Free Speech, Free Association, Photography and Gay Rights

Black people had to battle for more than one hundred years after the end of slavery for among other things, to have the right to sit down in a restaurant owned by whites and order a meal. This segregation was most zealously enforced in the South but was not uncommon in the North as well. Via a series of court decisions, new laws, and public activism, legalized business segregation was defeated though not before its supporters put up massive, oft violent, racist resistance. Now any black person can legally go spend his or her hard earned money with people who despise them but are eager to take their green. This last has never made sense to me. Why would you want to give money to people who don't like you? What are you proving by attempting to purchase goods or services from someone who has made it crystal clear that they don't want your business? The black struggle for civil rights provided the template in part for several other more expansive visions of rights for various other groups. It's important to limit the ability of the state or even of private actors to discriminate. We can't have a fair and open society without such limitations. 

However, there are other rights that are just as important. Or are they? You have a right not to be discriminated against in purchasing a home. But there is no law that prevents your new neighbors from seeing you move in and putting their home up for sale the very next day. You have a right to date or marry whoever you want. But that doesn't mean that a person who doesn't like your kind can be forced to date or marry you. You have a right to seek employment as an actor/actress. But if a film producer is making a historical drama about Dessalines and you happen to look like Brad Pitt, that doesn't mean the producer is wrong for rejecting you. Of course Hollywood probably would make a movie with Pitt playing Dessalines but I think you get my point.


These questions came to mind upon reading the NYT story about a New Mexico photographer who declined to document the commitment ceremony of a lesbian couple. Unsurprisingly the lesbian couple sued and has so far won in court. The photographer has appealed to the Supreme Court.

WASHINGTON — A New Mexico law forbids businesses open to the public to discriminate against gay people. Elaine Huguenin, a photographer, says she has no problem with that — so long as it does not force her to say something she does not believe.

In asking the Supreme Court to hear her challenge to the law, Ms. Huguenin said that she would “gladly serve gays and lesbians — by, for example, providing them with portrait photography,” but that she did not want to tell the stories of same-sex weddings. To make her celebrate something her religion tells her is wrong, she said, would hijack her right to free speech.

So she turned down a request from a lesbian couple, Vanessa Willock and Misti Collinsworth, to document their commitment ceremony. The women, who hired another photographer, filed a discrimination complaint against Ms. Huguenin’s studio, Elane Photography. So far, the studio has lost in the courts.

“This was a straightforward case of discrimination in the public marketplace,” Mr. Wolff said. “No court has ever held that the First Amendment gives businesses a license to sell goods and services to the general public but then reject customers based on race or religion or sexual orientation, in violation of state law.”

The New Mexico Supreme Court agreed, saying Ms. Huguenin’s “services can be regulated, even though those services include artistic and creative work.” Laws banning discrimination, the court said, apply to “creative or expressive professions.”

Jordan W. Lorence, a lawyer at the Alliance Defending Freedom, which represents Elane Photography, said Ms. Huguenin should be able to decline assignments at odds with her beliefs in a way that, say, motels and hardware stores may not. “There are some professions that are inherently expressive — an ad agency, website designer or even a tattoo artist,” he said.

“A tattoo artist should not be forced to put a swastika on an Aryan Nation guy,” Mr. Lorence said. “The government could not force someone to put a bumper sticker on their car that says, ‘I support same-sex marriage’ or ‘I support interracial marriage.’ ”

Link to full article

Petition to the Supreme Court

As the state laws are currently written it would appear that Huguenin would not have much recourse. Once you open for business you must do business with anyone and everyone.

Generally speaking you can only refuse service to someone for reasons that aren't discriminatory. You can refuse to rent a home to a gay couple because their credit is jacked up or because their references didn't check out but not simply because you think being gay is sinful. I am sure that The Janitor or Old Guru can quote chapter and verse on the legal arguments on both sides. It's what they do. 

But my interest is not just in the law as it is but in the broader questions I hinted at in my first paragraph as well as the points raised by Jordan Lorence. If you were going to get married or in this case committed wouldn't you want the person documenting that day to be at worst neutral about the event? Would you really want the person charged with giving you photography and video that you could cherish for years to be someone who thought the whole enterprise was completely morally bankrupt? Is wedding videography art or is it a business? Is there any equivalence between a person who doesn't support gay marriage/civil ceremonies being forced to document such an event and say a Jewish tattoo artist being forced to give someone a Neo-Nazi white supremacist sleeve tattoo? Could a black photographer be required to document the next Aryan Nations rally? Does the fact that the couple asked Huegenin and her husband to help them celebrate their event cut any ice with you? Should Huegenin just have lied and claimed she was booked already? Does Huguenin have any recourse here? More importantly, should she? If she wins her case is it just a slippery slope back to "separate but equal"?

Thoughts?

