Sent them a little email to make sure I was reading things correctly:
I’m sorry I might have misread your post but are you actually
displeased the people of Sweden are allowed freedom of speech?-Dan
Got this reply:
In my view, a progressive society, and for that matter, a progressive individual, would not count hate speech against an entire group as one of those forms of speech deserving of protection, and to the contrary, would have measures in place against it.
Cordially,
Scott Rose
Until now I used to think the religious right was insane when they claimed us homos were out to silence them. Now I have reason to sympathize with some of our most outspoken critics like Janet Folger. How sad.
True, gay people are considered a “protected class” in California and New York, places where QUEERTY editors live. But the axe swings the other way, might I remind readers that religion, and thus Evangelicals, are considered a protected class as well. Thus, carving out new (dangerous) exceptions to the First Amendment would most certainly affect many of the um… “choice” things occasionally said on this site and others.
Once again, if you feel QUEERTY is ultimately doing a disservice to it’s gay readership by advocating such a position feel free to dialogue with them.
Update 12/2: I got a nice email from QUEERTY editor Bradford explaining things:
I actually agree with you 100% Scott is one of three writers at Queerty and his opinions are just that, his. I hold freedom of speech in the highest regards. Perhaps I will write a follow up next week . . .
The only way to silence them is through repeal of the First Amendment. The only way to repeal the First Amendment is with an overwhelming majority of the population. Ergo, “gay activists” will never be able to impose their will on the country unless the country is already in agreement.
I’ll take messy freedom any day.
This is really nothing new. European nations simply do not have an equivalent of the First Amendment, and most Europeans simply don’t understand ours.
Kip is correct. Furthermore, the UK does not have a Bill of Rights at all, although most Brits enjoy a rough equivalent amount of freedoms as we do.
Having these freedoms specificallly written into our most basic law was something very unique in 1789. It needs to be constantly tweaked by the courts and legislatures to keep up with our evolving society, but it does happen.
I just wish they’d tweak a little faster sometimes. 🙂
Re: “European nations simply do not have an equivalent of the First Amendment, and most Europeans simply don’t understand ours.”
I have no problem with how Europeans wish to recognize or regulate speech. But QUEERTY folks are American, presumably First Ammendment participants and all. The axe they propose to swing could very easily cut either way, depending on who happens to be in charge that particular year.
Hello?!?! We know these things, go send these comments to QUEERTY. 😛
I’m writing QUEERTY but would someone please help me understand what “progressive” means in this instance? I’ve found it to be a rather generic term.
David
Daniel — please, get a grip.QUEERTY is not “the gays”. Who, frankly, are they? A couple a guys with a particular view? QUEERTY speaks for themself, and I certainly don’t remember voting them Serene Imperial Emperor of The Gays. What are they — a couple of dorks with a blog… big fat whoopy-tee-doo.And YOU are presenting them as a clear indication of the rest of us?Let me remind you… Janet Folger wants homosexualty to be a criminal act throught the United States. She is a nasty anti-gay individual. Need proof? That question alone is sad. If you don’t know what I am referring to — hold your tongue, and start investigating BEFORE commenting. (and do not take Chad’s word on this… that was a not too subtle hint BTW.)Seriously Daniel, but are we about to witness ANOTHER 180 degree flip? Or what? I am struggling to see what you are banging on about. We might as well start calling Phelps a “typical Christian”.Your recent focus on “all” this bothers us. I’m not asking QUEERY anything unless you can show they are important or have anything to contribute. I doubt they will be able to outlaw anything.
Grantdale, Your post sounds a tad personal but what exactly is the threshold we should use when voicing disagreement with a published view? And what is XGW but a “couple of guys with a blog” and those who read and comment?
David
I second grantdale’s comments. It seems to be the style for gay conservatives, which includes many gay Christians, to see something called the ‘left’ as the dominant voice in gay culture. I have never heard of this site before. And truly doubt it has any real influence. This certainly looks like chasing after phantoms.
“QUEERTY speaks for themself, and I certainly don’t remember voting them Serene Imperial Emperor of The Gays.”
Can I get your vote for Ravishing Stunt Coordinator of The Gays?
Don’t worry, I’m not going all soft all of a sudden, Janet was still came off as an obnoxious shrew on the Stephen Bennett show yesterday.
