Bill Maher is sending liberals into a tail spin by defending Fox News host Laura Ingraham and slamming the entitled princess David Hogg, who organized a boycott of her advertisers. The “Real Time” host also declared that the student activist can’t serve as the left’s “human shield.”
During a panel discussion with former Democratic New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer, Maher showed his disagreement with the left-wing tactic to boycott advertisers to submit their political opponents into silence.
“In his criticism of the boycott against Ingraham, whom he described as a ‘deliberately terrible person,’ Maher points out that her tweet poking fun at Hogg was rather innocuous. Most of the panelists admitted that they don’t think the boycott is really about Ingraham’s tweet, rather that she is a Fox News host with right-leaning views who supposedly often says all kinds of “offensive” things,” reports the Daily Wire.
Maher then turned the discussion on to Hogg and the other student gun-control activists, whom he said have placed themselves “in the arena” and for doing so should accept “the blows” that come from it.
“Again, [Hogg] is in the arena, and then he calls for a boycott of her sponsors. Really? Is that American?” said Maher. His audience clearly showed they loved the boycott against Ingraham, Maher still continued, “He complains about bullying? That’s bullying!”
“It can’t be the case that you’re your own human shield,” Maher said later. “I understand they’re in high school. So if they say something, people do have the right to answer back.”
Maher offered some context for his stance against the boycott. “I have been the victim of a boycott. … I’ve lost a job as a result. It is wrong. You shouldn’t do this by team, you should do it by principle,” he said.
The panelists, especially Spitzer, lamented the boycotts were an expression of “free speech,” however Maher pointed out he isn’t trying to make the case if they’re constitutionally protected, but that the boycotts create a “chilling atmosphere” in our nation that works as an “end around the first amendment.”