Revenge Porn Outlawed

Let's say that you're happily married or otherwise paired up. Or let's say that you're not but all the same you've found someone with whom you like to pretend you're married on a regular basis. Well over time and this time can be a relatively short period for some people you will probably relax around this person. That is, after all, the very definition of intimacy. This man or woman will know things about you that no one else does. Pillow talk can be quite revealing. During this relationship you and this person might even exchange notes, pictures, letters and e-mails that are really for your eyes only sort of stuff. Some people share more than others but if you're human and have been in a relationship no matter how brief or fleeting, your partner has some information about you which is not available to the general public. Few people stay together forever. Ideally if a break up occurs it's a mutually agreed upon thing where two people decide that they can't or shouldn't live or sleep together any more and respectfully and calmly part ways. Right. Unfortunately many breakups aren't mutual. And they certainly aren't respectful or calm. Insults may be hurled, tears may be shed, threats may be uttered and decades long feuds may develop over who paid for (and thus owns) mutually enjoyed items. 

Something else that may occur during or after a breakup is that one or both parties to the breakup may decide to share with the world (or at least their former lover's/spouse's circle of friends) the kind of information I detailed above. This is most definitely NOT a morally good thing to do but the urge to hurt someone the way that you think they hurt you, ESPECIALLY if you were the dumpee and not the dumper, could be overwhelming. I think this is wrong but emotions can overwhelm morality when it comes to affairs of the heart. If a man suddenly gets a text message from his wife that she's dumping him, doesn't ever want to talk to or see him again and oh by the way she's been playing house with her co-worker for the past two years, you might understand why this fellow might start venting some negative emotions about said woman. Of course this is not gender specific. Each gender is equally capable of being emotionally swept away by tidal wave feelings of hostility and revenge that could arise from imagined or real mistreatment. 

As the cost of photography and storage has dropped while the ability to produce your own naughty photographs has increased tenfold, some people (mostly women) have discovered that perhaps sending certain intimate photographs to people (mostly men) that they loved or at least lusted after wasn't a good idea. When the breakup happens some people who find themselves in possession of naughty pics decide to post them to certain internet sites.

SACRAMENTO, California — California Gov. Jerry Brown on Tuesday signed a bill outlawing so-called revenge porn and levying possible jail time for people who post naked photos of their exes after bitter breakups.

Senate Bill 255, which takes effect immediately, makes it a misdemeanor to post identifiable nude pictures of someone else online without permission with the intent to cause emotional distress or humiliation. The penalty is up to six months in jail and a $1,000 fine.

"Until now, there was no tool for law enforcement to protect victims," the bill's author, Sen. Anthony Cannella, said in a statement. "Too many have had their lives upended because of an action of another that they trusted."  Cannella, a Republican, has said revenge porn is a growing problem in the age of social media, when photos and videos that were made privately during a relationship can find their way onto hundreds of websites. Before the criminal law was enacted, California allowed victims to sue their virtual assailants, but that is an expensive and time-consuming option.

LINK
This is crude and crass and really pathetic but I don't think it's really that different than people sharing love letters or telling other people stories which are designed to show their ex in a bad light. It's just part of human nature. People say that all is fair in love and war. I'm not sure that's really the case but I am sure that I don't want to send people to jail or prison because they posted a picture of their ex. It's not ladylike or gentlemanly behavior but is it worth taking away someone's freedom? Not from where I sit. The chance that something like this might happen can be reduced by not creating these sorts of pictures in the first place but this sort of privacy violation can never ever be eliminated. If you've ever been intimate with someone in your life, they know things about you.  And if you break up with someone, s/he may say negative things about you. That's just part of the risk of being a healthy adult. All you can do is try to be intimate with people who have some sense of morality and honor. It's all in the game. I don't think the state needs to be involved here.

QUESTIONS

1) Should this sort of thing (posting pics of your ex) be illegal?

2) If you give a picture/note/e-mail to someone, who owns that item?

3) Is all truly fair in love and war?

4) Are there free speech implications?

Paula Deen and her defenders

I think just about everything that can be said on the Paula Deen situation has been said already and I don't have a whole lot to add except for the following.
There seems to be some misunderstanding about what "free speech" is. All free speech means is that you have the right to say what you want or think what you want without being jailed or sued or fined by the federal or state or municipal governments. Of course I am sure some intelligent reader or lawyer can find a few exceptions as there are exceptions to almost everything but no prior restraint on speech is the essence of the First Amendment.

And if you've read this blog for any period of time you know that I am a stickler for abiding by the letter and the spirit of the Bill of Rights. It's important to remember however that the First Amendment is a restriction on the ability of governments to stop you from saying something or punishing you if you do. It says absolutely nothing however, about the ability of other citizens to criticize what you say or for private businesses or organizations to decide that they'd rather not be associated with you or set rules for their partners or employees.

For example, I don't believe that there is a state or federal law against a man going to the top floor of an office building, finding a good looking woman Executive VP and telling her how good looking he thinks she is in quite crude language. There is no law against walking up to a male Executive VP and telling him that I think he's an incompetent dolt who only has a job because his father-in-law and grandfather worked for the company. If I were stupid enough to do those things I would be immediately terminated from my company. In fact further job interviews in my industry and elsewhere would probably open with the interviewer telling me (before they asked me to leave)  "Oh you're the fellow who likes to tell the women he works with that they have nice ****. So look around buddy. Are there any women here that you think have nice ****? Are there any incompetents in this firm you think should be fired?". A company has the obligation to ensure that its employees/associates will add to its bottom line and not be disruptive.