It’s just been somewhat of an unpleasant surprise to find gay people I respect online (and several of my friends) who don’t feel the same way about freedom of speech as I do.
David,
“I’m writing QUEERTY but would someone please help me understand what “progressive” means in this instance? I’ve found it to be a rather generic term.”
In the way he meant it, “progressive” means enlightened and moving toward to good of all. However, in practical terms, that usually includes forcing those who don’t embrace this grand goal to adhere to the plan.
Those most likely to use the term “progressive” tend to also be those who favor socialist taxing systems (so they can do good with your money), strict laws coercing others to “be good” such as hate speach laws (to make a pleasant world for all), and the total subjegation of their enemies (who are all white male patriarchal fascists, anyway).
The difference between progressives and liberals seems to be that liberals have an ideology and believe in the rights of others, while progressives seem to utopians and don’t seem to believe that the rights of others matter. After all, they’re wrong so who cares about their rights.
A conversation with a conservative or a liberal can be constructive and informative. But, like fundamentalist rightists, there is no conversing with progressives. They know they are right and believe it with a zeal. If you disagree on any point you are the enemy.
This is, of course, a HUGE simplification and based on nothing other than my observations.
There are plenty of folks who call themselves progressive who just have liberal ideology. But the temp progressive is like “family values” or “Bible believing Christian”; it’s a clue that the person you are talking to is totalitarian in their viewpoint.
So it’s not too surpristing that if Queerty considers itself progressive, it would have no respect for dissenting views of ANY kind nor feel the need to allow such views to be voiced.
OK, I reread my comments… guess I’m pissy this morning. Take it as such.
Sorry if I offended any progressives (or fundamentalist rightists). Not all progressives are absolutists and, just like some fundamentalist rightists, some progressives are open to other thought.
Yeah, I’m happy to admit to sounding pissy this morning too.OMG, maybe Timothy and us are starting to cycle together… ick.It wasn’t meant that way — and I’m glad Daniel didn’t take it that way. Those where all “what am I to make of it IF…” etcI am just very wary — wary, ’cause I am called to watch for it all the time — of the very old trick of someone faking an extreme position, and then coming in looking like the “good guy” because you move ever so slightly away from that extreme. The end result is a movement off the centre line toward the extreme, because often people forget to stop and say “Hey, wait just one cotton-pickin minute. No. No way!!!”The main point was… just who the heck are QUEERTY anyway? And should I care?
Dale said:
I second grantdale’s comments. It seems to be the style for gay conservatives, which includes many gay Christians, to see something called the ‘left’ as the dominant voice in gay culture.
I can’t seem to find anything in this thread referring to the “left”. Did I miss something, or was that just your daily anti gay Christian jab for the day? The issue is current (Ake Green decision), it’s about a fundamental right (free speech) and QUEERTY is an established gay commentary. Discussing these sounds like what we do here.
Timothy, that’s ok – I think the best analogy would be progressive = utopian, though I think some are using it as a “new and improved” version of the “liberal” descriptor. Trying to figure out how it’s being used in each context is the trick. I guess that’s a problem with all labels.
David
OMG, maybe Timothy and us are starting to cycle together… ick.
EEEEEEEEEEEEWWWW!
It does seem like we all had a little pee in our cornflakes this morning. For me it’s this time of year.
David
Just for the record, these anonymous posts are me, I guess it’s timing out before I post.
David
Umm, Jeff.I think you just said something (re: Michael Jackson) that actually is a crime. He was found NOT guilty, regardless of your personal opinion. What you just wrote is a very clear example of where “free speech” rules do not apply. Unless you are prepared to defend that with evidence in Court, it’s not a statement that you should make in public.ExGayWatch Editor (and it looks like it’s Daniel today) — I think there’s a post deletion required…Sorry Jeff — XGW is also liable.
Re: “It’s just been somewhat of an unpleasant surprise to find gay people I respect online (and several of my friends) who don’t feel the same way about [pick any subject] as I do.”
Wow. You should read some of the blogs I read. Like Ex-gay Watch. LOL!
Speaking of cycles, yesterday was New Moon.
Coincidence?
And by the way, I am not prissy. Bitchy, yes. But not prissy!
