Those who deem themselves as liberal see themselves as friends of FoE [Freedom of Speech], unless it comes from those perceived as inimical to the liberal dogma.
Vivek Agnihotri cites four examples of selective outrage with regards to FoE, pointing out:
''These liberals have failed in their job and I'll tell you why. But before that let me clarify that I am keeping conservatives and right-wingers out of this because they as a group don't have the same power as the liberals. Most of our humanities academia, media, art and cultural institutions, and faculties that construct the mainstream narrative are filled with leftist ideologues. They have intellectual and communication power which the right-wing doesn't enjoy. By choosing to highlight one incident and ignoring another; coining terms like the 'Internet Hindu' while ignoring Leftist and Islamist violence and amplifying a local lynching, communalising it but ignoring the lynching of RSS workers in Kerala, the liberals have displayed a very vulgar side of liberalism.
I am not saying right-wingers aren't selective, it's expected out of them. They are conservatives. Their idea of FoE is restrictive. They have no qualms about their selectivity. They aren't the ones who take the high moral ground. Liberals do. Right-wingers believe in boundaries, liberals want an open world. Right-wingers follow their social constitution and fight to protect it over and above the legal constitution. Liberals follow the legal constitution and they have taken it upon themselves to protect FoE absolutely at the cost of challenging the social or religious constitutions. But in real life, it's just the opposite. Liberals amplify Sen's and AIB's case but remain silent when Madhur and that 17-year-old boy's FoE is assaulted. Hence, they are guilty of selective outrage or partisan support of FoE.''*
*Read the full article by Vivek Agnihotri in FirstPost via the external link
