Tuesday, August 08, 2006
Important Pieces of the Puzzle regarding the False Construction of Hate Speech and the Maintenance of a Sexually Violent Society
A federal appeals court in New York will once again be hearing arguments in a case involving a church in Staten Island that was banned from displaying a billboard because it contained a Bible verse condemning homosexuality.
In 2000, a church called Keyword Ministries contracted to post a billboard on Staten Island containing one scripture verse in four translations -- "Thou shalt not lie with mankind as with womankind. It is abomination" (Leviticus 18:22, KJV). The billboard was signed: "I AM your Creator."
After a great deal of public outcry, the president of the borough publicly said the billboard served no useful purpose and was essentially "hate speech." He then wrote a letter to the billboard company, arguing the sign was a message of intolerance and "not welcome" in the borough. Later the sign company took it down.
In September 2000, the Center for Law & Policy (CLP) -- the legal arm of the American Family Association -- filed a lawsuit on behalf of the church, claiming a government entity exercised its influence to suppress free speech. The suit has been dismissed twice by the federal district court for the Eastern District of New York. It is being heard again today (August 8) before the Second U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals.
Mike DePrimo, senior litigation counsel for the CLP, is appearing before the Second Circuit to present the case. He says the case is a clear-cut example of religious censorship. "The city cited their anti-discrimination law as the basis for their action," DePrimo explains. "They essentially said that stating that homosexuality is a sin violated laws against intolerance."
In a press release the legal group says it intends to question whether it is constitutionally permissible to characterize the Bible as "bigoted" and to condemn it as conveying "a message of intolerance that is not welcome" in New York City. CLP chief counsel Steve Crampton, also in New York to argue the case, believes the case is an example of the continuing attack on religious freedoms in the U.S.
See this past post on some questions regarding hate speech: Criminalizing Thought - Hate Speech/Crime Legislation. Excerpt:
In our deeply putrid world, "hate" speech is defined as:
Hate speech is a controversial term for speech intended to hurt and intimidate someone because of their race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, [gender,] sexual orientation, or disability.
Notice that no speech that intends to hurt and intimidate someone (even in the case of a child) regarding the sexual sphere is included above.
See more on legal definitions of hate speech/crime here.
To show just how a liberal society is a diseased society, let's put some questions forth. If I wanted to publish a web site saying the same Bible verses, would liberals deem that "hate speech?" Yes. If I add a first page warning that the sites might be offensive to some people, and have the viewer agree that they had been warned, would pro-homos still cry "hate speech?" Yes. If I then put up 1000 sites of porn where women were being depicted as being raped for the enjoyment of the viewers, would pro-homos cry "hate speech?" No. If I put up a porn site where a homo rapes another homo, would pro-homos cry "hate speech?" No. If I put up a porn site where a homo rapes another homo, denigrates and demeans the homo-victim using a hundred different swear words, including words such as "bitch" or "faggot," would pro-homos cry "hate speech?" No. If I put up a site where several homos sexually torture other homos, would this be "hate speech?" No. This would all be deemed sexual freedom and liberation, freedom of speech, personal liberty, and creative freedom. If I put up a site where homos rape others, denigrate them, torture them, and then at the end, I add a Leviticus Bible verse, what would happen? Pro-homos would say that it's fine to depict the rape, denigration, and sexual torture of homos ( and others) in porn, because that is "freedom," but to state that homosexuality is a sin is "hate speech." Is this Orwellian or what?
This in itself is perhaps the most glaring aspect of how diseased a liberal society is in its attitudes and values regarding sex. It is patently obvious that if saying that "homosexuality is a sin" constitutes a threat, an intimidation, so does depicting the insult or the rape or aggressions of a sexual nature involving homosexuals also constitute a threat. If one believes the former encourages harmful actions, so must the latter. I'm not going to post a long list of different types of examples of dehumanization and sadism that we find in the majority of porn production (including an analysis of the attitudes, the values, the messages, the words, the profanity, the behaviors and actions depicted in porn). It's a click away in any big porn site. If saying "homosexuality is a sin" is intimidating, so is every depiction of homosexual denigration or violence. There is no way you can argue that there is some magical component to saying "homosexuality is a sin" that is going to make everyone who hears it go out and commit some violence against homosexuals. Because if so, then saying "raping a homo is a great thrill" will also do the trick - and therefore, it should also be censored as hate speech. Additionally, if the portrayal of violence against homos is intimidating, it certainly also is when the victims are heterosexuals. And here lies the answer of why today we have this double standard in society regarding what is and isn't "hate speech." This goes back to the question that I highlighted in a previous post as being very important in solving the puzzle of this sociological analysis: why did the feminists that were anti-porn lose the porn war from the legal and cultural perspective? (first asked by a Cotillion blogger)
At the moment, the ideological power regarding sexual issues rests with liberals, who are a very privileged social group that is extremely comfortable with promoting sexual harassment and violence in the world, through their liberal culture, although they don't admit it and always frame it as a defense of freedom. In this respect, liberals can be deemed as a macro-elite (a mass elite, a dominant elite that encompasses a very large number of people).
In the US and in other liberal societies like it, the ideology (the attitudes and values) concerning sex is an ideology that exists to sustain the extreme selfishness of the sexual liberal. This ideology exists to defend the right to get just about any sexual kick with no concern to human dignity and character; it promotes lies about how extensive the dysfunctions and different forms of sexually related violence are; it legitimizes the mass production and perpetuation of a culture of sexual violence and various forms of oppression. This is the reality of this so called sexual freedom or liberalism. To note: a liberal here does not, in any way, mean a man - a good deal of liberals are women, only too happy to promote a culture that results in violence and harassment of other vulnerable women and anyone else that gets the brunt end of the system.
The other point to stress is the hypocrisy between so-called public and private spheres and discourses that depict denigration and violence. (This is continuously exemplified by some of the pro-porn morons at Ace's.) The argument that is made is: if you denigrate a woman in a porn medium, that is, a medium where there is a barrier between the published format and the general public, it is OK - according to liberal ideology. Now if you shove the denigration in people's faces in a public medium without their consent, then it is a problem. Now here lies one of the greatest ideological lies of our modern era. Take this example. If saying "homosexuality is a sin" on a public medium that will be seen by 50,000 people is an act of intimidation, so then are the depictions of aggressions against homos on private (or semi-private ) media that are seen by 50,000 or even 500,000 people. If the former affects behavior, so does the latter. The change in behavior or attitudes is not determined by the public/private aspect of the medium, but by the message. If we ban cigarette smoking ads that encourage smoking because cigarette propaganda affects behavior when disseminated on a mass scale - then we should ban depictions of aggressions that have an objective of entertainment that are disseminated on a mass scale. Because if cigarette propaganda changes behavior, so must dysfunctional sexuality propaganda (i.e., another term for porn). The most stupid argument that certain people make against this fact is that they can watch all the porn in the world and that this will not make them commit a crime. This argument is false because propaganda does not affect everyone in the same way or degree, but it does affect a certain percentage of people in a large population. The ban on cigarette smoking is based on this truth. But here is another aspect of the extreme callousness of liberals. As long as the sexual violence and harassment is shoved on others, they defend a sexually degrading and violent culture as freedom, and lie about its connections to harmful and aggressive attitudes and behaviors. Therefore we can correctly deem and label liberals (meaning pro-porn/pro-homosexuality people) as sexuality Goebbels'.