Mia Khalifa, a Victim of Cancel Culture?
Playboy fired the former porn star after she tweeted in defense of Hamas.
Mia Khalifa is a former pornographic actress who now works as a commentator and content creator for the adult magazine Playboy. Well, that gig is over for her: Playboy announced that it had fired Khalifa over pro-Hamas comments she made on social media.
"Over the past few days, Mia has made disgusting and reprehensible comments celebrating Hamas' attacks on Israel and the murder of innocent men, women and children," wrote the magazine in a statement. "At Playboy, we encourage free expression and constructive political debate, but we have a zero tolerance policy for hate speech."
Khalifa's comments were indeed vile. On X, the site formerly known as Twitter, she called on Hamas militants to "flip their phones" horizontally in order to capture better footage of the atrocities they were committing, and she referred to a photo of the terrorists as a "Renaissance painting." (She subsequently deleted that tweet.) Moreover, Playboy is a private company and has no special First Amendment obligation to platform speech it detests.
But, of course, many people—myself included—have objected in the past when provocative individuals are sanctioned, punished, expelled, or fired for making controversial and offensive remarks. Sometimes, these individuals are described as victims of cancel culture, even though their underlying behavior was quite obnoxious: Roseanne Barr, Kathy Griffin, Will Wilkinson. (Barr was defended by many on the right, Griffin was defended by many on the left, Wilkinson was defended by…basically just me.)
Playboy has said that it values "free speech" but has a "zero tolerance policy for hate speech." The magazine does, in fact, have a long history of fighting on behalf of the First Amendment: It has won important court battles—including before the Supreme Court—and works with other civil liberties organizations to protect free speech. This admirable track record cannot and should not be overlooked, which is why it's a bit troubling to see the organization committing a classic mistake with respect to the erroneous free speech/hate speech distinction. What constitutes hate speech is in the eyes of the beholder; it is not some carefully defined category of expression that is separate from free speech, despite frequent assertions to the contrary.
And it's not as if the magazine had no idea what it was getting when it hired Khalifa, whose intensely anti-Israel views have been well-known for some time. Playboy hailed Khalifa as a "thought-provoking" addition to their roster of content creators when she was hired, noting that "freedom of expression" is one of the organization's cornerstone values.
Again, no publication owes Khalifa a platform. Her speech rights vis-à-vis her employer are not subject to the protection of the First Amendment. She is in a different situation than the pro-Palestinian students at Harvard University, whose ignorant statements assigning all blame for the Hamas attacks to the "Israeli regime" are protected via the university's stated commitment to honor the free expression rights of students and faculty members.
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
I’m not sure why people are paying attention to this chick. Didn’t she stop doing porn a long time ago? She doesn’t really have anything to offer other than tits.
Robby didn’t/doesn’t care either way. While the world is getting in it’s two minutes of hate, he’s got to shoehorn in his two minutes of equivocating between war crimes, at will employment, and free speech somehow.
I think she is cute, but her tits are nasty. She has the binenomics of tits.
bidenomic tits: better before the inflation.
Exactly
Cosmetic surgery rarely improves anyone.
OK, I went and looked. For research purposes, of course. And yeah, what the fuck did she do that to her tits for?
I still don’t know why anyone cares what she says. She sucked some dicks, complained about having sucked some dicks, and she’s still complaining a decade later. Well, was until Shapiro fired her, I guess.
Anyway, this made me think. I have been noticing that there are a lot of women these days whose cosmetic surgery doesn’t make me think “She’s lovely and vibrant” so much as “What the fuck is wrong with her mouth?” It used to be older women who went overboard, turned into botox addled restylane monsters, but I see it on younger women a lot.
Porn stars lead this contingent. bizarrely unnatural tits, really weird fucked up looking lips, and so much makeup they look almost as fake and plastic as a Kardashian. But it’s leaking into the world, too.
A lot of these women get their tits paid for by their pimps, and these guys typically aren’t interested in paying a good price for a decent tit job. I’ve seen a couple who’ve gotten implants and it at least weren’t all scarred up or distended, but it’s rare.
Lisa Ann “retired” only so she could take the time to get reconstructive surgery on her tits and new implants, just because her original tits got so distorted from her tit jobs. I bet her boobs were actually pretty decent on their own before she got her bolt-ons.
They were.
Prostitutes in general are not noted for clear thinking. They also tend to be highly insecure, and fake tits are of course marketed primarily to insecure skanks.
-jcr
That’s the thing, though. I see lots of trophy wife level girls where I live, and I’m seeing more and more super puffy lips. Like, ridiculous trout pout. Like the reverse of that scene in Howard the Duck when Lea Thompson sleeps with him inspired them.
I think cosmetic surgery amongst some folks is like tattoos. They get addicted, or decide if a little is good, and more is better, then way too much oughtta be just about right.
