So, making silly arguments is now a form of “bullying”?
Sunlight, I’ve always believed, is the best disinfectant.
We should not hinder people from voicing their opinions, no matter how hateful because only when they voice them can we counter them. Today, in her inimitable style, Amy Alkon, an Angelena diva who quips that if she “were any more gay-friendly,” she’d “have a girlfriend instead of a boyfriend”*, takes a school superintendent to task for labeling “a column in a school newspaper that criticized homosexuality as ‘bullying.”
Why should people be scared of someone voicing such an opinion? Shouldn’t their silly commentary provide an easy target, a jumping off point for an argument in defense of homosexuality? Why do some folks wish to suppress opposing opinions?
Basically, Amy tells this superintendant to grow a pair:
Look, I was bullied. Girls followed me through the halls in junior high and taunted me with anti-Semitic epithets. When it started to get serious (when they started throwing chairs in my path), I told my dad, and he went to the principal and it stopped.
The point is, there are measures that can be taken before we start crumpling up the Constitution. And sorry, but you don’t have a right to not be offended, not even if you’re in high school. What you should learn to do is think and write and debate well so you can see that your point of view wins the day. And if somebody throws a chair at you, and there’s nobody to go to the principal’s office for you…maybe that’s the real problem we should be dealing with, but…
Emphasis added. Seems Amy’s got more balls than the school superintendant who has a man’s name (Todd Carlson).
A gay couple had called the school and complained after they had read the “offensive” column. Carlson responded to their complaint. They would have done better to have written a strongly worded letter intended for publication in the journal.
Via Instapundit.
*I’ve met her; she’s pretty much a gay man trapped in a woman’s body.
24 Comments
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
The article did not “criticize” homosexuality. (Is there a reason you didn’t post any excerpts from the column?) The column did not “voice an opinion”. The column called for gay people to be killed.
It’s not OK for Muslims to call for gay people to be killed, and it becomes no more “ok” if it’s a Christian holy text.
Be concerned with stifling of viewpoints if you like, but I tend to think a responsible school administration steps in when a student article calls for the death of other students.
Comment by hmm_contrib — January 24, 2012 @ 4:07 am - January 24, 2012
Oh, so it did the same thing Heliotrope just told me is illegal in the United States while I considered it protected free speech. Or is it only protected when they cite the Bible, and not the Koran?
Comment by Serenity — January 24, 2012 @ 5:00 am - January 24, 2012
So, let’s review the progressive left definition of words we thought we knew the meaning of.
Racist – Someone who expresses an opinion a liberal disagrees with.
Hate – Expressing an opinion a liberal disagrees with.
Bullying – Expressing an opinion a liberal disagrees with.
Anyone notice a pattern here?
Comment by V the K — January 24, 2012 @ 5:38 am - January 24, 2012
Serenity,
Are you making the case that Leviticus 20:13 (“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”) is a clear death threat?
Are you making the case that those who quote Leviticus 20:13 are making a clear death threat?
Do you have some sort of TSA mentality about the police function whereby any whiff of anomaly means a full blown body search even if the person is 90, in a wheel chair and wearing adult diapers?
I am delighted you could find a straw to grasp. It must make you feel awfully superior.
Now come back and show how quoting a part of the Bible in a high school newspaper is the equivalent of passing out leaflets in the public square like this:
My comments in the other thread stand and your comments above are a show of your immature critical thinking ability.
Gays in that high school have the right to go to the magistrate and ask for a restraining order against the author of the high school newspaper column and even insist that he be investigated for issuing a death threat.
Now, barrister Simplicity, make your case to get the dangerous thug hater locked up.
Comment by Heliotrope — January 24, 2012 @ 8:27 am - January 24, 2012
Heliotrope, quoting an Old Testament law is no more a death threat than teaching about the Civil War is advocating slavery.
Comment by V the K — January 24, 2012 @ 8:53 am - January 24, 2012
No.
No.
No.
I think we can all see who’s grasping at what here. It’s starting to get a little sad.
How about instead we quote what their leaflets actually said so we can all make up our own minds?
Hmm. Islam says gays must be put to death. Your quote from Leviticus says “they shall surely be put to death”. They seem to be getting at the same thing to me. I don’t see how one could be banned while allowing the other, it’s both or neither.
