And with that, began an epic drubbing. William Saletan wrote an article at Slate, lambasting Mitt Romney for betraying free speech.

What, exactly, does Romney mean by “American values”? The embassy never apologized for free speech or diplomatic sovereignty. The only American offense it criticized was the movie’s “bigotry” and “efforts by misguided individuals to hurt the religious feelings of Muslims.” Does Romney regard this criticism as an “apology for American values”? Is bigotry an American value? Is it weak or un-American to repudiate slurs against Muslims?

Evidently, he did that by, you know, standing up for free speech and for calling out the appalling apologies for our freedom of speech. It’s kind of hard to grasp what he’s saying; we aren’t fluent in cuckoo pants.

Ace, however, bravely took on the task of getting to the bottom of it. He’s a giver and all!

[email protected] Because I would venture its purpose is to cause Christians to doubt their religion by poking it with absurdity and venom. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

[email protected] I would suppose that is because the artists does not like Christianity and especially the political stances it engenders. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

[email protected] I have never seen you–nor, any of Slate, nor any liberal media type at all–suggest that such a purpose was illegitimate — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

[email protected] By your silence on the matter, I would take you to approve of such art– or at least not disapprove. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

[email protected] You do not seem to object to efforts to inject doubts into the minds of believing Christians. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

[email protected] If you wrote a piece attacking the "juvenile provocations" of the play Book of Mormon, I missed it. Please cite it. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

[email protected] This causes me to believe that YOU believe there is one religion in all the world it is improper to suggest doubt about. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

[email protected] While I believe you would greet any social movement away from Christianity, when we turn towards Islam… — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

[email protected] …you suddenly become very protective, almost insistent that the religion should be championed and advocated for. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

[email protected] Why do you suppose this is? Why do you greet anti-Christian art as a healthy tonic, and then shriek with such vehemence… — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

[email protected] …over art that attempts to point out the absurdities, superstitions, and, yes, evils of the Islamic religion? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

I got his handle wrong; it's @saletan. Questions for @saletan in my timeline. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

It’s understandable. Why does he go by one name? Does he think himself Bono? We wonder if he also refers to himself in the third person, all “Saletan says” and “Saletan out!”

Ace then kindly put all his questions in blog form so as to be more easily comprehended by Saletan. Read the whole thing, especially the thrashing of an ending, but here is a delicious snippet.

One might have certain beliefs — such as the idea that a religion predicated upon the de facto slavery of women, the rejection of the reason and humanism, and ultimately, even the rejection of the Commandment Thou Shalt Not Kill — and one might think he would be on firm ground to use the exact same methods and techniques of subversion and spoof and plain ol’ vitriol directed against the Faith of the West for coming on a century now. But no, William Saletan sharply disagrees, and calls such things an “abuse” of free speech. Not a legitimate use of free speech. Not a true expression of truly held beliefs (and, again, does William Saletan disagree that fundamentalist Islam could use some reform and rethinking? Let’s get him on the record). But an abuse of free speech, and if not a crime, per se, at least such a transgression as requires the mobilization of social pressures (ostracization, demonization, even threats to physical safety — ask Salman Rushdie about that) to punish those who would give themselves to such “abuses.”

Very thought-provoking from @AceofSpadesHQ– consolidated from his TL. Will @Saletan respond? Not holding my breath. http://t.co/pZ6m0eSU — Mike McIntyre (@mcintyremike) September 13, 2012

Will he?

@saletan Was Piss Christ an abuse of free speech which should be officially disapproved of by government and unofficially by institutions? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

He does! Oh, man, he doesn’t know what he is in for, clearly.

@saletan have you previously demonstrated this level of protectiveness regarding the dignity of religion? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

In same case (Christians at embassy), yes. w/ same defense of free speech RT @AceofSpadesHQ Was Piss Christ an abuse…should be disapproved — Will Saletan (@saletan) September 13, 2012

Dude nobody's going to answer you if you preempt with insults. C'mon, you can do better. RT @AceofSpadesHQ and before you stupidly object… — Will Saletan (@saletan) September 13, 2012

@saletan Is Book of Mormon an abuse of free speech? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

@AceofSpadesHQ If the movie/book is smart & right, it's not an abuse. But the key is: Even if it's an abuse, it's protected as free speech. — Will Saletan (@saletan) September 13, 2012

@AceofSpadesHQ You have a right to make a blackface video mocking Africans. But you shouldn't exercise it. Do you dispute either sentence? — Will Saletan (@saletan) September 13, 2012

@AceofSpadesHQ So you don't like the riot blackmail any more than I do. The blackmail is wrong, but so is this crap movie. Rushdie it ain't. — Will Saletan (@saletan) September 13, 2012

I don't care what rioters think re craft/truth. That's our judgment, not theirs RT @AceofSpadesHQ The riots are not about poor craftsmanship — Will Saletan (@saletan) September 13, 2012

Exactly wrong. RT @JeffersonTeaPar You cannot use "abuse" and "free" in the same sentence in this context. There is NO ABUSE if it's FREE. — Will Saletan (@saletan) September 13, 2012

A Saletan wannabe weighs in.