That’s likely Kardashian influence. All of them have gotten lip fillers eventually.
The trophy wives aren’t trying to impress their husband’s, they’re trying to outdo other women in their social circle- which is mostly women and gays.
It’s the prominence of gays that’s ruining women’s faces.
women and gays
This. The gays don’t help in the least, but it’s a bunch of people who hate themselves and each other trying to look attractive to each other.
And you and Nardz know all this how?
So from Tramp Stamps to Tramp Lips?
It always looks like she’s got circles under her eyes like she just woke up from a 3-day coke bender to me. Like she’s the Jim Breuer of porn starlets.
*unzips*
Lol
[overts eyes, stifles giggle, coughs] Uh… speaking of Jews…
Nobody’s that sexy.
“..but her tits are nasty.”
That sounds like something that The Donald would say! Are they ass nasty ass Spermy Daniels’s tits? Inquiring minds want to KNOW, dammit!
Shilling for genocide is a definite turn-off. Never stick your dick in crazy or evil.
What constitutes hate speech is in the eyes of the beholder;
Fucking LOL, Robby. To be sure, you literally just said,
Khalifa’s comments were indeed vile. On X, the site formerly known as Twitter, she called on Hamas militants to “flip their phones” horizontally in order to capture better footage of the atrocities they were committing,
I know you couldn’t care less about Khalifa or Playboy, but that should make it *easier* to have a spine.
She was celebrating and advocating for atrocities and war crimes, not even merely excusing them.
Robby: What constitutes hate speech is, subjective, in the eyes of the beholder.
Everyone Who Read What Robby Wrote Several Sentences Earlier: Hey, Robby, if we flip our phones horizontally to better capture the hate speech would you recognize it then?
She’s a vapid whore who would get raped to death by the people she’s cheerleading.
Well, to be fair, I’ve always thought that vertical video should be a hanging offense.
And people say Reason doesn’t cover cancel culture. They’ve been very good whenever sex workers have been *checks results* inconvenienced by corporate paymasters.
There’s still Onlyfans, babydoll.
Given that there are hours of her doing all kinds of crap online for free…not sure why anybody would pay to see an older version of her now.
The “funny” thing is what the men she’s praising would do to her if she were in Gaza.
Death by stoning, most likely
I’m sure they would gang rape her first then stone her to death, and given their actions, probably gang rape her corpse after. She deserves nothing better than to live what she demands for others.
I’m so glad we’re importing these fine people into our country.
Diversity is the greatest good.
But not for Israel. Israel gets to have borders and ethnic nationalism.
And you’re a nazi if you want that here.
Israel, Jordan, Egypt, Lebanon, Iraq, Saudi Arabia, Qatar… Palestinians don’t belong there.
They belong in the US.
Even funnier: ISIS and Hamas have both threatened to kill her, on the grounds she is a moral degenerate.
Justice poetic.
Sadly, Mia Khalifa isn’t the only cognitively dissonant porn star to shill for Antisemitism and genocide.
Tia Tequila also has praised Adolf Hitler and Neo-Nazism/White Nationalism and associated Homosexuality with The Devil (even though she once claimed to be Bisexual) and is a Flat Earther.
What’s strangest of all, Tila Tequilla is of Vietnamese heritage and would be among the Nazi’s “Inferior Races” in the concentration camps.
Sadest of all, she has bore young to ride with her on the crazy train twice.
Just damn!
Tila Tequilla–Wikipedia
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tila_Tequila
Again, never stick your dick in crazy or evil.
It occurs to me that Ms. Khalifa could livestream her porn show for tips from Palestine on one of their popular streaming services. However, it might be difficult for her to have any kind of handshake deals with the Hamas leadership as they may see her as “unclean”. That is if that Oliver Stone documentary is any guide.
“Moreover, Playboy is a private company and has no special First Amendment obligation to platform speech it detests.”
…and…
“Again, no publication owes Khalifa a platform. Her speech rights vis-à-vis her employer are not subject to the protection of the First Amendment.”
Robby is batting 1,000!!! And enemies of Section 230 are bat-shit crazy, bat-shitting 1,000+++!!!
(Playboy wants to make money, and bless their rights! Keeping bat-shit-crazy writers on staff does NOT help make money!)
Robby is batting 1,000!!! And enemies of Section 230 are bat-shit crazy, bat-shitting 1,000+++!!!
Is Playboy a platform or a publisher? I’m not 100% sure if section 230 is even in play here. I may only be 142% sure it isn’t in play here.