Paula Deen used racist language to describe black people and pined for trappings of segregationist days long gone. As a result her employer/business partner The Food Network decided to sever ties with her. Some other companies are following suit. It's not good business for most corporations to have a blatant bigot representing them. The Food Network has that right. There is nothing new or surprising about this.

Another line of defense is that Paula Deen was born in a time when such ways of thinking were common. Well that's true. When she was born segregation was still a going concern. The people who point this out in order to defend Deen don't seem to 1) realize that there were other whites who were born in such times and rose above such beliefs and 2) such defenders never give the black people born in similar times any sort of pass. I mean if we can say that Deen didn't know any better and is just regurgitating the values of her times, then surely we must do the same for Reverend Wright, Minister Farrakhan, and any other black person who grew up in the bad old days and thus has excellent reason to have a generalized suspicion and distrust of whites. Yet when those people say something that may be out of line they don't get many people rushing to their defense. No one stops to ponder that maybe someone who grew up in a time where blacks were called "boy", "girl" or "auntie" or had to watch their parents submit to oppression in order to survive might have some resentments to vent from time to time.

So Paula Deen has her defenders and supporters. I am not surprised. It is important however to remember that all of this brouhaha came to light because one Lisa Jackson, another white woman, decided that she had had enough of a workplace atmosphere which allegedly included racial and sexual harassment and discrimination. Maybe Jackson is telling the truth, maybe she is not. But as Deen has already admitted to slurs the self-inflicted damage has been done. I never cared for Deen anyway so I didn't spend a lot of time thinking about the controversy. I am however angry that the nostalgia for the Old South is so powerful and defended by so many. I simply can't imagine anyone wanting to have a wedding with Jewish people dressed as concentration camp inmates. But that's just me. Deen has every right to use whatever language she pleases. And others have every right to disassociate from her.

You Deserve Rape: Free Speech or Harassment?

How far do you think the First Amendment protections on free speech should stretch? In a famous Supreme Court case which then restricted the ability of anti-war citizens to distribute anti-war literature, the Court said that a person could not falsely yell fire in a crowded theater. I think the example was a good one although the actual case opinion was in my view horribly incorrect.

"The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater and causing a panic. [...] The question in every case is whether the words used are used in such circumstances and are of such a nature as to create a clear and present danger that they will bring about the substantive evils that Congress has a right to prevent." LINK

This standard was fortunately later modified in the 1969 Brandenburg decision which allowed that free speech could not be restricted unless, among other reasons, it incited or was likely to incite imminent lawless action. I'm guessing this would for example include such things as standing up in a courtroom where your loved one was about to be sentenced and yelling out to your numerous friends and family "Let's burn this muyerfuyer down and kill that judge!!". That's probably going to get you removed from the courtroom and arrested. There are some other instances in which free speech protections do not apply: threats, lies, copyright infringement, parental rights over children, and a few other circumstances which don't much interest me for purposes of this post. Of course my blog partners Old Guru and The Janitor can easily give chapter and verse on exactly where free speech is and is not limited legally. It's what they do. But I'm not only interested on where the legal line currently is but rather where do you think it should be?

In Arizona there may be another test case, not necessarily legally, but culturally and politically of where we think free speech ends and harassment begins. At the University of Arizona a student protested Take Back the Night rallies and designation of April as sexual assault awareness month by holding a sign that read "You deserve rape".

A student holding a sign that read “You deserve rape” ignited outrage across campus Tuesday, on the same day of a sexual assault awareness event, but administrators declined requests to remove him or his sign. 

Dean Saxton — also known as Brother Dean Samuel — regularly preaches on the UA Mall in front of Heritage Hill and the Administration building. On Tuesday, his sermon drew the attention of onlookers, several of whom either personally confronted him or complained to the Dean of Students Office. 

The Dean of Students Office received stacks of written complaints, emails and multiple phone calls regarding Saxton’s sermon about women, said Kendal Washington White, interim dean of students. Saxton has never directly threatened anyone in particular, and his language has been general enough that he isn’t targeting a particular person, White said. However, a university attorney was contacted to discuss the situation. “We find it to be vulgar and vile,” White said. “However, it is protected speech. He has yet to, at this point, violate the student code of conduct.”

Saxton, a junior studying classics and religious studies, said his sermon was meant to convey that “if you dress like a whore, act like a whore, you’re probably going to get raped.”  “I think that girls that dress and act like it,” Saxton said, “they should realize that they do have partial responsibility, because I believe that they’re pretty much asking for it.”

LINK

I think this is a classic case of "I disapprove or what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."  I tend to think that the best remedy for bad speech is good speech...in the public sphere. That last is important. I don't hold that there is any free speech right to come to a blog and insult people, visit someone's home and curse out the owner or even for the government to insist that a private organization accept an individual member who has previously stated his or her fervent opposition to the group's goals. And often once a parent tells a child that "this conversation is over", well that's the end of that. Usually in my household that particular phrase was a warning signal that this was my final chance to sit down and be quiet before more convincing methods were used. Obviously in a private workplace, someone carrying that same sign Saxton is carrying likely would be fired immediately, forcibly escorted from the premises and possibly sued. So those are all exceptions to "free speech" with which I'm fine.

