Recently a woman made several (in my opinion fallacious) assumptions about New Times worth addressing (“This ‘Holocaust’ presentation is infuriating and hurtful,” June 2). She was upset about a musical that was advertised in a prior New Times edition because it ended up making a statement tying the genocide of abortion to the holocaust of the Jews.
She went on to state that New Times has a “pretty liberal following” and then asks “How did this get by you?”
There are three assumptions in this question. First, that New Times would actually know what the contents are of all the community events it advertises. Secondly, Mrs. W is suggesting that if New Times knew the content of events it advertises, it therefore missed something by advertising this musical by allowing it to be printed, which brings me to the last assumption. New Times should weed out advertising of community events that don’t agree with those of liberals.
If this actually is what she is saying, this viewpoint challenges freedom of speech and the press, which contradicts her obvious support of “human rights that are protected by the law and common decency.”
By the way, the actions of holocaust (and slavery for that matter) were also protected by the laws of the time. Sadly, being protected by the law does not always equate to human rights and common decency.