Those who LOVE to shit on free speech and property rights, WILL shit on free speech and property rights, if allowed to do so, REGARDLESS of the exact form of the media involved, and regardless of which side of the political fence that they shit upon! Platform or a publisher? WHY does it matter? Censorshit (and MARXIST grabbing of property rights) is censorshit!!! NOOO, say the power pigs and Marxists, Playboy (etc.) may NOT do with their properties and employment policies, ass if Playboy belongs to Playboy! Playboy belongs to the voters, through collectivist Government Almighty, dammit!!! Now DO ASS WE SAY, Comrades and sexy Cumrades!!!
(Such Government Almighty power piggery deflates MY boner! Speaking just for me myself and I, at least!)
Hey retard. Still batting 100 on not knowing what the fuck s230 does I see. Playboy is a publisher, 230 doesn’t exempt it.
Publisher v/s platform, WHAT is (or SHOULD be) the difference, property-rights-hating MARXIST Bitch?
We (the USA) need a “Section 230 for hardcopy rags” to fend off Perfect Power Pig BITCHES like YOU, Perfectly Moose-Fucking foreigner! WHEN are Ye gonna register ass a MARXIST foreign agent, trying to SPAM the USA with Marxism, anyway?
Publisher v/s platform, WHAT is (or SHOULD be) the difference
You still don’t get it, retard.
S230 DOESN’T PROTECT PUBLISHERS FROM LEGAL LIABILITY when publishing. It protects them only from liability from what a commenter writes in a comment section or associated forum. That’s it.
It doesn’t cover Playboy, just letters to Playboy.
All this time shilling for s230 and you still don’t know or understand what it does.
What you say here is true, except for the part about me not “getting it”. I “get” that THOSE WHO WRITE THE SLANDER OR LIBEL (not those who “publish” letters to the editors, or host from-users content) should (if anyone) be the ones who get sued! YOU, Perfect Marxist Enemy of Section 230, is the one who has cunt-sistently argued otherwise!
What’s YOUR plan? Do you plan to tear down Section 230, and then post some TOTALLY offensive, racist rants, full of many-many LIES… Defamation, libel, etc. … And then SUE Reason.com for having “published” YOUR writings?
Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching, Ka-Ching, ALL of the way to the bank, for Marxist Mammaries, Baby!!! Pure evil, greedy GENIUS here!!!!
So your “fix” for this is to vote for Trump again? Or for Josh Hawley? https://reason.com/2019/03/01/josh-hawley-section-230-big-tech-cpac/ Sen. Josh Hawley Rails Against ‘Big Tech,’ Anti-Conservative Bias, and Section 230
https://reason.com/2019/06/25/the-moral-scolds-new-illiberal-right-internet-hawley-230/ The Moral Scolds of the New Illiberal Right Are Coming For Your Internet
From Sohrab Ahmari to Josh Hawley, what the new right really wants is to squelch free expression.
How do you still not understand this?
Not understand what? Wrong-doers should be punished or thwarted… NOT the nearest innocent bystanders with “deep pockets”! Is THAT hard to understand? Or disputed, by you specifically?
Sooo… Your “fix” to all of this is to punish “publishers” (web sites) for the content generated by OTHER people? Those who post?
SOME people here have argued that, since there has been at least one (several?) case(s) of hardcopy rags (newspapers) sued FOR THE WRITINGS OF OTHERS, namely letter-to-the-editor writers (it was all well and good to authoritarians that SOME people got punished for the writings of OTHER people), then the proper fix MUST be to perpetrate / perpetuate this obvious injustice right on over to the internet domain!
This is like arguing that the “fix” for a cop strangling to death, a black man (Eric Garner) on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies” is, not to STOP the injustice, but rather, to go and find some White and Hispanic and Asian men as well, and strangle them, as well, on suspicion of wanting to sell “loosies”! THAT will make it all “fair”!
NY Times (NYT) can be punished for what someone ELSE wrote in a letter-to-the-editor in their hardcopy rag! An injustice, to be “fixed” by punishing Facebook for the same kind of offenses! Hey: Tear down Section 230 to “fix” this? Or REALLY fix it by adding a “Section 230 for hardcopy rags”?
In 1850, I imagine that perhaps some people in the USA were saying it isn’t fair that white folks hold black folks as slaves. Let’s “fix” it by having a bunch of black folks hold white slaves, too!
What kind of EVIL person fixes injustice by widening the spread of more injustice of the same kind? HOW does this “fix” ANYTHING?!?!
142% of the time, it works 100% of the time.
I’m shocked to discover that Playboy still exists in any form.
You don’t want to look at trans women?
Bigot
From another site:
““Consider yourself fired effective immediately,” the company’s CEO, Todd Shapiro, tweeted Khalifa of her “beyond disgusting” messages.”
You’d think they would have someone with a more neutral last name deliver the news.
Wait… wait… Shapiro? That isn’t Italian?
Irish.
Black Irish.