@AceofSpadesHQ the whole point of our foreign service is to develop mutual relationships with our fellow humans. Too much defense hurts that — Fingertip K (@kevins_fingers) September 13, 2012

.@kevins_fingers that's awesome, man. What relationship do the four slaughtered men currently have with the population? Fertilizer? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

@AceofSpadesHQ a fortress consulate defeats the purpose of having a relationship with the population of the country in question. — Fingertip K (@kevins_fingers) September 13, 2012

.@kevins_fingers you know what else hurts our mutual relationships with our fellow humans? Anal rape and murder. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

Thankfully, the drubbing continues as a nice palate cleanser after Saletan and his fan boy.

.@saletan care to tell Salman Rushdie his fatwah is well-deserved, as he abused free speech by insulting the dignity of Islam? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan and before you stupidly object "How can you compare &c…," yes, the film is bad and crude, and Rushdie's book is, I'm told, good. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan but that is a dodge I hope you can manage to avoid, because the jihad is not over the *quality* of the work involved. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan the jihad is over the fact that it insults Islam. It could be a good film; it could be a bad one. that is immaterial. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan Ah, now we're getting somewhere! "In the same case." By this you mean Christians threatening violence over blasphemy. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan So whether free speech is an "abuse" or not depends on whether there are religious maniacs willing to murder to prove it so. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan I trust you therefore believe that murdering abortion doctors proves that abortion itself is an "abuse" of bodily sovereignty? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan Same "case," you know. People are willing to kill to note their objection. So we then defer…? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

@saletan I didn't insult you. I did wish to head off a ridiculous dodge before we came to that pass. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

@saletan ah I did say stupidly. Okay. Well, I think that whole line would be stupidly missing the point, deliberately. But point taken. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

@eclectichorzman @saletan quite right, but we're pretending about their motives, for purpose of this claim. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

@saletan but "abuse" means it's a right that should not be exercised, correct? You have the right to abuse, but you shouldn't. Right? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan if I've correctly summarized your position, I would ask what other insults to religion you have declared "abusive." — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan And to make this clear, it is my supposition that you are only extending this "abuse" reasoning to a single religion. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan by the way, is it not "right" that Mohammad conquered by the sword & married a very young girl? Is this true but forbidden? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

Based on this conversation I think your right to free speech varies directly with your ability to purchase insurance for displaying it. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

If too many people want to blow you up for it, it's an "abuse" which, apparently, the rest of us should scold and chastise you for. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

@saletan Not in the particular, but if people where threatening to KILL ME if I wore blackface, wearing it becomes almost necessary. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan End of day, we're at whether you wish to essentially vindicate those who would murder by adopting their standards as your own. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan I would also note a bit of a dodge here: There is hardly any political point to knocking black skin. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

. @saletan Black skin is not an idea that can be reevaluated or rejected or reformed. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan A religion and, more importantly, the belligerent expression of its ideology, can be. But you reject this. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan I would remind that Salman Rushdie's book was just as "offensive." — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan South Park got death threats for their censored depiction of Mohammad. Was that an "abuse"? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan Do you defend them? Or did they "abuse" free speech? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan And here we are at the pass I specifically urged you to avoid. The riots are not about poor craftsmanship and you know it. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan The same murderous rage has been directed against "good art" such as Rushdie and South Park. But they contained the same offense. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan The reason we have crap-merchants making films like this is that all of the Good Artists have now internalized Islamic censorship. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan The Good Artists don't want to get murdered so they self-censor, now. No one wants the Rushdie Sentence. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan And ultimately we decide that this cowardice (or, at least, fear) is virtuous and try to craft an ideology to justify it. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan I cannot conceive of anything that could more convince violent jihadists that their God is right to demand mayhem and murder… — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan …than the spectacle of Westerners bowing beneath (imagined) jihadist swords. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan I really can't imagine a better way to encourage this ideology than this. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan Than to say, "Violence works, threats work, and we will reaffirm that your god is different than — superior to — all others." — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan And we in the West will institute a soft version of Islamic Blasphemy laws, but we'll call it something else. "Civility." — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan If One God, & One God Only, is bowed to by the governments and populace of the world — even (especially) the liberal agnostics… — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

.@saletan …then I think we all have a pretty good idea of which god is the True God. Only one makes his enemies quaver in fear. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

I can't believe I have to argue these points with a liberal, given liberals consider themselves Sons of the Enlightenment. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

And, he brings it all home with a Teachable Moment ™ for the craven Left.

Here it is: Remember those things you USED to say, 20 years ago? That the 1st Amendment exists precisely to protect controversial speech? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

That noncontroversial, non-discomfiting speech needs no protection? "Have a nice day" needs no protection? But "God is Dead" does? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

That the genius of America is permitting everyone to say what they will and leaving it to the wisdom of humanity to find the truth? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

Remember how you used to quote Brandeis, or was it Holmes, that "of course it's an incitement — every idea is an incitement"? — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

Well I don't know if you guys have forgotten that stuff, or never really believed it in the first place. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

But some of us, I guess now almost entirely on the right, do believe it. Some of us actually DIDN'T believe it, but you convinced us. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

So you, 20 years ago, convinced some of US that it was in fact the most discomfiting speech which required the First Amendment. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

So here we are, 20 years later, to remind you of the things you used to say, and used to believe. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

I see we have evolved in different directions. I hope you're as happy with your current evolution as we are with ours. — iLoveScienceSexually (@AceofSpadesHQ) September 13, 2012

Boom. Perhaps the Pentagon could learn a thing or two here.

Free speech, and those who defend it always, for the win.