Friday, May 09, 2008

Gay Fascism on Campus: Livid Lesbians Shut Up Speaker They Dislike

From World Net Daily:
Rioting lesbians have stormed a speech by “Born Gay Hoax” author Ryan Sorba on the campus of Smith College in Massachusetts, shutting down his address, according to two major pro-family organizations, Americans for Truth and Mass Resistance.

“Beware lesbians with frying pans (if you care about free speech),” AFT said in his announcement. “Lesbian activists at Smith College just couldn’t stand by and let a young critic explain his views about the supposed innateness of homosexuality – so they stormed Ryan Sorba’s speech on the ‘Born Gay Hoax’ and forced him to end it prematurely.”

“Thus they decided for everyone in the room – supporters, foes, the curious and the undecided – whether Sorba’s arguments would be heard. Stalin would be proud,” said AFT’s Peter LaBarbera.

Shouts of “We’re here, we’re queer, Get used to it!” combined with various shrieks and screams punctuate the protests.

With police officers standing idly by, a homosexual protest leader takes the microphone and orders, “They have told us to leave, so everyone needs to stay.”

While security officers are shown doing nothing to eject the mob, Sorba is told to leave the room.
You can watch videos of what happened here.

If the actions of these bigoted leftists are not appalling enough, even worse are the people who support them.

Consider, for example, a blog called “Pam’s House Blend,” which is populated by this sort of people.

The title of her post is “Smith College students give ‘Born Gay Hoax’ author a piece of their minds” -- an absurd euphemism.

Pam, in an update, backs away a bit from endorsing the Nazi behavior the the Smith lesbians, but her commenter have no such compunctions. One said, for example:
Personally I don’t see a problem with the protest. In fact, I think we need more of such actions these days, as long as they are not physically violent. I’m as big a fan of free speech protection as the next person. But what would the rightful reaction on campus have been if the speaker were someone plugging a book saying the Holocaust never really happened? Or one promoting the KKK? I don’t see a problem disrupting hate speech which is ultimately responsible for horrific events like the murder of Lawrence King.
Of course, this person would never object to a speaker saying that the U.S. government invented AIDs to kill black people, or that Dick Cheney planned and executed the 9/11 attacks. Apparently she is OK with free speech if the speaker doesn’t say anything “really bad.”

And she and her friends get to decide what is “really bad.”

Another poster:
I do not like being measured as wanting by a conservative Republican college student who gets to preach bad science, a single biblical interpretive viewpoint and who arrogantly expects not to be challenged on trying to cut the basis of our citizenship out from under us.
This is very standard thinking on the part of the politically correct crowd on campus. What they “do not like” must be banned. What they consider “bad science” must be banned. A “single biblical interpretive viewpoint” (unless it is their own) must be banned.

Another, even more chilling comment comes from a poster who is proud to have shut up a speaker.
When I was an undergrad at New Mexico Tech in the late 80’s we had a “Faith Healer” (forget who, but Benny Hinn comes to mind) who wanted to hold his revival on campus in our auditorium. NMT is strictly science oriented and the vast majority of students and professors joined together to protest the upcoming event as being contrary to our educational agenda of fact-based instruction.

As a result, the on-campus event was cancelled and moved to an off-campus location. HOWEVER, we continued the protest and got the Townies involved as well. Socorro has two primary populations: 1) The College, students & professors, fairly liberal; and 2) The Townies, Hispanic, very Catholic, conservative. Needless to say, it wasn’t hard to get the everyone worked up against a non-Catholic and he ended up just cancelling his appearance in town all together.

It was totally peaceful, we did not silence him or prevent him from coming to town, but we did drown him out and let him know that we were not going to stand by quietly to let him spread his fraudulent propaganda on our campus or in our town.
New Mexico Tech is a state university, and speakers have the full rights of the U.S. Constitution (unlike Marquette, which has the legal right to shut up faith healers, or pro-abortion speakers, if it wants). So demanding that the college cancel the speech was a direct attack on the Constitution.

Notice how the woman in question is bragging about the fact that she and her leftist friends could exploit anti-Protestant religious bias.

One has every right to say faith healing is nonsense, but it’s hardly hate speech. It’s just something that secular liberals don’t believe in.

(It would be interesting if Marquette banned a faith healer, since the Catholic Church has a rite of exorcism. But then, Marquette might insist that Protestants can’t be faith healers.)

There is, of course, plenty of this sort of intolerance in Wisconsin.

A local liberal blogger (“Wallah”) found it “encouraging” that students at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee tried to disrupt a speech by David Horowitz.

And students at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point vandalized an anti-abortion display on that campus.

This folks, is the campus left in 2008, with a festering hatred for ideas they disagree with, and a fascist willingness to shut up those ideas.

Labels: , , , , , , ,

29 Comments:

Anonymous James said...

Looks like I can chalk up more evidence to my prediction that the left will turn violent against those whom they disagree with. Even though the one commentor said he/she was for this type of behavior as long as it isn't physically violent, in his/her heart, that's not true. It will escalate, and like good totalitarians/collectivists, they will look the other way, passively condoning violent actions, or straight out endorse them. They've already endorsed the attacks on military recruiters, called for a lynch mob, torch and pitchfork attack on a recruiting station and their nominee is close to a man who tried to kill people with explosive devises and sees nothing wrong with it. Don't tell me they not going violent soon.

8:59 AM  
Blogger John Foust said...

Why do you conflate the actions of a few with the title of the many?

11:07 AM  
Blogger James Pawlak said...

When the school and police authorities fail to maintain order and the free speech rights of speakers, then the People must take necessary and direct action to do so.

Pepper spray, lead-loaded garden hose section, canes, cattle prods (So appropriate considering the photos of the lesbian protesters) and other devises can be used.