No, that’s the O’Shapirs. Easy mistake to make
Perhaps he’s really French, the family name was Chapireau – obviously Huguenots – but someone at Ellis Island changed it to a more familiar spelling.
Just kill yourself
O’Shapirs? You mean he’s dyslexic too?
🙂
😉
You’d think they would have someone with a more neutral last name deliver the news.
Let’s agree to disagree.
horizontally in order to capture better footage of the atrocities they were committing, and she referred to a photo of the terrorists as a “Renaissance painting.” (She subsequently deleted that tweet.)
Tell me she at least left up the videos where she does anal.
She is pretty vanilla for a “pornstar” with only 51 movies on IAFD. No anal or anything extreme.
I imagine pro-Muslim porn remains pretty vanilla, so that tracks.
The plumber comes around and within ten minutes you can see her calves.
I imagine pro-Muslim porn remains pretty vanilla
Tell that to the goats
I was going to say “good band name” but I think it’s more an album title. Maybe by the band Vass Eileen and the Velcro Gloves or something.
They really aren’t supposed to believe in making graven images of humans or animals, above all no images of Muhammad, so it’s really a surprise that Muslims even have television.
I guess they shoe-horn TV in because the Cathode Ray Tube or the Liquid Crystal Diode isn’t engraving an image.
Like Sylvester The Cat said on Looney-Tunes: “Beats me where they get this guff!”
🙂
😉
Clearly, you are not familiar with Mia’s ouevre in the years after she graduated from Montgomery Blair High School in Silver Spring, MD and went to work in the fast food industry after getting her break in acting, with the help of a prodigious bust. But her acting success caused outrage in the Muslim world, so there is some irony in her championing Islamists at their worst.
Yes, she was from a Lebanese Catholic family, but she enraged the Arab (mostly Muslim) world after doing porn in Islamic garb (a hijab) and being classified as “Arabic” by porn platforms.
So she’s like Cheech and Chong’s Sister Mary Elephant praising Jihadis for doing The Inquisition’s work for them?
Sister Mary Elephant
https://youtu.be/TuRo6SLY44k?si=4A281VUtgy_SGd0K
I know all I need to know now. My dick is still dropped.
She moved to the US with her parents when she was a teenager. Her family is Catholic, but she is non-practicing.
Why do I have to do the research, isn’t that Robby’s job?
Because, to be sure, he didn’t want to drag religion into it.
Oh, she be practicin’ for shore! Just not Catholicism (thank God!!)- but the religion of fellatio. Biden will make her the Czar of vertical scar.
By the way, all seriousness aside, is there a more “current day” situation than this?
Woman who gets all orifices filled on camera get canceled by orifice-showing media company for mean tweets.
It could be more “current day” if she’s pro-abortion, pro-open borders, pro-jab, feminist, and pro-LGBTQ.
those credentials just might have saved her job and only resulted in being ‘put on leave’ till the furor died down. Mind you, didnt work out that well for those two Bud executrons
Advocating genocide is not any day for me, no matter what else she supports, and I’m business-in-the-front-party-in-the-back-through-and-through.
Part of the Libertarian package is that there are some things you just don’t do or support.
Well, as George Carlin put it, I’d rather watch two people making love than two people trying to kill one another.
Mia Khalifa kinda bled in the punch bowl by praising genocide.
Just like other buzz concepts, “hate speech” and “cancel culture” have outlived their usefulness. Commercial enterprises should, in my opinion, stick to relying on the quality of their goods and services instead of competing on spokespersons or celebrities for their brand image. Obviously, if they take the risk of promoting their product with celebrities, they are likely to face difficult choices between losing some of their customers in just this kind of situation no matter which way they go.
However, promoting free speech and firing employees or contractors who go too far are not mutually exclusive. Expressing an unpopular opinion is not the same thing as celebrating atrocities no matter what you think about the Israeli-Palestinian situation.
If I follow correctly, what you’re saying, I agree.
As simply as I can put it, if (for example) Playboy pisses off WAAAAY many Playboy customers, by continuing to employ this hateful whack job, Playboy will be heavily boycotted, and their “free speech” will start to reach hardly ANYONE! In the name of “free speech”, Playboy MUST be allowed the freedom to “hire and fire” at will. (Even when ignoring property rights.)
Do people have the right to sue if a publication deliberately slanders them? What if the New York Times publishes “Sqlsy Rapes Kittens” on its front page?
It would have to be untrue to be libelous.
It’s pretty simple, Ye Who Perfectly LOVES to TRY to deliberately spread confusion! If the NY times puts up (ASS BOLD ASS THEY WANT TO, ANYWHERE ON ITS PAGES) “Sqlsy Rapes Kittens” (and identifies it as “donated” content), then I should be able to sue NY Times IF AND ONLY IF the NY Times’ employee(s) wrote that (which is not true if it is donated content). If it was “donated” content by some OTHER entity or person, THE WRITER, NOT THE HOST (who has generously provided a forum) should be the one (if anyone) to get sued! To argue otherwise shows Your UDDER disrespect for EXTREMELY SIMPLE concepts of justice! Wrong-doers, NOT the nearest bystander with deep pockets, should be the ones punished!
