|
March 12, 2005
Free speech for thee, me, and we!
I've received several emails from religious activists upset about the treatment by gay rights activists (and Philadelphia's criminal justice system) of anti-gay crusader and former Clinton White House intern Michael Marcavage. WorldNetDaily and many other sites have watched this case closely, and the charges were recently dismissed. Marcavage, whose talent I spotted some time ago (and who I predicted would go far), has a knack for upsetting gay activists and causing them to overreact. When the police side with the gay activists, it plays right into his hands, giving him a perfectly scripted morality play for the people who scream that "the homos" have taken over the culture. What makes it easy for Marcavage is the increasing tendency to apply time-place-and-manner restrictions to free speech by segregating opposing points of view. Police see this as a way of avoiding trouble -- especially when the dissenting message is viewed as likely to inflame. Republicans have tried to segregate anti-Bush demonstrators by designating zones where they are free to demonstrate (and be ignored). Marcavage wants to be right in the center of gay pride rallies denouncing homosexuality as a sin with bullhorns. I think he has just as much right to do that as would an anti-Bush demonstrator at a Bush rally, a Republican activist at a Hillary Clinton fundraiser, a Klansman at an NAACP rally, or even a Nazi at an ADL rally. Despite his claims to the contrary, Marcavage's situation is not unique. Demonstrators were kept from getting too close to the Republican convention last summer. During my recent trip to Berkeley I attended a pro-Israel event at which the wreckage of an Israeli commuter bus (blown up by suicide terrorists) was displayed, and I filmed angry counter-demonstrators who were highly provocative, and who would not keep away from the rally by staying in the place the police demanded. Finally, they moved back after being threatened with arrest. While I found the terrorist supporters appalling in the extreme, in terms of free speech there is no logical difference between them and Marcavage at a gay rally. (Nor, despite the absurd charges, is Marcavage any more guilty of hate crime than the anti-Semites.) Either the police have a right to ask them to keep in a designated area or they do not. Interestingly, this former Clinton intern protested at the Bush inauguration, and has a history of harassing Catholics (he thinks the latter practice idolatry by praying to Mary and are damned unless they are born again). He's within his First Amendment rights to do all these things, but somehow I doubt he was allowed to get close to the inauguration. posted by Eric on 03.12.05 at 07:15 PM
Comments
Another Jack T. Chick-style Protestant? Interesting.... I oppose him, and I oppose Marcavage, but I must admit that they do have an interesting style. I oppose censoring Marcavage. He must have the right to free speech. And I'm certainly opposed to making a martyr out of him. If you must have a martyr, then take a look at John Geddes Lawrence and Tyron Garner, who were arrested for making love in the privacy of their own home. Fortunately, the United States Supreme Court vindicated their right, and yours and mine, on June 26, 2003. Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato theElder) the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · March 13, 2005 04:51 PM Outside the free speech issue: Blaspheming Mary, i.e., Isis/Ishtar/Inanna, the Queen of Heaven? Holy Dawn and her holy Negro wife Norma absolutely oppose that. He is obviously a member of the Communist Conspiracy founded by Akhenaton. "Our Holy War: The Goddess Against the Godless" Steven Malcolm Anderson (Cato theElder) the Lesbian-worshipping man's-man-admiring myth-based egoist · March 13, 2005 04:57 PM |
|
March 2007
WORLD-WIDE CALENDAR
Search the Site
E-mail
Classics To Go
Archives
March 2007
February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 May 2002 See more archives here Old (Blogspot) archives
Recent Entries
War For Profit
How trying to prevent genocide becomes genocide I Have Not Yet Begun To Fight Wind Boom Isaiah Washington, victim Hippie Shirts A cunning exercise in liberation linguistics? Sometimes unprincipled demagogues are better than principled activists PETA agrees -- with me! The high pitched squeal of small carbon footprints
Links
Site Credits
|
|
There are a few charges he could face for his actions. Inciting violence, inciting a riot, and/or verbal assault for example. Or an assailant could claim justifiable assault. That is, being pushed to the point he had to take action to halt the abuse.
Speech is protected, abuse is not.