Forever? Really Clarence?
Because once you get past the silliness of statements like this:
For a clearer parallel, the World War II-themed board game Axis & Allies doesn't put a swastika on the Nazi pieces, because winning the game as Germany shouldn't be upsetting. They're not rewriting history; they're just making a strategy game fun by ensuring nobody has to play as the avatar of human cruelty.
Uh... so it's fine to play as the avatar of human cruelty by starting out on the territory they occupy and with the military forces they have and then try to Win World War Two... as the Axis.
But it's only upsetting if your little tanks and army men have swastikas on them?
Sure. That doesn't sound nutty at all.
And get past when the writer does get a nice straw-man about how Apple isn't the government. And yes... that's why people were going to other distributors, negotiating with Apple, or mocking them. You know... instead of bringing a charge on violation of the First Amendment...
One would be amused how a professional comedy writer seems baffled at the idea that people would mock absurdity.
ANNND past when the guy criticizes the drawing of Mohammed as... this
Except terrorism kills eight times as many Muslims as non-Muslims, so Trey Parker and Matt Stone were really just defending their right to say things that were going to piss off, hurt, and kill other people, far away, that they were never going to have to see or deal with or care about.
Well, unless they went to an art show in Texas... or based their production in Paris....
But really parse the writer's chain of actions. So... Muslim extremists get inflamed by non-Muslims on the other side of the world doing satire... said extremists kill moderate Muslims... and this Craked writer blames... South Park. (Which was something said episode pointed out...)
Now go past when said comedy writer.... who again writes for Craked a very raunchy satire publication... about how we all need social standards.
You finally, FINALLY get him admiring:
And that's fine! I can't stress this enough: As someone who puts things on the Internet with his real name attached for a living, I love free speech a whole whole bunch. So I will never fight to make it illegal for you to be racist, and say your racist stuff, and have your adorable little racist blog where you racist it up all day. I'd just rather you didn't pretend you cared about free speech while you did it.
That yes free speech is important, even for people who are distasteful. And that yes free speech even covers them.
The poor cracked writer simply felt the need to spend most of the article positioning himself and going "I support free speech, but..." which is amusing because he started the article bemoaning how every free speech case is going to degenerate into screaming and thus... he has to walk on eggshells. I guess lest someone thing the above quotation be interpreted as him supporting racists.
Also from start of the article the writer seems befuddled and so disheartened that free speech arguments are all about fringe and hateful and distasteful things. Does the guy not realize that's how it works?
There is not much traction to get the state to ban "Puppies are fluffy". However if they say they want to ban things that most people find hateful or stupid well... that's an easier haul isn't it?