Now if You Perfectly REFUSE to learn this SIMPLE (and obvious) thing otherwise, I hope that they sue YOU for what I have written! Then (I hope!) Ye will finally LEARN!
Articles and headlines like this are kind of meant to muddy Cancel Culture.
Hate speech definitely has outlived its usefulness, if it ever had it. But Cancelling was a recent and pernicious cultural thing, since maybe 2015, where folks out of favor would have their reputations and careers burned to the ground, often for heterodox opinions, statements, or jokes made long before, and that were perfectly in tune with prevailing culture at the time they were made. Say one wrong thing and thousands of twitterers would go after you from every possible angle until you could no longer work, and it happened to everyone from celebrities to highly respected members of academia.
Saying some bobbleheaded cunt who only wrote for Playboy because she used to be a porn star is “cancelled” when she is fired for saying something Playboy doesn’t want associated with their brand is just part of the gaslighting. “What’s cancel culture? No such thing, it’s just free association, muh private company…”
Cancel culture would be an organized group trying to boycott Palyboy because of her. They fired her immediately because she is vile
We all have the right to boycott anyone we want to boycott, for any reason that we want to boycott them. Morally right or wrong is one thing, being outlawed is another. If I cannot be allowed to boycott, then Government Almighty is controlling my buying practices. That would be “Marxism, here we come”! That, too, would be vile!
“Palyboy?”
Is that the Palestinian edition of Playboy?
🙂
😉
But otherwise, yes, you are correct.
Noy-Boy Toy-Boy IS a “Palyboy!” They DO exist! They even cumment HERE, on these pages!
Don’t take on anyone who
buys ink by the barrelbuys VMWare licensing by the tens of thousands.I thought cancel culture was firing someone for saying men can’t get pregnant.
Firing someone for supporting terrorism is not the same thing at all.
The woke people will have you believe that criticizing their postmodern religion is the equivalent of supporting terrorism. It’s not.
Illustrative examples:
Unpopular opinion: “Israel deserves some of the responsibility for the bad situation in the middle east and the unrest in Gaza.”
Hate speech: “Israelis deserve to be mass-murdered by terrorists because of their responsibility for the bad situation in the middle east.”
That is such a reasonable example that it must be racist or something…
It’s the same guy who, one post before, said the term Hate Speech had outlived its usefulness.
Unpopular opinion: “I wish every last Israeli would fall into a woodchipper or otherwise have an unfortunate accident for their treatment of Palestinians in Gaza.”
Call to violence: “We need more and better footage of the rape, torture, and mass murder of Israelis as reprisal for their treatment in Palestine.”
Again, David Duke and countless other social activists went to prison for “inciting a riot” or “disturbing the peace” or other, similar calls to violence, and we’ll charge a former President and the rioters for just “inciting a mostly peaceful protest”, kick them off Twitter for “Good people on both sides.” but keep Louis Farrakhan, Khalifa, Tlaib, and others around for rather open calls to violence.
She was never caught with her panties down as far as the Israeli government was.
And it’s not as if the magazine had no idea what it was getting when it hired Khalifa, whose intensely anti-Israel views have been well-known for some time. Playboy hailed Khalifa as a “thought-provoking” addition to their roster of content creators when she was hired, noting that “freedom of expression” is one of the organization’s cornerstone values.
Playboy, like many in the Mediasphere is in the same cesspool as everyone else. Being anti-Israel is, at minimum, not a problem and at maximum, demanded. However, things get a little dicey when you point to a specific, video-recorded atrocity against a civilian and shout “Yay!”.
Being anti-Israel is almost a pre-requisite of being a fully fledged “member” of the Western Political Left. But when shit like what happened this weekend happens, that’s when you’re going to find out who your friends are.
No. Not cancel culture. Her employer fired her for her statements, but no one is prohibiting her from working elsewhere. In fact, the enlightened members of the Democratic Socialists of America and/or Harvard University would welcome her with open arms.
Cancellation is not the same as fucking around and finding out.
members of the Democratic Socialists of America and/or Harvard University would welcome her with open arms.
Well, welcome her with open something…
she could run for congress in Minnesota and join the squad
Speaking of Harvard, one tiny bit of silver lining from this horrific situation is that that lousy lefturd madrassa has squandered whatever remained of its prestige by failing to expel or even bitch-slap the snotty children who signed on to that anti-Israeli declaration.
They took a massive hit for their blatantly racist admissions policies, but after this any smart parent will steer their kids far away from harvard lest the stench sink their career prospects.
