sort of thugs who walk around with shaved heads and swastikas on their arms, darkly muttering about "subhumans." What was that Dadahead said early on in his rant, "They will call us Nazis...?" Well, if the jackboot fits...
If Dadahead and others who think like him have their way, political dissent will quite literally become a food fight featuring goons hurling things at those who disagree with them. However, lowering ourselves to the level of feces flinging chimps at the zoo is not something that should be endorsed by civilized human beings, whatever their ideology may be...
If I had my way, Horowitz et al. wouldn't be considered legitimate political commentators and we wouldn't be having this "conversation." They are the feces-flinging chimps, and you don't sit down and try to reason with a chimp--though you might have better luck doing so than you would with these psychopaths.
Please tell me where, exactly, I have ever endorsed the proposition that "people who disagree with me don't have a right to speak at all." (Well, I did say that it should be illegal for Pat Sajak to have a blog. But come on--Pat Sajak?!? Can't we all agree on this one?)
But for some on the Right--including the vile Michelle Malkin and various others--the thought that one of them might get a salad dressing bath is so "chilling" that it's equivalent to state-imposed sanctions on objectionable speech. Pardon my vulgarity, but ... what a bunch of pussies. Fucking hell; are you really that scared of ranch dressing and Boston cream pie that it's going to stop you from speaking in public? Is a pie in the face all it takes to scare the big, bad right-wingers into scurrying back under their rocks? Are you that easily intimidated? When the next pie-wielding college kid "assaults" one of you, why don't you just "put a boot in his ass"--it is, after all, the American way--instead of running to your blog to whine about your free speech rights being violated by "jackbooted" leftists?
Conservatives often chide the Left for embracing "victimhood," but the truth is that no one plays the victim better or more often than the Right. They have actually managed to convince a large number of people that Christians are being persecuted, that media outlets driven by corporate interests have a leftist bias, that their "values" are the object of mockery by "latte-drinking" liberals, that conservative professors are discriminated against in academia, and now that the Left is waging a campaign of pastry- and condiment-warfare to eliminate conservative speech.
This is all, of course, patent absurdity, and it's getting really old. My advice to Horowitz and the rest of the right-wing victimhood cultists: quit your fucking whining. Just quit it.