According to New York Daily News columnist Linda Stasi, only 13 innocent people were killed in last week’s tragic San Bernardino terrorist attack. The other victim – Nicholas Thalasinos – got exactly what he had coming.
Thalasinos’s crime: He was a conservative Messianic Jew with strong political opinions. And that alone is enough for Stasi to take away his status of innocence.
What did Thalasinos say on his Facebook page that made him such a horrible person? Did he advocate for the return of the Nazis? Did he think we should stop sending rapists to prison?
“Thalasinos was an anti-government, anti-Islam, pro-NRA, rabidly anti-Planned Parenthood kinda guy, who posted that it would be ‘Freaking Awesome’ if hateful Ann Coulter was named head of Homeland Security,” Stasi wrote.
Anti-government? Well, by the looks of Congress’ approval ratings, that could describe almost everyone with a beating pulse.
Anti-Islam? Any Jew who is not at least somewhat anti-Islam is either ignorant or filled with self-loathing.
Pro-NRA? Yeah, how dare an American support an organization that defends a fundamental American right.
Anti-Planned Parenthood? Jeez, this tragedy is getting more tragic by the second. Sounds like we lost a good man in that massacre.
As for Ann Coulter being put in charge of Homeland Security, you have to admit that it would take care of those Syrian refugees. It would have probably kept Tashfeen Malik from ever stepping foot on American soil as well.
Maybe Stasi should look into the other 13 victims’ social media accounts. What if a couple of them were conservatives as well? What if some of them were pro-life, like Thalasinos? What if one of them was (GASP) a Donald Trump supporter? By the time she finishes going through each of these victims’ biographies, she might find that none of the 14 were innocent by her standards.
“We have freedom of speech but even so, a city worker should refrain from such public bigotry,” she wrote of Thalasinos. “Municipal workers have been fired for spewing and posting racial and sexual slurs.”
So what? Newspaper columnists have been fired for less than you wrote, but that didn’t stop you from vomiting up this idiotic, insensitive column. If there is a mass shooting at the New York Daily News offices, will your family object if you aren’t included among the “innocent” victims because your views are inhumane and abhorrent?
No, they would be outraged at such an omission, and they would be right to be outraged.
The First Amendment is about more than political protection. It is the ideal that keeps America from becoming a fascist state. Certainly, not everyone has to agree with everything you say. And while the First Amendment may ensure that you aren’t imprisoned for your beliefs, it can’t protect you from the societal ramifications. In the most dreadful of circumstances, your opinions can indeed get you killed.
Is that what happened to Thalasinos? We don’t yet know. But we do know that’s exactly what happened to the staff of Charlie Hebdo in January. They died because they would not let offended minorities tell them what they could and could not publish. You don’t have to agree with their opinions to respect their courage.
And the same holds true here. Even if Thalasinos supported abortion and Obama and the kind of disgusting liberal crap that Stasi would find appealing, his death would be no less a tragedy. Because offensive speech and murder aren’t just two separate things; they aren’t even in the same galaxy. Anyone who thinks otherwise isn’t just a fool…they are downright anti-American.