But in the public sphere where the government is able, willing and eager to use coercive methods that are simply not available to blog moderators, company managers or strict parents, I think we need to be very careful about suggesting that some ideas can't be expressed or worse yet, must be punished after the fact if anyone dares to express them.

The country is full of people who have repugnant ideas. Whether we like it or not, they have the right to express them. Although I might well enjoy forcing certain people to shut up  , whatever political coalition gives me the power to take that action and play censor may be fleeting. So in the not too distant future I might be forced to give up my free speech rights by "bad guys" who find my ideas repugnant. That's not acceptable. Even folks who are in the same general political spectrum as I am can often have surprisingly and to my way of thinking, ridiculously different ideas about topics. They may think that banning this or that idea is a small price to pay for harmony. So it goes.

Saxton's speech may well be hateful and may make people uncomfortable. But that's exactly the sort of speech the First Amendment was designed to protect. Unless Saxton makes a particularized threat to someone or otherwise disrupts class I don't see where the university has or should have the power to prevent him from expressing his opinion. One man's free speech is another woman's hostile environment. In the public sphere I think protecting the right to free speech is more valuable than supposed completing claims like freedom from hate speech or hostile environments. Anything stating someone deserves sexual assault is wrong, obviously. But saying "You deserve rape" in a general sense is different from saying you're going to rape a particular person. One is free speech, albeit ugly, while the other is an actionable threat which should see someone locked up. Of course Saxton's message is not directed at my gender. So maybe I can afford to be rather blase about it. Though in truth I'd feel the same way if he started carrying around a sign endorsing theories of racial inferiority. What if the message is directed at you? What if you are a woman who is wearing a skirt that is too short, heels that are too high or a top that's too tight or too revealing for Saxton's preference. Does your opinion change? Does Saxton deserve a punch in the mouth?

Questions

1) Is this free speech?

2) Should the student code of conduct change to make things like this actionable?

3) Should public schools or universities have exemptions from First Amendment protections in order to provide safe environments?

4) Should hate speech lack First Amendment protection?

5) Should Saxton be expelled?

Free Speech, Mona Eltahawy, Pamela Geller and Censorship

As we've discussed before there are people who make money, get media attention, and have fun baiting Arabs and Muslims with speech that is either deliberately insulting or could be inferred to be insulting. This is wrong BUT it is something which they have every right to do. There are plenty of things to be critical of in the Arab or Muslim world. Some critics want to see a form of modernity and rationality emerge in some areas to improve people's lives. Other critics just like irritating people. And thin-skinned people of any creed are usually irresistible targets for trolls, whether it be online or elsewhere. If I know that you're going to go berserk every time I say the word "Rosebud" I just might, were I so inclined, amuse myself by saying that word and watching the world burn.

Sometimes though, criticism originates from a place of hatred and racial/religious superiority rather than love, from a place of contempt rather than attempted understanding. The criticism may be stated in blunt ugly antagonistic terms. This is usually the case with the noted conservative racist birther blogger Pamela Geller, who has built her career in part by saying nasty things about Muslims, Arabs and occasionally blacks or President Obama as well. Evidently, Geller has paid for ads to run in NYC (and other) subway systems which read "In any war between the civilized man and the savage, support the civilized man. Support Israel. Defeat Jihad"

Obviously I don't agree with the ad's implication that anyone who is opposed to the current Israeli government's policies is a "savage" or in support of jihad. And it is ironic beyond words that Geller, who was vehemently opposed to Muslim Americans building a mosque in New York City that she felt was "too close" to ground zero, and sought to limit other people's property rights and rights to practice their religion has wrapped herself in the same First Amendment that she seeks to ban for others.

But that we are all hypocrites to one extent or another doesn't change that fact that in America, we ALL have the right to free speech. The government can't tell you what to think, what to believe, prevent you from expressing your opinion, or send you to jail or fine you for expressing your opinion. It also means that other people can't (either individually or as part of a mob) prevent your speech from being heard in the public arena. This second part is a little trickier because of course your right to free speech ends where someone else's ownership rights begin. You have a right not to be put in jail for speech. You have no right to a blog post or comment, to be published, to have your ad accepted. So while I can appreciate journalist and occasioal MSNB contributor Mona Eltahawy's passion and righteous indignation at seeing that message, I can't agree that attempting to deface and censor the message is really "free speech". The proper response should have been to organize and get her own message out there. Geller has every right to put her message in the public square. It is, perhaps worth pointing out, if you are not familiar with Eltahawy, that she is not a fundamentalist but a liberal who advocates for women's rights. She has been scathingly critical of several aspects of the Arab world's politics and traditions. In Egypt she's been arrested and assaulted for her activism and reporting.