-jcr
Not just Harvard: Yale, Columbia, Dartmouth, Tufts, Brown, Stanford all have similar sentiments. The Ivies are lost.
Shhhh…You’ll summon Rev. Artie and he’ll add Brandeis and Yeshiva University to his list of community colleges for slack-jawed, can’t-keep-up Deplorables.
🙂
😉
She didn’t just defend Hamas, she encouraged their rape, murder, and torture spree by telling them to film their rape and snuff videos horizontally, not vertically, so she and other monsters could enjoy them better
That’s a far far cry from simply “defending” Hamas.
Yeah, her snotty cuntitude was way off the charts. That brain-dead attention whore made herself a lot of enemies with that shit.
-jcr
Sadly I can tell she has mental
Health issues … praising a cult that would behead you and a religion that doesn’t fancy open holed women … definitely indicated a limited mental capacity
“But, of course, many people—myself included—have objected in the past when provocative individuals are sanctioned, punished, expelled, or fired for making controversial and offensive remarks.”
So, Robby is into terrorist slaughter porn.
I wandered by Reason to see if they were excuse making about the situation in Gaza and I wasn’t disappointed.
Playboy had a choice: fire her … or risk alienating Jewish and Zionist masturbaters.
“Republicans buy shoes too,” says Michael Jordan.
Weird how the only form of cancellation you don’t approve of involves someone saying the rape and murder of women is cool.
But then I remembered what you are.
I was talking about masturbators, not masterbaiters.
It would piss me off if Playboy kept her and I’m a Gentile Howling Atheist masturbator.
I’m also Pan and I have a choice of whom to wank off to and I’m not wasting it on thuggy, murderous bitches.
Getting fired or ridicule isn’t really proper punishment. Just ship her over to the gaza strip.
She can even do a show, called the “Gaze STRIP”.
Looking forward to her super egalitarian and liberal treatment she gets as an un-covered, multi-load taking, apostate.
It wouldnt end well, but its what she deserves
As H.L. Mencken put it: “It is evil to think evil of others, but rarely a mistake.”
🙂
😉
Isn’t it interesting that- other than a meal-mouthed “no good solution” text from Wolfe in the Mourning Lynx- Reason commentators can’t actually venture an opinion on what is happening in Israel? It seems they only feel comfortable commenting on people commenting about Israel- those right wingers are wrong, it’s bad that a left-winger supporting Hamas was fired.
This is the reactive, shallow commentary of Reason- the masthead of Libertarianism, completely lost on the Ocean. No principles. No foundation…Just hot takes on the other people who are making the news. Hurry up and get rid of KMW already.
This is the reactive, shallow commentary of Reason
You weren’t expecting them to pounce, were you?
Somebody might think they were Republicans if they did. The mass rape and slaughter of civilians no time focus on principles of non-aggression and it’s limits, unless of course you are pro-mass rape and slaughter this time but have the sense to try and hold in your glee (right red wedding Welch).
Sex worker narratives don’t weave themselves into this crisis. That takes time.
They (Reason Editors) suffer from moral confusion; libertarians do not.
You will note that I refer to Libertarians and libertarians as two different crowds.
It depends on her job, too, as well as the nature of her comments. If she has some role as a spokesperson or commentator, where her opinions are a clear product, then Playboy is right to remove her. They don’t want her comments being seen as representative of them.
If they’re merely hosting her porn videos, they shouldn’t have let her go. There’s no reason to assume her spouting off on X has anything to do with the platform hosting her film shoots.
Roseanne Barr making edgy jokes on Twitter is clearly distinct from whatever shitty product she’s producing, and the same is true of Kathy Griffin’s screeching desperation for attention. Although Kathy Griffin has certainly made edgy offensiveness part of her brand since she’s more of a personality than an actress.
And all of this is distinct from the typical idea of cancel culture, where some rando working for a corporation makes a comment or a tweet taken out of context, and this leads to a social media mob wanting them fired.
She’s a “writer” for Playboy. Was.
She doesn’t do the porno anymore, because it’s bad. She’s made her career as an “ex” porn star for a long time, always bitching about not getting paid and pretending to be a feminist. Didn’t stop her from setting up an only fans, of course, but shameless is shameless.
Anyway, that’s fine. She can say whatever she wants on her only fans, Playboy doesn’t think her opinion pieces are properly reflective of their brand.
If the head of Mozilla can be ousted for making a LEGAL contribution to an anti-abortion POLITICAL campaign, if a race car driver can be held to account for comments made by his FATHER years ago, if a sportscaster can be fired for saying guerilla tennis in terms of a player’s ferocity on the court, If a student can be expelled on third party evidence while her lying accuser goes on to make millions shilling for Dove soap, etc, then this terrorist sympathizer can be cancelled as well.