Nah Jim, pissy not prissy. That would be my other half 🙂
Grandale Said:
What you just wrote is a very clear example of where “free speech” rules do not apply.
Actually, I don’t believe slander is a free speech issue. It is considered “theft”, specifically of ones reputation or good name. In this case speech is just the tool used to commit the theft.
That may have been what you meant when you said “free speech rules do not apply”, but since we have been discussing this issue of late, I thought I would offer a more detailed explanation – the distinction is an important one.
David
Yes, I agree David.Both slander (spoken word) nor libel (written) are considered defamatory. Truth is the ultimate defence, but where a statement veers from “fair comment” etc varies from country to country. Australia has much tougher laws than do the US — actually reeaalllllyy tough.Stating that someone is “a free man after having sex with kids” is not something I would want to contest. It wasn’t jocular (aka Letterman etc) or fair comment (“Even though he was found not guilty, I still believe…) It was presented as a statement of fact.Then again, Jeff’s said a number of odd things — and THAT alone may be a form of defence 🙂
Actually, I think Average Joe posting on a blog site can say “He did it!!” without it being slander or libel. There’s a presumption that the person posting is simply stating opinion. But I’m not a lawyer so I may be mistaken here.
Dan, I hope that we would avoid removing Jeff’s posts just because he’s an obnoxious jerk – as long as he is stating opinion and not being abusive (as he was in the post that was removed). If we instate a non-obnoxious rule, most of us will fail at some time.
You can, of course, but I hope you don’t. He’ll get bored soon enough and move on to trolling somewhere else.
Hey, I’m the comment deletion specialist, not Dan. 🙂
Libel and slander are falsehoods spoken or printed with malicious intent. The religious right and some progressives get away with libel and slander by intentionally smearing large and vaguely defined groups of people, instead of specific individuals or organizations possessing the wherewithal to sue.
I think that folks could be a bit more cordial toward Queerty … they aren’t the only ones seeking to outlaw speech that is subjectively considered offensive or false. But what is subjective and what is objective?
It’s tempting to argue that libel or slander — intentional, malicious errors of fact — should be aggressively prosecuted especially when either is waged against large groups of people such as homosexuals or Christians.
If antidefamation laws were enforced fairly in this respect, we’d see people like James Dobson — and XGW commenter Dalea — prosecuted and jailed if they persisted in deliberate falsehoods after being confronted with the facts.
You tell me, folks — is that the future that we want for America?
David, I think in this instance “progressive” means the same thing as “godly”.
Randi I was just thinking the exact same thing.
David, I think in this instance “progressive” means the same thing as “godly”.
In other words, a group of people who fit his/her opinion of “the good people”. Good point.
David
If there was any doubt, I’m a “progressive” myself. Progressives support the inherent international human right to self determination and that makes us black and white correct.
Randi,
“Progressives support the inherent international human right to self determination and that makes us black and white correct.”
Not much prettier than:
“Conservative Christians support the inherent truth of God’s Word and that makes us black and white correct.”
Besides, c’mon now, Randi. I know you to be more nuanced than that.
If Ike Greene cannot preach to his own congregation that “homosexuality is an immoral practice akin to pedophilia”, he doesn’t have that much self determination left. “Progressives” would not allow him to even believe, and share with his congregants, what he has determined to be his own code of conduct. Only what they have determined for him to be acceptable beliefs.
You don’t have to support the principle of free speech. But if you don’t, please don’t then claim to be a champion of self determination.
“You tell me, folks — is that the future that we want for America?”
Perhaps it is. Consider the objective pros of that situation, people regardless of their ideology will have an incentive to think more before they say idiotic things and to say the accurate truth.
This may sound like something from a dystopia for some, but then again as we can see from Europe, some consider the US style freedom of speech as wild and post-apocalyptic.
Personally, I think there should be some kind of balance between the freedom and quality of speech. At what kind of ratio the balance is, I have no idea, but one thing is for certain; it isn’t at one of the extremes.
Timothy, I was just poking fun at myself. Bad joke. Nothing’s ever that black and white. I don’t actually support what Queerty said. Personally I’m all up for an argument and if it starts at the level of who’s a cancer on society then I’ll take it on on that level if need be. The right to free speech is inherent to the right to self determination, let me be clear on that. I think its a scary world when you get thrown in jail for what you say. Sorry to confuse my stance, I’ve got a lot to absorb from exgaywatch lately and I took that comment a little too lightly.