Your comments asserted that using Islam as a reason why the death penalty should be instituted for homosexuality can be banned without violating the First Amendment while you now seem to be asserting that using Christianity as a reason why the death penalty should be instituted for homosexuality is protected free speech. My assertion is that that you’re being inconsistent and that both are protected free speech.
My thinking ability is fully mature, yours is clearly anything but.
None of these were death threats, they are advocating a change in the law that is disgusting and backwards but it is their right to do so. As Daniel said in his post, sunlight is the best disinfectant, you would just sweep radical Islam under the rug.
Your reading comprehension is clearly lacking, allow me to clear things up for you.
I have consistently argued against hate speech laws in this debate. My initial citing of them was to point out how North Dallas Thirty’s prediction of how they would be used in the UK was wrong (by the way ND30, still awaiting your response). Despite ND30′s doomsday prediction about them being off, I still think the laws are wrong and American-style free speech protection is the right way for all nations to go.
You on the other hand said:
So how about you make your case for locking someone up for speaking their mind? Throughout this debate you’ve been arguing to prosecute while I’ve been arguing to acquit. I think the court of public opinion is anxious to hear your case now.
Comment by Serenity — January 24, 2012 @ 9:36 am - January 24, 2012
So let’s see. Amy’s argument is that a historical Biblical quote is as dangerous as people in modern times passing pamphlets around advocating modern people killing them.
Breathtaking. So according to Amy, the US should prepare for an invasion from England because historically they laid claim to us. This threat should be treated equally to Al Quada.
Comment by The Livewire — January 24, 2012 @ 9:42 am - January 24, 2012
Funny, Pomposity and its libbie friends were making the case in the very first comment on this thread that it was a death threat.
When the little fascist’s reasoning on that blew up in its face, it flip-flopped and is now trying to argue that it wasn’t.
And when you consider the violence that Pomposity and its punk liberal friends were carrying out across the UK all last summer, the bigotry and hypocrisy becomes beyond comic.
Isn’t that funny? Liberals like Pomposity have to completely suppress speech to avoid violence as they rampage, loot, attack people, and burn down businesses and houses.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2012 @ 9:49 am - January 24, 2012
Meanwhile, in reference to the other thread, Pomposity flip-flopped again.
Pomposity has always shrieked that hate-crimes laws against any criticism of gays were necessary. But when it was asked to apply them to Muslims, it flip-flopped and insisted that it was perfectly OK for Muslims to call for the killing of gays.
So again in this thread we have the hilarity of Pompsity first calling it a death threat and demanding it be suppressed, then flip-flopping and trying to argue that it’s not a bigot because it supports Muslims calling for gays to be killed.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2012 @ 9:56 am - January 24, 2012
Do you even have the slightest idea what the pamphlet said?
I’m amazed how often you try this and think it’ll work. I’ll explain in case someone else doesn’t get it.
hmm_contrib thinks these are death threats, and can be banned without violating free speech protections. I disagree, don’t they they’re death threats, and that banning them would violate free speech protections. It’s not a flip-flop if the conflicting statements are made by two entirely different people.
Also not me. Also actions I disagree with. Also not a flip-flop. Also you still haven’t responded to my earlier comments about you being wrong about UK hate speech laws.
Comment by Serenity — January 24, 2012 @ 10:02 am - January 24, 2012
Finally, since the gay and lesbian community openly calls for Republicans to be killed, a la Dan Savage, the vapors-gasping by Pomposity and its new friend over death threats is another example of bigotry at its finest.
That honestly shows how delusional and hate-filled Dan Savage and the LGBT community are. They have friends and relatives that vote Republican, and they wish them all dead? I mean, seriously, how twisted would you have to be to wish death on your own father, as Dan Savage did, over political affiliation?
And yet they’re here freaking out over a Bible verse.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2012 @ 10:04 am - January 24, 2012
Citation, as soon as possible, and make sure it’s actually me making the statement. I did the same for you, have some decency for once.
Until such time as you provide evidence for the former statement, this doesn’t even warrant addressing.
Ditto.
Comment by Serenity — January 24, 2012 @ 10:05 am - January 24, 2012
Actually, it worked beautifully, Pomposity; you just flip-flopped again, insisting in your second comment that it was a death threat.
And of course, you wouldn’t answer Livewire’s point, even as you’re demanding I answer when Heliotrope already did so brilliantly.
Just like you acknowledged that you won’t work and pay taxes and that you think those who do should pay your bills instead.