The left can’t handle their own tricks being played on them, can they. Poor little snowflakes
Let’s hear it for the Israeli Defense Forces and hope they nail every Hamas barbarian they can find
Oh, she be practicin’ for shore! Just not Catholicism (thank God!!)- but the religion of fellatio. Biden will make her the Czar of vertical scar.
Eff her, I say…
Get in line.
Here’s the odd part. She’s a Christian. Her parents threw her out after she was in a porno film wearing a hijab.
Another proof that religion and morality are two different things.
She wasn’t canceled. She was fired. Playboy made no attempt to pursue her beyond being fired from her job. A mob must pursue you for it to be considered canceling. You never heard of somebody being fired?
Not exactly on a level with someone being forced out of a job for an article they wrote decades prior regarding the role of women in combat, is it?
Or JK Rowling, Gina Corano…in fact, this has nothing in common with “cancel culture;” she is a cunt who is openly celebrating mass murder. I would expect to be fired for doing that, as should anyone.
Mia Khalifa is a former pornographic actress who now works as a commentator and content creator for the adult magazine Playboy
So this one who’s tired ass was done working in porn, got a legit paying job for Playboy, a total unicorn in her “industry”. Only to throw it all away by cheering on Hamas on Twitter days after they invaded Israel and were murdering women and children. Next level stupid, even for a porn star.
I can’t imagine the conversation her agent is having with her.
Unless they’re working on making her a professor at an Ivy League college.
Or maybe she is looking to climb the same way Kamala did; is Willie Brown available? 🙂
>>Playboy hailed Khalifa as a “thought-provoking” addition to their roster of content creators when she was hired, noting that “freedom of expression” is one of the organization’s cornerstone values.
A lot of people in favor of eugenics suddenly found themselves OUT of favor once the concentration camps were revealed.
That’s not “cancel culture.” That’s “you are literally evil.”
Apparently, the editors at Playboy have a greater sense of moral clarity and humanity than the writers at Reason. As well as sufficient intellect to parse the vast and obvious difference between partisan driven populist cancel culture and, as the article itself notes, is the “vile” endorsement and laudatory endorsement of pure evil and the advocacy of not just an unpopular opinion or cultural criticism, but savagery, barbarism, nihilism, and the very antithesis of that good old Libertarian principle about doing no harm. You guys at Reason remember that one, don’t you? I for one applaud Playboy, who also has First Amendment rights, especially as a publisher. She is entitled to say what she wants. They are not obligated to hand her their microphone to say it with. Beyond that, they didn’t cave to public pressure. They summarily fired her because they have a conscience, decorum, and, ironically enough, a moral compass. What the devil has happened at Reason over the past several years? It looks nothing like its former, *reasoned* self. Drivel!
1. Yes. Yes she is – ‘make them live by their principles’ is the standard on the Left. ‘Sauce for the goose’ is the old proverb.
2. She’s muslim. It’d be rare for them to not have sympathies with their co-religionists.
3. Also, its Playboy – they probably fired her because she’s a ‘biological woman’ and not a man in a dress.
She’s muslim.
Apparently not. Her family are Lebanese christians.
-jcr
Yeah, someone else pointed out that she was raised Catholic. Born and raised in Beruit, came to the US later.
Hmm, my mistake then. I heard she had big problems with muslim harrassment and assumed it was because she was – they usually don’t go that hard against infidel sinners.
Absolutely is cancel culture.
I do not support it.
I also think she’s a vapid idiot who gives whores a bad name.
do you think Playboy shouldn’t have fired her?
I do not think they should have, no. But it could not be less of my business than it is. Her being a vapid idiot is not new.
and if they just then realized they didn’t need or want a vapid idiot working for them…. if that event is what made that clear to them… do you still think they should not have fired her?
My point being – it is probably most easily interpreted the way I have [above] and therefore quite justifiable – rather than your way – as an act of cancel culture. Idiots are hired, discovered as idiots, and fired every day.
The act of hiring her may have been a sop to the DEI (DIE) progressives, but that doesn’t mean her firing was equally political… just good business. You find out your questionable hire was an idiot and you fire her. Should also prob fire the idiot that let her get thru the screening process.
Not supporting something doesn’t necessarily mean you oppose it.
sorry – I don’t get your point
Mine was simply – she was fired for being an idiot. They didn’t want an idiot with no boundaries or self moderation working form them. Seems simple enough.
Firing someone for current idiotic speech supporting mass murder and rape IS NOT “cancel culture”. It’s not Tosh making stupid jokes, it’s not James Gunn being super cringe 15 years ago.
Now, if a bunch of right-wingers/Jewish people follow her all over the internet and try to keep her from working or living her life, then it would be cancel culture.
They fired her because they didn’t want to be associated with her. Cancel culture is when outside forces, force a person/private company to do something.
