(no subject)
These are the words of a tired activist who needs to write other things.
I have seen so many bring up freedom of speech and thought crimes and other patriotic-diametrically-opposed-to-Orwellian-1984 framing as to make me sick when dealing with issues of activism. Proponents of activism on the anti-racial, feminist, and gay rights fronts rarely if ever bring these issues up in this matter of framing; it is usually those who are opponents of whatever is being proposed that use this framing even if the law is involved or not. Recently I saw this in comments about Equality Now's sending requests to a Japanese company to withdraw a rape simulation game where the protagonist rapes a mother and her two daughters and the Miss California debacle.
Freedom of speech is a legal freedom in the United States. A company limiting what one can say within a forum they own, a private group petitioning for someone to stop production of something, an individual criticizing someone else's words, an individual making a personal decision to boycott something and asking others to do the same. All of these are NOT impinging on anyone's freedom of speech. No laws have been enacted here. These are all fair play under the First Amendment.
To argue it from a non-legal idea of free speech, these choices are all expressions of this type of free speech as well. Freedom of speech is not a freedom from criticism. People should not automatically be lauded for speaking their mind or personal opinions. They should be lauded on the merits of their arguments. If you think that freedom of speech applies to a non-legal realm and yet say that people should stop expressing hatred for someone for what they've said, you're a hypocrite. I have every right, to use an old cliche, to be outraged at what Miss California said. Not only for being duplicitous but for the fact that it was an outright lie. In only five states of this country so far can one actually get married to someone of the same sex. All other states either have an inferior form of legal contract for same-sex couples or none at all. And "no offense, but" constructions should die in a fire. You may have had no intent to offend, Miss California, but you did. Deflective phrases like that will not protect you from criticism, but only further criticism for using such a predictably offensive form.
Do people still not realize that "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" is offensive? You're telling me that I'm not equal to you. That any relationship I have could never equal yours. You may not realize that that's what you're saying, but that's how it feels to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. That's nothing to say of how transsexuals must feel about those statements even if they can get legally married depending on their sexuality.
And since it was just on. May I just say how much I hate that Burger King promo for the Star Trek glasses? "Why don't you take my girlfriend, too?" Ahahaha comparing a relationship with a woman to a momentary obsession with glasses. Oh, BK, your misogyny is just so funny!
I have seen so many bring up freedom of speech and thought crimes and other patriotic-diametrically-opposed-to-Orwellian-1984 framing as to make me sick when dealing with issues of activism. Proponents of activism on the anti-racial, feminist, and gay rights fronts rarely if ever bring these issues up in this matter of framing; it is usually those who are opponents of whatever is being proposed that use this framing even if the law is involved or not. Recently I saw this in comments about Equality Now's sending requests to a Japanese company to withdraw a rape simulation game where the protagonist rapes a mother and her two daughters and the Miss California debacle.
Freedom of speech is a legal freedom in the United States. A company limiting what one can say within a forum they own, a private group petitioning for someone to stop production of something, an individual criticizing someone else's words, an individual making a personal decision to boycott something and asking others to do the same. All of these are NOT impinging on anyone's freedom of speech. No laws have been enacted here. These are all fair play under the First Amendment.
To argue it from a non-legal idea of free speech, these choices are all expressions of this type of free speech as well. Freedom of speech is not a freedom from criticism. People should not automatically be lauded for speaking their mind or personal opinions. They should be lauded on the merits of their arguments. If you think that freedom of speech applies to a non-legal realm and yet say that people should stop expressing hatred for someone for what they've said, you're a hypocrite. I have every right, to use an old cliche, to be outraged at what Miss California said. Not only for being duplicitous but for the fact that it was an outright lie. In only five states of this country so far can one actually get married to someone of the same sex. All other states either have an inferior form of legal contract for same-sex couples or none at all. And "no offense, but" constructions should die in a fire. You may have had no intent to offend, Miss California, but you did. Deflective phrases like that will not protect you from criticism, but only further criticism for using such a predictably offensive form.
Do people still not realize that "I believe that marriage should be between a man and a woman" is offensive? You're telling me that I'm not equal to you. That any relationship I have could never equal yours. You may not realize that that's what you're saying, but that's how it feels to gays, lesbians, and bisexuals. That's nothing to say of how transsexuals must feel about those statements even if they can get legally married depending on their sexuality.
And since it was just on. May I just say how much I hate that Burger King promo for the Star Trek glasses? "Why don't you take my girlfriend, too?" Ahahaha comparing a relationship with a woman to a momentary obsession with glasses. Oh, BK, your misogyny is just so funny!