Of course I haven't recently strolled by an ad implying that millions of my countrymen and co-religionists are savages so it's easy for me to take a somewhat detached look. Defacing ads is small potatoes in free speech wars. People have done it in other situations but that doesn't make it right. It is important to confront "racist speech" but the way you do that is by more speech, not by trying to censor. That's what I believe. Geller has every right to imply that some people are savages. That right must be defended. Free speech is not negotiable.  Again, though this particular "speech" didn't quite trip my outrage wires the same way that this cartoon might have so I think we all have limits. Bottom line is that as I don't want you deciding what I can read, think or say you probably wouldn't want me determining your correct thoughts or statements. Watch the video as Eltahawy defaces the ad and Pamela Hall, president of Stop the Islamization of America, another Geller group, tries to stop her.

What do you think? 

Is the ad free speech?

Should there be a hate speech exemption to the First Amendment?

Is Eltahawy's response appropriate?

Lynyrd Skynyrd: Heritage not Hate Dodge

South East Michigan has many people (both black and white) who have parents, grandparents or great grandparents that came from the South. This was because of the 20th century automotive industrial boom. So many Southerners migrated here that certain Detroit suburbs or neighborhoods got the pejorative suffix "tucky" as in "Kentucky". The southern (white) migrants also brought a virulent racism which would be a causal element for riots in 1943 and 1967, not that Michigan was a sauna of racial tolerance before they arrived. I haven't been down South in a while but I always thought it was odd that I've seen more Confederate Battle flags in Michigan than I ever did down South. Usually that flag is attached to a pickup truck bumper or displayed in a gun shop or military surplus goods store.

My earliest memory of the city where I now work was two white men in a pickup truck with a Confederate Battle flag attached, slowing down to spit and hurl racial slurs at my then babysitter as she drove me and another child home. Such brave men, yes? So I usually associate that flag with racial hatred, white supremacy and above all, losing. The South lost the Civil War. I'm glad they lost because that meant that my great-great-great-grandfathers/mothers no longer had to live in slavery. So this was an unambiguously good thing as far as I was concerned.
Not everyone feels that way.

Some think that slavery was a good thing or at the very least not all that bad and black people should stop whining talking about it and find the positives. Others will, at least in public, not defend slavery or white supremacy but nonetheless will try to find some good things about the antebellum South and connect this to a pride in (white) Southern heritage. One such person would be Gary Rossington, famed guitarist of the reconstituted Southern Rock band Lynyrd Skynyrd.

CNN news anchor Fredricka Whitfield—who, it may not be irrelevant to mention, is African-American—mentioned the history of the band using the Confederate flag in concert and album art, saying, "We don't see that anymore. At what point did you make a decision to lose that, or what was the evolution of that?"

Rather than tell her she was mistaken, Rossington—the sole remaining member of the group's classic 1970s lineup—launched into an explanation of how the flag has been misappropriated. "It became such an issue about race and stuff,"

Rossington explained on camera, "where we just had it at the beginning because we were Southern, and that was our image back in the '70s and late '60s, because they kind of branded us from being from the South, so we showed that. But I think through the years, you know, people like the KKK and skinheads and people have kind of kidnapped that Dixie or rebel flag from the Southern tradition and the heritage of the soldiers. That was what it was about, and they kind of made it look bad in certain ways. We didn't want that to go to our fans or show the image like we agree with the race stuff or any of the bad things."

Singer Johnny Van Zant, who replaced his late brother Ronnie in the group, chimed in: "If nothing else, we grew up loving the old blues artists and Ray Charles. We just didn't want to be associated with that type of thing".

LINK

Since the early seventies the band has been associated with the Confederate Battle flag. So many fans gave a rebel yell at the idea of their band changing the imagery that Rossington was forced to reverse his stance and repudiate his comments. Having had tragicomic accidental exposure to classic rock radio at an impressionable age I actually liked a few Lynyrd Skynyrd songs. In some areas during the seventies/eighties it was literally impossible not to hear the mournful slide tones of Freebird or the boogie of Sweet Home Alabama somewhere on the radio or blasting out of someone's Firebird. Somewhat ironically the hook for "Sweet Home Alabama" is so catchy that other musicians like the Geto Boys used it. Even more ironically Black women singers provided backup vocals for "Sweet Home Alabama".

Just as some rappers and artists have sought to take what is referred to as "the n-word" and put their own meaning into it, others have tried to redefine the Confederate Battle flag as not being symbolic of a struggle to maintain slavery and white supremacy but as a simple pride in Southern heritage, not backing down from a fight and standing up for your beliefs. Some more honest people also try to attach a "non-racist" white pride to it, claiming that if everyone else can be proud of their ethnic heritage and ancestral deeds, why can't southern (or southern identified) whites?

I think this argument is sort of disingenuous though on the surface it's somewhat compelling. The Confederates initiated an armed rebellion against the United States, one which even today remains the bloodiest war the US has ever fought. And they did so precisely because of a fierce belief in slavery and white supremacy. Don't just take my word for it, look up what they wrote about why they were rebelling.

We hold as undeniable truths that the governments of the various States, and of the confederacy itself, were established exclusively by the white race, for themselves and their posterity; that the African race had no agency in their establishment; that they were rightfully held and regarded as an inferior and dependent race, and in that condition only could their existence in this country be rendered beneficial or tolerable.

The Confederates wanted to make sure everyone knew what they thought about blacks.
Our new Government is founded upon exactly the opposite ideas; its foundations are laid, its cornerstone rests, upon the great truth that the negro is not equal to the white man; that slavery, subordination to the superior race, is his natural and normal condition.