What Xeno said, its all about balance. I don’t have a solid feeling on which country has the proper amount of free speech. I note Ike Greene was acquitted, and it didn’t strike me that his speech was a crime. In Canada Fred Phelps can’t freely say gays should be put to death and that sounds fair to me. It doesn’t overly concern me that he can and does say that in the United States. Either way the attitude exists and must be confronted. Ultimately I don’t see much difference in the types of speech typically allowed in Canada, Sweden, or the U.S.
Oh hi Mike — didn’t realise you were back on deck :)It’s your freakin’ blog with your freakin’ name all over it — and if YOU don’t think sonething steps over your comfort zone (or the law applying to you)… then it’s your call, OF COURSE.I hope I made it clear that our laws (in Oz, with which you may as well say are = to U.K. and NZ, and Canada) are different. That sort of comment (from, umm, “Jeff”) will get you in very hot water here. Keep that in mind when you eventually decide to emigrate.At the same time… using VERY fruity language, even if highly vulgar, will be unlikely to get you more than a warning here. Kind of a quirky difference, I guess — declaring someone a child molester in a public forum is a no-no; yelling at someone that they are a c*** gets prune faces and an invitation to “move along”. A judge, should it come to that, will tell you to mind your language, in future.That would be the real difference: one is an apparent statement of fact (but slander), the other is a matter of opinion (albeit vulgar).Hard to guess what’s a best appraoch but I guess crime rates might show that…oh, that’d indicate you’re doing worst :)BTW — what is it with rural folk and weddings and f***ing HUGE hair?!(that was our last weekend)
grantdale,
“BTW — what is it with rural folk and weddings and f***ing HUGE hair?!”
Are you sure they weren’t visiting from Texas?
Actually one of the things I noticed in Muriel’s Wedding (OK, my Ausie cultural references are minimal) was that bad hair in rural areas is universal (but I still think Texas is the worst).
“…declaring someone a child molester in a public forum is a no-no; yelling at someone that they are a c*** gets prune faces and an invitation to “move along”. A judge, should it come to that, will tell you to mind your language, in future.
That would be the real difference: one is an apparent statement of fact (but slander), the other is a matter of opinion (albeit vulgar).”
I’m not sure I agree… sometimes you’re just stating a plain old fact when you call someone a c***.
😉
Well David, I shall refrain from a diatribe, for today at least. Has any evangelical commentator on this issue expressed public disagreement with the content of Ake’s sermon? Just wondering.
On a more personal note, I once read a series of letters from one of my great great aunts who lived in the same province as Ake. She wrote during WW2. In her letters she spoke of how sometimes at night the sounds of battle could be heard from Germany and Lithuania. Of how bodies would wash up on the beaches. Of how sometimes boats of refugees would make it to Sweden for refuge. Even in a neutral country there was fear about the war. And a great resolve never to go through this again. ;P:
Perhaps the catastrophies of the 30[s and 40[s, which resulted in 40 million dead in Europe, has given some people the idea that there should be limits to speach.
Well David, I shall refrain from a diatribe, for today at least. Has any evangelical commentator on this issue expressed public disagreement with the content of Ake’s sermon? Just wondering.
I have no idea, but that would be another discussion entirely.
Perhaps the catastrophies of the 30[s and 40[s, which resulted in 40 million dead in Europe, has given some people the idea that there should be limits to speach.
How odd that anyone would assume that the right of free speech had anything to do with the rise of Nazi Germany or the Holocaust. This is perhaps one of the best illustrations of just how wrong this thinking is. If that right played a role at all, it was in the lack of open discussion against the Nazi ideology for fear of the powerful forces that were censoring all such speech.
The censorship you bring up is an understandable attempt by Germany and surrounding nations to distance themselves from a detestible, nightmarish period in history. I can empathize with the motivation but still disagree with the method. I’ve seen nothing to indicate that any amount of censorship would have prevented Hitler. In fact, I see that climate of censorhip which exists today as just one more bit of lasting damage that maniac has caused.
David