At your job, if you post this company is horrible/racist/etc. They fire you is that cancel culture?
The killing of innocent people is always bad regardless of who is doing the killing, what they stand for, or why they did the killing.
Image yourself in the shoes of the other and temper your reaction. One quickly sees that there isn’t the “Good Guys vs Bad Guys” scenario. Hamas is a blight on the Palestinian cause.
Hopefully the idiotic circle can be broken where the Palestinian population can demonstrate that they are worthy of being trusted by Israeli population.
Launching rockets, assaulting and killing people does not build trust or compassion for your cause. They only thing you are accomplishing is providing the justification for retaliation against you.
I have compassion for innocent Palestinians and innocent Israelis who are caught in a terrible situation. Most people simply want security and the ability to live their lives. This is true for both Palestinians and Israelis.
I have zero compassion for all warmongers, and in this case this would include Hamas warmongers and Israeli warmongers.
I understand people being skeptical and fearful of trusting the other party and this alone does not make someone a warmonger. Hamas has demonstrated that they are not worthy of being trusted by innocent Palestinians or innocent Israelis.
One does not need to be in favor of Israel going to war, being anti-war is a perfectly reasonable stance to take. But to come to the defense of a terrorist group that just murdered over a thousand men, women, and children, not from afar but personally, is beyond the pale. There is no excuse for it. None.
I don’t call this cancel culture, I call it refusing to do business with a lunatic bitch. This is not just a difference of opinion, it goes beyond the cultural norms of our society. One does not defend the murder of children and expect to remain within the confines of polite society.
What do you expect from someone with no gag reflex?
I would absolutely not describe it as cancel culture when an employer decides to fire an employee for their words or deeds. It’s just a private business doing what they do.
Cancel culture is specifically when outsiders going after someone’s livelihood, which did not happen in this case. I also noticed Robby hedged as much as possible while not actually defending Mia.
I’m really disappointed in him for this take. He’s been pretty decent on the beat, so labeling this cancel culture doesn’t sit right.
^ this.
You have free speech. You don’t have to have a job. Company’s have image to uphold. They can decide to fire you. The business didn’t agree and got rid of her (same as comedian did) . Same as the law firm not hiring that student.
Cancel culture is a group of people forcing a business to fire someone, even though the business supported them. No-one petitioned Playboy.
I think the title is largely incorrect, as she is the one who chose to break away from the culture in which she was born
We are pleased to have you honor us
https://riyadhcleaningcompanies.com/
ᴍʏ Fʀɪᴇɴᴅ’s ᴍᴏᴍ ᴍᴀᴋᴇs $73 ʜᴏᴜʀʟʏ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ . Sʜᴇ ʜᴀs ʙᴇᴇɴ ᴏᴜᴛ ᴏғ ᴀ ᴊᴏʙ ғᴏʀ 7 ᴍᴏɴᴛʜs ʙᴜᴛ ʟᴀsᴛ ᴍᴏɴᴛʜ ʜᴇʀ ᴄʜᴇᴄᴋ ᴡᴀs $20864 ᴊᴜsᴛ ᴡᴏʀᴋɪɴɢ ᴏɴ ᴛʜᴇ ᴄᴏᴍᴘᴜᴛᴇʀ ғᴏʀ ᴀ ғᴇᴡ ʜᴏᴜʀs.
GO HERE…..workstimedollar.COM
Arabic Spam? Well, just be careful trying to sell it to Arab Muslims.
🙂
😉
Soave,
Companies enforcing policies and standards of behavior of their employees or staff is not ‘cancel culture.’ But, given your confusion over ‘insurrection’ and apparent willingness to only play act at brave journalist and libertarian when one party hasn’t fabricated a risible plot and then begun jailing those who vote for the other party, you ‘struggling to understand’ is no surprise. I await your next pathetic apologia. Perhaps you can get RAK to provide supporting arguments, he’s a deep thinker and heavily into civil liberties as well.
Cancel culture does not mean “getting fired for unpopular opinions” or “getting fired for opinions”.
Cancel culture means firing in response to an angry political mob after you, even though your opinions align with much of the US.
Enjoy Your Beatiful Moment with the Lonly Ladies By joining CallBoy Job. All type of CallBoys can join CallBoy Service in khairatabad using axindia
call boy jobs khairatabad
Mia Khalifa is a great adult star all over. Step forward towards a new creation is not bad. Also Brandi Love reveals that she is getting in Adult parents organization for further work in industry.
I am making $100 an hour working from home. I never imagined that it was honest to goodness yet my closest companion is earning $16,000 a month by working on a laptop, that was really dumbfounding for me, she prescribed for me to attempt it simply. Everybody must try this for this job now by just using
this site link… http://Www.Smartcash1.com