And like I said..they lost. When I see that flag I think of a racist loser. So I see nothing to honor or be proud of.
It is true that the Confederate Battle flag has been associated with white power movements, the Klan, and American Nazis. Rossington is correct about that. What he misses, most likely deliberately, is that there's a reason for that. It's not so much that the Confederate Battle flag has been misappropriated as it is that it's an almost perfect beacon for many of the beliefs that white power movements, the Klan and Nazis have.

There were many brave men who fought for the Confederacy. I have no doubt about that. There were also many brave men who fought for Germany in WW2. Some Waffen SS men laid down their lives trying to protect German civilians (and especially German women) from rape and death at the hands of the Russians. But if a German woman hoisted a Swastika or Waffen SS flag today and claimed that she is not supporting Nazism but is merely honoring the bravery of her ancestors, would anyone believe her? Probably not. Those symbols are fixed in their meaning. And despite the bravery of individual soldiers the cause for which they fought was so wrong that even attempting to honor them feels wrong somehow. They weren't the good guys.

The problem is that the South, unlike post war Germany, never had to admit that it was wrong for starting the war or wrong for having slaves. There weren't war crimes trials which ended with slaveowners dancing at the end of a rope or overseers being lined up against a wall and shot. There were never generations of education in the postbellum South which emphasized the wrongness of human bondage. And of course there were never reparations paid to the slaves. There was a brief attempt to ameliorate some of slavery's effects which was met with sullen and later openly violent Southern white resistance. The North shrugged its collective shoulders and by the 1890s or so the South had been left to handle its own affairs and write its own version of events, one which surprisingly enough was generally accepted by the North, at least insofar as black people were concerned. Slavery had nothing to do with the war. Slavery wasn't that bad. The South were genteel farmers who were were resisting an invasion by northern industrialists. Slaves were fat happy people who loved giving relationship advice to white people. And so on...

At a time when Confederate Battle flag enthusiast Kid Rock gets an NAACP award and says he loves black people and is not racist, is it time to look past imagery and judge people more by actions? Or is some imagery so disgusting that that's impossible to do. The great Southern writer William Faulkner famously wrote "The past is never dead. It's not even past'. I think that quote is quite applicable here. The Civil War and slavery still cast a heavy shadow over America, in part because some of the issues we thought were resolved then haven't quite been. And because historically speaking the Civil War wasn't that long ago it's not necessarily easy to let go of certain things. I doubt, by way of comparison that too many British are still too sensitive over the Norman invasion of 1066 or the War of the Roses. Why? Because those things are long long past. The winners and losers have merged. You can't tell a Norman from a Saxon. The issues have been forgotten or no longer matter. None of that is true in the American context of state's rights, discrimination, race relations, etc.

Questions

1) What does the Confederate Battle flag mean to you?
2) Is it possible to redefine symbols like the Confederate Battle flag?
3) Is it possible to have white pride without being racist?
4) Had you ever heard of Lynyrd Skynyrd before?

Violence in Egypt and Libya: Free Speech and Muslims

I woke up yesterday to news that American embassies in Libya and Egypt had been stormed. In Libya, the American ambassador and at least three other Americans had been killed. Wow. What could have caused this? Were we at war? What set it off? Did we need to put our button men on the street?

I was not surprised to learn that this unbelievably awful film, allegedly by a right-wing American-Israeli filmmaker that no one seems to have heard of, had somehow popped up on some people's radar screens. There is a large mostly American and European neo-conservative cottage industry of print and visual media that likes to sell the idea of a clash of civilizations between the Judeo-Christian West and the Islamic East. In this view Muslims are irretrievably backwards, violent, women-hating, cousin-banging religious nuts who can't process that it's no longer the 7th century. Of course from this mindset it is essential that we stand with the State of Israel and support them in their desperate attempt to steal the rest of Palestine for Jewish only settlement struggle against these fanatics. It is also rather important for these ideologues to emphasize the vile, violent, expansionary and reactionary aspects of Islam while glossing over the fact that historically, European Christians weren't exactly known for tolerance of Jews.

This "clash of civilizations" idea wouldn't gain much traction were there indeed not plenty of Muslims ready, eager and willing to play their part. I mean is this stupid or what? Someone (and we don't really know who) makes an ineptly offensive film insulting Muhammad and depicting Muslims as dumb, violent brutes. Outraged Muslims take to the streets to denounce the film and commit dumb brutish acts, including the murder of an American ambassador. I guess some Egyptians and Libyans must not be familiar with the concept of getting played. I guess SOMEONE proved their point. Some Muslims should get it through their skulls that burning things, rioting and shooting people any time someone expresses an opinion you don't like is so 14th century. What happened to boycotts, peaceful protests, writing a book attacking your critics or trying to bring down someone's career behind the scenes?

