This week's Gay USA broadcast centered on bullying, especially the recent outbreak of suicides arising from such behavior. The hosts -- both gay -- argue that criminalization is not the ultimate answer. In fact, they doubt a local case in NJ was necessarily the result of anti-gay animus. The fact his roommate filmed his sexual acts could be a heinous prank, one that would have occurred if heterosexual sex was involved. The solution is a change of environment, particularly of those on the sidelines.
One host referenced a tweet by 50 cent that some saw as anti-gay. The other said not to go there since it didn't seem to be the intent. As 50 cent himself noted:
To toss in a political comment, this underlines why I find it hard to accept that allegedly neutral/independent sorts are able to support Republicans. As the hosts note, Republican after Republican say that homosexuality is a choice, a bad choice and are loathe to support anti-bullying legislation and programs. I can see how people can support various causes that are wrong-minded, but these are nasty people and/or those who aid and abet it. The Phelps clan can be scorned as gauche, but who at the end of the day is more dangerous? More hateful?
Million dollar judgments against them won't stop the hate and suicides. This is why the hosts are firmly on the side of free speech in the Phelps case, particularly since their side was targeted for causing emotional distress outside of churches and so forth. And, bottom line how extreme was their p.o.v.?
One host referenced a tweet by 50 cent that some saw as anti-gay. The other said not to go there since it didn't seem to be the intent. As 50 cent himself noted:
The other night I made a joke about a blow job. My male followers enjoyed it. So I then went on to joke about women receiving the same. Some how they turned a simple joke about oral sex into a anti gay statement. I have nothing against people who choose an alternative lifestyle in fact i've publicly stated my mom loved women. Its funny how people think negative statements are news worthy but positive statements are not worthy of coverage.But, it is important in this and other contexts that consequences, even if a direct intent is not present, matter. This can be seen in the context of our criminal justice policy (some interesting comments there, including on the fray), which can be racist in effect, even if they are facially neutral. A prank can be worse if done against someone particularly at risk as compared to someone else. Filming sexual acts can be an invasion of privacy, but certain types of acts are likely to be more harmful. The same applies to certain types of speech. Again, this is just not a criminal matter.
To toss in a political comment, this underlines why I find it hard to accept that allegedly neutral/independent sorts are able to support Republicans. As the hosts note, Republican after Republican say that homosexuality is a choice, a bad choice and are loathe to support anti-bullying legislation and programs. I can see how people can support various causes that are wrong-minded, but these are nasty people and/or those who aid and abet it. The Phelps clan can be scorned as gauche, but who at the end of the day is more dangerous? More hateful?
Million dollar judgments against them won't stop the hate and suicides. This is why the hosts are firmly on the side of free speech in the Phelps case, particularly since their side was targeted for causing emotional distress outside of churches and so forth. And, bottom line how extreme was their p.o.v.?