Playboy's attack on Michelle Malkin
The blogosphere's reaction to a Playboy writer's love-hate fantasies about conservative women
Did Playboy go too far?
In the latest sign that Playboy "should just fold up and go away," said Bonnie Erbe in U.S. News & World Report, the magazine's website recently posted an article containing a list of conservative women "the author said men would like to, er, have sex with but hate at the same time." The "disgusting, sexist" article, which Playboy has taken down, insulted upstanding conservative women—although it's hard to get incensed about the inclusion of the "venomous" Michelle Malkin.
Imagine the outrage, said Chip Hanlon in The Huffington Post, if Playboy's article, "So Right It's Wrong," had involved wanting to "hate f***" not a conservative blogger like Michelle Malkin "but someone on the Left." Anyone genuinely "dedicated to the empowerment of women" should be offended by this lame, "rancid" drivel.
So much for Playboy's ludicrous claim that it empowers the women who appear nude in its pages, said Ed Morrissey in Michelle Malkin's website, Hot Air. "The fact that the magazine published this piece of effluvium" shows that people at Playboy, from Hugh Hefner on down, want women to be "silent sex objects, and when confronted with women whose opinions differ from theirs, want them humiliated."
Maybe, but getting the offending article removed doesn't help anyone, said Susannah Breslin in Double X. It doesn't erase the "politically incorrect" thoughts of the writer, Guy Cimbalo, who was branded as a wannabe rapist by the chorus of bloggers who threatened Playboy with a boycott if they didn't remove the piece. This just shows that "free speech is so over" for anyone who's politics don't please the blogosphere.
Show: Oldest | Newest
10 Comments
Posted by Aaron, Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 9:30 pm I do not hate Michelle at all... in fact I find her to be hot and very do sexyful!
Posted by Aaron, Wednesday, June 3, 2009, 9:32 pm Oh and hey Susan Breslin... you KNOW free speech is not the issue here. Free speech stops when defamation starts. This was clearly defamation..
Posted by gwyneth, Thursday, June 4, 2009, 6:29 pm the blogosphere threatening a boycott is free speech, Imbecile. Your right to free speech does not guarantee that you are accepted and condoned by society at large, just that the government won't shut you down. And look, that didn't happen. I don't care much what the playboy says, the idea that they in any way empower women has always been absurd. On the other hand a feminist saying that anyone's political views invite threats of rape makes me sad that this is the society my girls will have to deal with when they grow up. Sickening.
Posted by Arietta Sollini, Thursday, June 4, 2009, 10:22 pm Ed and Michelle certainly have an aptly named website Hot Air because that, and something else, is what they are full of.
Posted by Dennis , Friday, June 5, 2009, 12:50 pm I wonder where all those bloggers were when Ms. Malkin and others like her spew their brand of hate speech? Do they praise the Conservative ladies for being honest and forthright? Let the guy have his say and let everyone have their shot at deciding if the material is worth reading. If he wants to rant about his conflicted feelings about women who make a living stirring up controversy, why should he be penalized for stirring up controversy?
Posted by Signe, Saturday, June 6, 2009, 6:55 am Playboy prides itself on being provacative.It may have provoked more than it bargained for this time.
Posted by Daniel Barber, Saturday, June 6, 2009, 8:53 am Cimbalo wasn't calling for the rape of Michelle Malkin. Anyone who claims he was is simply beyond stupid. He was saying that Michelle Malkin was hot enough for someone to ignore the fact she's a hideous RightWing Troll and actually have sex with her. In truth, I think Cimbalo is either blind, or has a fetish for ugly women, for Michelle Malkin isn't just buttugly on the inside, she's absolutely hideous looking physically. If I were inclined to rape, which I'm not, I wouldn't rape Malkin with someone else's genitalia. I'd be afraid of a disease
Posted by David Zukerman, Sunday, June 7, 2009, 2:03 am Difficult to comment on something that has been withdrawn. Still, in this postfree speech era, I wonder that the tradition, noted by Justice Brennan in New York Times v. Sullivan, of robust speech that includes unpleasant comment, has been itself been withdrawn.Indeed I have a hunch Justice Brennan, today, would be decried for supporting hate speech. I would think, however, that free speech should permit us to express some diappointment withgross, coarse, tasteless articles.Is the name of repression, today, Liberal?
Post a Comment