Free speech in this country still includes the right to satirize, mock or even crudely insult people, ideologies or concepts you don't like, including religion. Remember The Life of Brian? Pi$$ Christ? The Last Temptation of Christ? Do you also remember the violent American Christian protests where they ran amok and started burning things? No? Me neither. Why is it that blasphemy is still a real concept for some people? Honestly I think all religions are equally valid and equally silly. I think it is is just as ridiculous to believe that God talked to you through a burning bush and told you he loved you and yours more than anyone else as it is to believe that God is going to send you to hell for eternity unless you worship him and think he's three beings in one as it is to believe that God sent a prophet who told anyone who believed in him that they were thus entitled to convert people by the sword. We should remember that Arabic is spoken in Africa for many of the same reasons that English, French and Spanish are spoken in the Americas: invasion, conquest, enslavement and settlement. No religion's metaphorical hands are clean. Everyone has awful deeds in their past.

But if I'm the State Department, I really don't care that the people outside my embassy have been lied to and manipulated. I really don't care that their little feelings have been hurt by someone calling them names and making fun of their religion. Anyone attacking my embassy or consulate is going to get two in the head. The embassy is sovereign territory. You don't want other nations or organizations to get the idea that they can just roll up to your embassy and do what they like. If the embassy is attacked it may well be overrun but there ought to be a pile of dead attackers laying on the ground when all is over. Tragically there apparently wasn't the US protection that there should have been at the Benghazi consulate but it is important to note that Libyan forces fought the attackers, along with an American rescue mission.  So we can't say that all Libyans were involved with this or even that the attacks had popular support. We just don't know. By many accounts the consulate attack was simply too well organized and armed to have been the work of spontaneous rioters. Even in Libya I doubt everyone has quick access to mortars and rockets or the skill to coordinate volleys. So this is a bit curious don't you think?

This is my house. I will not allow violence against this house.

We simply can not allow violent people of any faith to enforce a rioter's veto over speech that they do not like. That takes us back to the days where blasphemy and heresy were crimes punishable by imprisonment, torture and death. If people do not like religious criticism or ridicule, unfair or not, their option is to ignore it or to respond in kind. I am an atheist. I have doubts that Muhammad existed but if he did I don't think that God or angels were talking to him. Portions of the Qu'ran or Bible or Torah are laughably ridiculous. If reading that fills a true believer with insensate rage, that's too freaking bad.

Post Enlightenment we have the right to disdain religion. In some majority Muslim countries, that's not necessarily the case. Fortunately several American Muslims are pointing out the benefits and primacy of free speech. Hopefully that idea will spread across the world. Because if a small minority of crazy Muslims goes berserk every time someone "blasphemes", more people in majority non-Muslim nations will start to ask some unpleasant questions about the costs and benefits of Muslim immigration. And that falls right into the "clash of civilizations" meme that the Right is pushing. I think it is time to stop any moves towards any sort of international blasphemy standard. I don't want any sort of internal American limitations on free speech for religious sensibilities.

This is a political movie," said Bacile. "The US lost a lot of money and a lot of people in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, but we're fighting with ideas."
Bacile, a California property developer who identifies himself as an Israeli Jew, said he believed the movie would help his native land by exposing Islam's flaws to the world.
"Islam is a cancer, period," he said repeatedly.
The two-hour movie, Innocence of Muslims, cost $5m (£3.1m) to make and was financed with the help of more than 100 Jewish donors, said Bacile, who wrote and directed it.
The film claims Muhammad was a fraud. An English-language 13-minute trailer on YouTube shows an amateur cast performing a wooden dialogue of insults disguised as revelations about Muhammad, whose obedient followers are presented as a cadre of goons.
It depicts Muhammad as a feckless philanderer who approved of child sexual abuse.

LINK

We should be VERY wary of provocateurs like Bacile, if that is indeed his real name..  Not only are his name and identity in question but an actress now claims that the film was edited post production to include insults about Muhammad. "Bacile" may have been a Coptic Christian who was upset about Muslim violence against his co-religionists and linked up with anti-Muslim people in the US and elsewhere to promote his film. If I were really really conspiracy minded I would wonder if this is indeed some sort of attempt to influence the US election by either making the US president look weak or make him feel constrained to finally give the greenlight for a US attack on Iran. But if that were the case Romney's stupid response to events frittered away an opportunity to look Presidential while making even some other Republicans question his decorum.

We don't have to excuse or explain away the submoronic responses of some Egyptians and Libyans to realize there are some right-wingers who have some very real reasons for wanting to gin up trouble between the US and the Islamic world. They believe in a religious war and they want one. Some of these folks are bigots who seek to deny American Muslims  the rights they themselves enjoy and carve out exceptions to free speech that offends them while hypocritically wanting to keep the right to offend others. These people should not be silenced for that would be wrong. But we don't have to accept their world view either.

The attacks in Libya and Egypt also show why I tend to be against foreign interventions and an activist neo-con foreign policy. We end up making more enemies and/or helping people that really don't like us very much. As far as Libya goes, some Russians evidently could not resist saying "We told you so".

Yevgeny Y. Satanovsky, president of the Institute of the Middle East in Moscow, said American leaders should not expect “one word of sympathy” from their Russian counterparts. 

“It is a tragedy to the family of the poor ambassador, but his blood is on the hands of Hillary Clinton personally and Barack Obama personally,” Mr. Satanovsky said. He said Russian warnings against intervention in the Middle East came from the bitter experience of the Soviets in Afghanistan.

