How do liberals define free speech?

If you've read the news about the three Victoria University socialists students who got temporarily suspended for burning the NZ flag without a fire extinguisher you'd be forgiven for thinking they're suddenly the new champions of free speech. Apparently free speech means burning the symbol of the country that fought to give them the right to act like the left wing jerks that they are. These three Workers' Party (workers? When have they ever worked a day in their lives?) communists claim that ANZAC Day glorifies war and New Zealand imperialism (whatever that means). So fighting against Nazi Germany was imperialism? Okay that makes perfect sense. It wasn't enough for the VUWSA not to lay a wreath to commemorate the brave soldiers who fought for our freedoms (including free speech which these socialists are suddenly so fond of) they actually had to disrepect their honour and act like idiots. Burning the flag might be free speech to them but everyone else is paying the cost. Unlike the AUSA, membership of the VUWSA is compulsory so other students who don't agree with them had to pay for their "free" speech. If this doesn't justify the case for voluntary student unionism then nothing does. These communists are crying about how their right to hate this country is being trampled on. If they hate New Zealand so much why don't they stop leaching off the taxpayer and move to countries with wonderful human rights records such as China, North Korea or Cuba. I'm sure they would be welcome there. Nobody's forcing them to stay here.

So now flag burning is free speech? What about giving an honest answer to a question about gay marriage? When Miss California, Carrie Prejean, was asked by gay blogger, Perez Hilton, whether other states should follow Vermont in legalising gay marriage she gave her honest opinion and said marriage should be between a man and a woman. She's got the right to her own opinion so of course liberals defended her right to free speech just like they defend flag burning.
Oh no, wait they didn't! Look at how the liberal blogosphere persecuted her, calling her a dumb b****, just for giving the "wrong" answer on a question about a sensitive topic. Maybe liberals forgot she agrees with their Annointed Messiah Obama and most other Americans on gay marriage. When was the last time you heard Obama labelled a homophobe? Liberals are such big supporters of free speech that her answer cost her the Miss USA title and Donald Trump only just let her remain Miss California. If free speech matters so much to liberals they sure have a funny way of supporting it with regard to Carrie Prejean. Liberals are forever going about tolerance towards gays but try disagreeing with them and see how tolerant they really are. So I think we can cross out gay marriage from the list of topics that free speech applies to.

Now let's move on to immigration. Try expressing your view that immigration should be even slightly controlled and see how far you go without being called a racist or a redneck. Anything short of advocating open borders and illegal immigration is apparently racist according to leftists. Whenever New Zealand First called for immigration to be more tightly controlled did they come their his rescue and defend their right to free speech? No? I didn't think so.

What about anything to do with Islam, the so-called "Religion of Peace"? When the Pope quoted someone who called Islam a violent religion Muslims responded with...wait for it... violence. The kowtowing left quickly defended the free speech rights of the Pope didn't they? "What, they didn't? I thought he's got free speech." Well, yeah he does. But he didn't burn the flag and dishonour our veterans so that doesn't count. It's not just the Pope that's exempt from free speech. See if you can have a rational discussion about Islam with a liberal without him/her shutting it down with the epithets, "islamophobe" or "intolerant."

And let's not forget the ongoing calls from the left for "hate" crime legislation to protect specially designated victim groups (as if there's such thing as a love crime). If the US Senate passes the Local Law Enforcement Hate Crimes Act of 2009 it would be a crime to speak out against any form of sexual orientation. Not only does this mean pastors can't preach from the Bible against homosexuality but you wouldn't even be able to condemn pedophillia or bestiality (since those count as sexual orientations). This legislation would place sexual deviants alongside other of the left's favoured voting base victim groups who apparently need special protection. How these hate crime laws protect free speech is anyone's guess.

I could go on and on but you've seen just a few examples of how liberals define free speech. To them, flag burning is a noble act while disagreeing with them on any particular topic just isn't on. Free speech when it suits them it seems. The ungrateful communists who burnt the New Zealand flag think they have the moral high ground. Who do they think they're kidding?