Bleh. It's people like that who give people like me a bad name. :(
It's a fuzzy line, the right to free speech and what you can say with that speech. Speak your mind, by all means, but not in a personal diatribe against a person.
I don't get how she wants to speak out against homosexuality? Go up to a gay couple and start preaching at them? Crash a party? I just don't understand it. Maybe I should be glad I don't. :P
Just remember this: they aren't Christians. Jesus Christ would we whipping these Pharisees out of the temple. They are any number of other things: Leviticans Paulites Crosstians
or perhaps the most accurate, Fundamentalists. The terrorist bombers in Islam, the beheaders, and the Conservative loonies in this country are all part of that same religion, the following of Yahweh the Wrathful, the pissy, childish sky god who hates anything that isn't him. Fuck him and his followers.
Read the article, you'll see how she wanted to "speak out."
I've read this and commented on it a couple of times before. She's right, for the wrong reasons. This is a free speech issue, and Georgia Tech is a public university. Speech codes which prohibit expression based on its content are wrong and indefensible. Her religious beliefs or personal biases are irrelevant; it's a free speech issue.
(shrug) I say, let her be an idiot if she wants. Publically, out in the open, where people can walk up and shout back. It's what people did at Georgia State when idiots like this would yammer on in our Quad. Seemed to work fine there.
While I'm generally inclined to agree with you on this...
...where do you draw the line between "expressing your freedom of speech", and using that speech for the express purpose of "harrassment", meant in the literal, original sense of the term? It's quite doable to use nothing but words, when applied carefully and continually, to make someone's life an utter untenable hell, so's to drive them to either leave (the desired effect, of course) or snap in one way or other (suicide? more school shootings?) - basically, to react in some way that clearly is prohibited.
It's another one of those awful dividing line problems that you get into so often with lawmaking, and there isn't a perfect answer - at best, there's a game of infinitesimals of ever less imperfect ones.
In a public place, I would allow an establishment (or perhaps even a municipality) to limit speech based on when it was uttered and how loud it was. Thus, we can't scream in the middle of the night even if it's a statement of warmth and love, and we can't talk in the middle of class even if it's an intelligent, thoughtful comment. I would not draw any lines on content that I can think of right now (though it's quite early). :-)
In a private institution, of course, it's up to the owner, content or not.
The difference is THEIR lifestyle choice has an entire constitutional amendment protecting it and their right to choose it. Homosexuality does not. And that's why most of these cases are being "settled out of court, with the [fundamentalist] groups prevailing" (according to the LA Times story).
Oh, the groups they're suing are giving in quietly for more than just the perceived Constitutional backing. They don't want the bad press they feel they'd get in this day and age where Fundamentalist morons have the backing of the White House. The concern is that the inmates are running the asylum, so they're worried that they'll lose grants and donations from similar wackjobs who have been politely hiding in the woodwork until now.
It's really quite amusing to me how similar the upswell in Fundamentalist activity is when you look at the same thing happening in Iraq now that we've bombed it back to the Dark Ages. I'd like to see a prosecutor in this country make the argument that attacks such as the murder of Matthew Shepard are terrorist attacks, meant to threaten and cause fear in a populace. I doubt it'll happen anytime soon, but by Athena, I'd love to see someone make the argument in court.
*GAH* I'm not able to form coherent thoughts about this, so please pardon the possibly incoherent sentences...
Yeah, free speech is a good thing. It's an important thing. But the example of what she was doing was NOT free speaking - it was harassment. When you send a letter to a gay pride group and call them a 'sex club' who 'can't manage to be tasteful'.....how can that NOT be construed as harassing the group?
Fine, express your opinions. Protest 'feminist' theatre if you really feel that it's bad. But remember that everyone else has the right to ignore you and turn it back around on you.
I agree though, she does have the right to be an idiot in public. Just one more person I can publicly make fun of. It's totally my right.
Hey, she's made a lifestyle choice that leads people to abuse her publically. She didn't have to choose to be a Fundamentalist, so it's open season on her, far as I care.
leaving aside the growing body of evidence that "sexual orientation" is to some degree innate...
this is all part of the bass-ackwards attitude that "Christians are being persecuted by the liberals/evolutionists/gays!" (any time Christians aren't allowed to persecute liberals, evolutionists, or gays). anything other than rah-rah support, it seems, is persecution. not being allowed to impose their narrow-minded world-view on everyone else is a heinous violation of not only their civil rights, but the very will of god!
'scuse me... this kind of crap makes steam come out of my ears...
Comments 15
It's a fuzzy line, the right to free speech and what you can say with that speech. Speak your mind, by all means, but not in a personal diatribe against a person.
I don't get how she wants to speak out against homosexuality? Go up to a gay couple and start preaching at them? Crash a party? I just don't understand it. Maybe I should be glad I don't. :P
Reply
Leviticans
Paulites
Crosstians
or perhaps the most accurate, Fundamentalists. The terrorist bombers in Islam, the beheaders, and the Conservative loonies in this country are all part of that same religion, the following of Yahweh the Wrathful, the pissy, childish sky god who hates anything that isn't him. Fuck him and his followers.
Read the article, you'll see how she wanted to "speak out."
Reply
Reply
Reply
Reply
...where do you draw the line between "expressing your freedom of speech", and using that speech for the express purpose of "harrassment", meant in the literal, original sense of the term? It's quite doable to use nothing but words, when applied carefully and continually, to make someone's life an utter untenable hell, so's to drive them to either leave (the desired effect, of course) or snap in one way or other (suicide? more school shootings?) - basically, to react in some way that clearly is prohibited.
It's another one of those awful dividing line problems that you get into so often with lawmaking, and there isn't a perfect answer - at best, there's a game of infinitesimals of ever less imperfect ones.
Reply
In a private institution, of course, it's up to the owner, content or not.
Reply
Reply
It's really quite amusing to me how similar the upswell in Fundamentalist activity is when you look at the same thing happening in Iraq now that we've bombed it back to the Dark Ages. I'd like to see a prosecutor in this country make the argument that attacks such as the murder of Matthew Shepard are terrorist attacks, meant to threaten and cause fear in a populace. I doubt it'll happen anytime soon, but by Athena, I'd love to see someone make the argument in court.
Reply
Yeah, free speech is a good thing. It's an important thing. But the example of what she was doing was NOT free speaking - it was harassment. When you send a letter to a gay pride group and call them a 'sex club' who 'can't manage to be tasteful'.....how can that NOT be construed as harassing the group?
Fine, express your opinions. Protest 'feminist' theatre if you really feel that it's bad. But remember that everyone else has the right to ignore you and turn it back around on you.
I agree though, she does have the right to be an idiot in public. Just one more person I can publicly make fun of. It's totally my right.
Reply
Reply
Yeah, my lifestyle choice is mockery. I like the choice I've made.
Reply
Reply
this is all part of the bass-ackwards attitude that "Christians are being persecuted by the liberals/evolutionists/gays!" (any time Christians aren't allowed to persecute liberals, evolutionists, or gays). anything other than rah-rah support, it seems, is persecution. not being allowed to impose their narrow-minded world-view on everyone else is a heinous violation of not only their civil rights, but the very will of god!
'scuse me... this kind of crap makes steam come out of my ears...
Reply
Leave a comment