And now isn’t it funny to see you flip-flopping and insisting you never supported OWS violence and rape, when in fact you’re one of the biggest cheerleaders for the violent OWS Obama “progressive” movement responsible for it?
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2012 @ 10:11 am - January 24, 2012
I emailed Carlson three questions at the end of last week; it’ll be interesting to see whether I get an answer:
1) The hoo-raw is about a student newspaper op-ed debate in the form of an essay supporting gay couple adoption and an essay opposing gay couple adoption. Is this a fair characterization of the newspaper’s debate?
2) I request access to copies of the student essays written in favor of and in opposition to gay couples and adoption.
3) You are reported as saying “It is a form of bullying or disrespect to a group of people” in reference to the “anti” essay. Is this an accurate quote? If so, please advise how the “anti” position could have made without such bullying. What terms and arguments would have been acceptable?
Eric Hines
Comment by E Hines — January 24, 2012 @ 10:12 am - January 24, 2012
And the childish little bigot Pomposity starts its usual tantrum and demands from others that it screams are wrong and unjustified when the same are demanded of it.
This shows you how lazy welfare brats like Pomposity play this game. They expect others to abide by the rules while they violate them.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2012 @ 10:16 am - January 24, 2012
OK, it actually took me a second to work out what you were saying. I said “hmm_contrib thinks these are death threats” followed that with “I disagree” and you interpret that to mean I think they were death threats? You’re just trying to goad me into blowing my top now, aren’t you? Just admit it.
I can’t answer his point definitively because I have neither the statement Daniel is talking about nor the pamphlet the Guardian spoke of in front of me. Though from what I’ve heard, neither were death threats.
Heliotrope’s answers so far have been so rambling and mixed-up that I can’t even work out what his opinion is. Besides, I want to hear your response. Unlike you, the words of someone with vaguely similar political beliefs aren’t ‘good enough’ for me.
Oh come on! You’re just picking these statements out of a hat now.
Yep, confirmation right there.
Comment by Serenity — January 24, 2012 @ 10:21 am - January 24, 2012
Moreover, it still amazes me that OWS “progressives” like Pomposity can even raise a peep about violence and death threats, when they themselves actively participate in rapes, vandalism, threats, assaults, arsons, and more, as we’ve seen from the UK riots and the OWS camps — all with the encouragement and support of Barack Obama and the Obama Party.
They ban Bible verses, then burn down stores and assault poor shopkeepers. That’s the mindset of Pomposity and its OWS Obama Party.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2012 @ 10:23 am - January 24, 2012
Calling that citation a “death threat” seems to be yet another nadir for the drama queen left.
Comment by V the K — January 24, 2012 @ 10:29 am - January 24, 2012
Amy wrote
after she wrote
And included a quote and a link.
I think we need to cut Amy some slack. It’s clear that she has MPD, and one personality is unaware of what the other is posting.
Comment by The Livewire — January 24, 2012 @ 11:29 am - January 24, 2012
I wouldn’t be that kind, Livewire. Pomposity is just a lazy welfare addict who hasn’t bothered to go to school or work for a living, but who thinks the mere act of breathing makes it superior to all other humanity.
Allowing it to claim mental illness is just another means of letting it shirk responsibility. It’s just lazy and undisciplined and deserves every bit of public shaming and humiliation it gets.
Comment by North Dallas Thirty — January 24, 2012 @ 12:25 pm - January 24, 2012
My addled, immature, ancient, openly closed mind is having fits and starts of confusion.
The Insanity proclamations are:
1.) Those quoting Leviticus 20:13 (“If there is a man who lies with a male as those who lie with a woman, both of of them have committed a detestable act; they shall surely be put to death. Their bloodguiltiness is upon them.”) are NOT making a clear death threat.
2.) Insanity does not have some sort of TSA mentality about the police function whereby any whiff of anomaly means a full blown body search even if the person is 90, in a wheel chair and wearing adult diapers? And therefore any quoting of Leviticus 20:13 does not proceed to indict those quoting it as the whiff of an anomaly that requires the police power of the state to spring forth.
3.) Islam says gays must be put to death. Your quote from Leviticus says “they shall surely be put to death”. They seem to be getting at the same thing to me. I don’t see how one could be banned while allowing the other, it’s both or neither.