“They lynched Qaddafi — do you really think they will be thankful to you?” he said. “They use stupid white people from a big rich and stupid country which they really hate.” 

QUESTIONS
1) Do you think the timing of this has anything to do with the American election?

2) Do you support limitations on speech that insults religion?

3) Did you or do you think the Libyan intervention was a wise decision?

4) How can the US avoid being blamed for things it had nothing to do with?

5) How did the protesters even find out about this film?

6) Do you believe in a "clash of civilizations"?

Chick-fil-A, Boycotts, Gay marriage and Common Sense

The President of Chick-fil-A, Dan Cathy, made statements that expressed his opposition to gay marriage for religious reasons. He is a conservative Christian.

'I think we’re inviting God’s judgment when we shake our fist at him, you know, "We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage." And I pray on God’s mercy on our generation that has such a prideful, arrogant attitude to think that we would have the audacity to try and redefine what marriage is all about,' he said. 

This immediately started requests for retraction and calls for boycotts, accusations of discrimination and most ominously government officials telling him to stay out of their vicinity.
This really touches on something that I've noticed for a while now and I don't think it's healthy. Both right and left do it.

1. The turning of honest difference of opinion into heresy that must be zealously stamped out.
2. The attempt to hurt someone's business for political reasons.
3. The attempt to get around free speech protections by recasting ideas as hate speech or discrimination.
4. The attempt to use government to achieve the first three points.

Whether we think that Dan Cathy is a bigot or not, his position on marriage, that it's between one man and one woman, is one held by millions of Americans, including until quite recently, President Obama. Remember this quote?  "I believe that marriage is the union between a man and a woman. Now, for me as a Christian — for me — for me as a Christian, it is also a sacred union. God’s in the mix." Of course the President said that before he was elected but I know he was being honest with us.  Perhaps Mr. Cathy will also "evolve" when he runs for President. Do we really want to say that everyone who supports traditional marriage is a hateful individual?

Is it a good idea to mix politics and business? This is a trickier question because obviously there are some instances where I do think boycotts are useful but those tend to be cases where the company is engaging in illegal or unethical  behavior (i.e. discrimination or pollution). I understand why people might oppose a new strip club or liquor store opening up in their neighborhood. But those examples aside is it good for you as an individual to only engage in commerce with people that agree with you on everything? Do you for example, not shop at Whole Foods because the founder and CEO, John Mackey is a free market libertarian who opposes ObamaCare and unions and doesn't believe in climate change? Or maybe you do shop at Whole Foods because the founder and CEO, John Mackey is a vegan who has been extremely helpful in the battle to increase standards for humane animal treatment, promoted organic foods and sustainable farming, has donated his stock portfolio to charity and placed caps on executive pay. Is it good for the country as a whole if everyone starts to disengage from people who are not like them? I don't understand the urge to punish people you don't agree with until they change their tune. The world is full of people who think my views are just as silly as I think theirs are. That's life.


If you work in a large corporation as I do there's an excellent chance that you will run across people in positions of authority that will have rather different views than you do. Take it from me it's NOT a good idea to get into political discussions with your direct supervisors about affirmative action, the war in Afghanistan or feminism. But if you discover that your boss's boss's boss thinks that Glenn Beck has it right, do you continue to work there? Or if you are of more conservative bent and you learn that the company CIO thinks the problem with this country is that it needs a good dose of Euro-style social welfare and confiscation of guns, do you stand up and tell her off and then quit? Or in those situations do you say, hey I need this job and as long as I am treated fairly I will stay? Because after all, business is business and those idiots people have a right to their opinions.

There is not as far as I know any claim that Dan Cathy oversees a corporate culture of gay hatred. He has not as far as I know publicly used anti-gay slurs, called for beatings of gays, claimed that he would refuse to hire, promote or serve gays, made anti-gay jokes, or made snide comments about Broadway or West Hollywood. All he did was say he believes that marriage is between a man and woman and contribute money to organizations that feel the same. For that Boston's Mayor Tom Menino sends a letter to Chick-fil-A stating that they are not welcome while Chicago Mayor Rahm Emanuel and Aldermen are also making noises about preventing the company from expanding in Chicago. 


Whatever you think about Dan Cathy or his views, do you really want a government star chamber deciding, for purely political reasons, to try to prevent a company from doing business? That is a pretty obvious, blatant and ugly violation of the First Amendment. If you support that because you happen to think that Dan Cathy is a twit, then would you also support a local government in a more conservative area trying to prevent a lesbian bookstore from opening or demanding to know if a Curves franchise owner believes in abortion rights or sending questionnaires to a dance club to find out the owner's stance on interracial dating?
I think that any new boycott of Chick-fil-A will peter out just like the previous ones did. Remember that NAACP boycott of South Carolina or Target stores? Exactly.

QUESTIONS

Is it automatically bigotry to support traditional marriage?

Do you occasionally do business with people who hold different political beliefs than you do? If so where do you draw the line?

Is it smart business to put your religious or political views out there for debate?

Should local governments try to prevent Chick-fil-A from expanding?