More and more self-described liberals are carrying water for the most illiberal religion on earth and calling for censorship when Muslims get inflamed, which they do at the drop of a hat. One notable thing about the analogies to other provocative speech that may be restricted–such as the famous “Crying ‘fire’ in a crowded theater” test–is that, in effect, the most intolerant, violent, and crazy people, people not even located in our own country, get to move the dial by reacting so violently and angrily at the least disrespect of their religion. Why might we give such people a veto? This is a religion largely of Third Worlders, non-whites, and fierce critics of the West . . . in other words, people the left is inclined to find common cause with. We didn’t see this kind of defense of tolerance for censorship (or more mild calls not to be implicated in subsidizing blasphemy) when Christians were angry at the NEA-funded Piss Christ. But the reasons for that apparent discrepency should now be pretty clear; it’s a question of whether the victim group is sympathetic. The goals of the group are almost irrelevant. It simpy has to fit in on the non-western/non-white, non-Christian side of the ledger, and pretty much anything goes. It’s why we hear hatred expressed at Christian prayer in schools and Mormon opposition to gay marriage, while we don’t hear much about the anti-women, violent messages of rap music.
I would submit the entirety of modern liberalism is not inconsitent at all; it is organized solely around the meta-principle of undermining the power, confidence, customs, laws, rights, numbers, and self-respect of the western world and its historical peoples.