Then Perplexity quotes my words: “Gays in that high school have the right to go to the magistrate and ask for a restraining order against the author of the high school newspaper column and even insist that he be investigated for issuing a death threat.”
Regarding that quote, Persnickedy says: “My thinking ability is fully mature, yours is clearly anything but.”
So, Insipidy, here is the point at which we have arrived: Levitcus is not a death threat, according to your view of things. Fine. You are not in favor of a nanny state approach to looking into the smoke of quoting Leviticus to see if there is fire. Fine.
But then you get all goosey over whether the “offended ones” have the RIGHT of the “offended ones” to go to the state and seek a redress of grievance in the nature of a restraining order. And you label my notion that the “offended ones” do have such a right as immature thinking.
So, I humbly beseech you, what does a mere mortal who “feels offended” or “threatened” do besides seek a redress of grievance?
Nowhere, nohow, noway does my quote say anything about whether their silly ass grievance will get any mileage whatsoever.
But, Acidity, you are the one posing the idea that anyone may say or write anything whatsoever and be fully covered by the First Amendment. But, wait! We have laws against libel and slander and purposely mislabeling food and medicine packages and sending death threats and inciting to riot and plotting out the violent overthrow of the existing order and more.
In the other thread I addressed writing clear death threats (and you quoted me above as follows: “If I publish a pamphlet that targets a person or a group, the police power of the state is going to lock me down until a decision has been reached concerning my relative threat to the public order.”
That is standard operating procedure (SOP) in our democratic republic. If I say I will set off a bomb before half time in the Super Bowl and the cops nab me, the First Amendment is neither my friend nor my excuse.
I have not argued to prosecute anyone. You are the one who brought up the pamphlet and the Muslims and hate crime and the English courts.
But are you really so naive as to believe that “speaking your mind” no matter the location, the subject, the context, etc. is carte blanche covered by the First Amendment? You think you can walk into a movie theater and stand up in front of the screen and say what is on you mind for hour after hour while people are trying to watch a film?
What moral relativism informs you of such infantile assurance that the state can not touch you for doing so? And, as an obvious follow-up question, must the state protect you from the outraged patrons in deference to your right to speak your mind?
Good Heavens! I had no idea we were at this level of understanding.
Comment by Heliotrope — January 24, 2012 @ 1:25 pm - January 24, 2012
I think there is a gigantic difference between a quote from the Hebrew God who also said, ”Vengance is MINE, I will repay,”and ”Wait on the LORD,” versus the quote from the god of Islam who teaches his followers to KILL in his behalf, even making provision for females killed to be gang raped first, lest he ACCIDENTALLY allow such women into Paradise!
Remember, a Muslim male who kills FOR his god after a ”fatwa” has been placed on the life of a person, gets a free pass to Paradise for his premeditated murder of that one.
Comment by Nan G — January 24, 2012 @ 8:01 pm - January 24, 2012
For anyone who cares, here’s a PDF of the actual “Point-Counterpoint”* columns in the high school newspaper.
Someone in the Volokh Conspiracy thread about this speculated that the anti-gay student reporter “Brandon Wegner” was, in essence, some form of gay-sympathizing leftwing troll doing a spectacularly inept impersonation of a Bible-Thumping Christian, and not a genuine fundie.
You can read the kid’s column in the PDF and judge for yourself, but to me it is a trifle suspicious that Mr. Wegner repeatedly refers to “Christian teachings”, yet cites only Leviticus, without ever mentioning the well-known “homosexuality verses” from the Pauline epistles, such as the list of persons who won’t get into heaven from 1 Cor. 6:9-10. (He only claims that “Jesus states in the Bible that homosexuality is a detestable act” — without a chapter and verse citation, of course, because any actual words of Jesus on the subject went unrecorded, and I’d expect a Real Christian to know that all of the NT references to gheyness are from Paul.)
* I say, “Let ‘em crash.”
Comment by Throbert McGee — January 25, 2012 @ 8:19 pm - January 25, 2012
Don’t let the LGBT agenda a small percentage of public opinion influence. The argument of being born gay has been scientifically proven that there is no gay gene. This comes to no surprise to Christians who have always said that God did not create sin and instead Satan wants everyone to believe the lie! The truth is slow moving giving reason as to why the LGBT is eager to push gay marriage before it is widely known that being gay is a choice and not a virtue.
Comment by Scythe Reaper — February 2, 2012 @ 3:22 pm - February 2, 2012