11:54 AM  
Anonymous Dash said...

Hey! Pam's House Blend! I love that site. And the story you reference in this post made me so happy when I read about it weeks ago on Feministing and other AWESOME lefty sites. Those "livid lesbians" are my my new loves!

Just a question for you, though, if the "born gay" thing is a hoax, were you still "born straight?"

12:23 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

John Foust said...
Why do you conflate the actions of a few with the title of the many?


I'm afraid the fascists are not "few" in academia.

Nor are they few in the blogosphere.

Check out the comment from the other fellow who likes shutting up speech he disagrees with.

1:42 PM  
Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

What a bunch of garbage. Nothing pisses me off more than the "I'm in favor of free speech, BUT...." mentality. Although, I was under the impression that you were part of that group. Your position here seems... inconsistant.

3:05 PM  
Anonymous James said...

Well, first of all, we keep having these incidents with the Sorba speech being the latest on top of the Horowitz speech and the Shoebat speeches most recently. Let us not forget the many pie throwing incidents against speaker with a conservative viewpoint. Add in the bloggers/commentors like Dash (who is at least being honest), and it’s not the few, but the many.

Second, I’m always being told that problems like crime in central cities are a result of society and I’m as much to blame even though I don’t live there and commit the crimes. So we have the standard liberal double standard in play. Now you want to say your sides bad behavior is only that of the individual (which is correct). Talk about selective assignment of personal responsibility.

Third, now that the shoe is one the other foot, you don’t seem to like it too much. Shall the Professor uncorks the many gem emails from tolerant open minded few who have probably associated him with everything from the KKK to the Third Reich. Check off another double standard.

Fourth, the liberal ideology is that of collectivists. In other words, everyone needs to be the same, especially in what you’re supposed to think and believe. More so than individualists, collectivists strongly believe the ends will justify the means. That’s clearly demonstrated in this story as many have expressed joy at silencing a voice they didn’t like.

So it appears the questions that really need to be asked are the following:
- Why do you want to minimize, change the subject, ignore, or rationalize this bad behavior?
- Why are so many like Dash willing to endorse restricting freedom of speech based on their subjective criteria?
- Why are so many unlike Dash, unwilling to be honest and admit they’re OK with such behaviors so long as it benefits the left?

3:44 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

What a bunch of garbage. Nothing pisses me off more than the "I'm in favor of free speech, BUT...." mentality. Although, I was under the impression that you were part of that group. Your position here seems... inconsistant.

If you want to prove me inconsistent, find any place were I ever condoned disruption, force or violence to shut up a speaker one disagrees with.

5:51 PM  
Anonymous Dash said...

Okay, you make it sound like people like Shoebat, Horowitz, and Sorba have had their voice silenced before they had ever gotten a chance to speak. Not the case. People are reacting because hateful voices like theirs are being pronounced and put on a public platform. IMO, once this rhetoric reaches a public platform, others have the right, no mandate, to voice their opinions as well. Restricting freedom of speech? I'd say quite the contrary. I'm pretty sure I heard both voices--one was just loader. Yay lesbians!

9:10 PM  
Blogger James Pawlak said...

Dash appears to favor the Brown Shirt approach to free speech as demonstrated in Germany in the 1930s. As I recall, the leader of those German Storm Troopers was a raging homosexual: Dates change, people do not.

2:19 PM  
Anonymous James said...

"I'm pretty sure I heard both voices--one was just loader"

There is nothing wrong with trying to answer speech you disagree with. The key here is answer. The left like Dash, clearing do not want to answer, they want to drown out. The only reason to drown out someone else speech is to silence and intimidate.

And since you speak of a mandate, I take that as you want to use the force of the law to harass or silence that speech which you find hateful. Thanks for demonstating that, I admire you forth-rightness in advocating what you truly believe. We may disagree, but at least your honest on how you feel about what is acceptable free speech.

2:44 PM  
Blogger PaulNoonan said...

Well, disruption is a fairly broadterm Professor. Frankly, grouping it with violence or force seems a bit disingenuous.

Disruption, for instance, could mean taking away soemone's funding and therefore inhibiting their ability to speak.

Hypothetically speaking, of course.

8:49 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Restricting freedom of speech? I'd say quite the contrary. I'm pretty sure I heard both voices--one was just loader. Yay lesbians!

What would you say if conservative Christians went and disrupted the speech of a gay or lesbian speaker?

10:13 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Disruption, for instance, could mean taking away soemone's funding and therefore inhibiting their ability to speak.

No, disruption is when there is somebody who wants to speak, and others who want to hear the speech, and some bigoted third party prevents that happening.

Nobody is required to listen to a speech they don't like. They can walk out or not go in the first place.

Nobody is required to fund, support or enable speech they don't like.

Do you actually believe the gay lobby has an obligation to fund a speaker whom they disagree with?

10:15 AM  
Blogger PaulNoonan said...

Excellent. Now I can use formal logic.

No, disruption is when there is somebody who wants to speak,

Bill Maher

and others who want to hear the speech,

Bill Maher's target audience

and some bigoted third party prevents that happening.

Those who complain to American TV, WKLH, etc.

See, that was fun.

Boycotting isn't counterspeech (in this case). It's an attempt to silence. Tactically it's more civil than the screamin' lesbians, but as I've said before, while they are worse, you are in the same business.

Nobody is required to listen to a speech they don't like. They can walk out or not go in the first place.

Not if the speech is cancelled due to lack of funding. Distractions are not defined by their volume. They can be covert as well.

Nobody is required to fund, support or enable speech they don't like.

We'll just say "Duh" and move on. No, that's no fun actually.

When you buy a TV at American, you're funding American. That's it. And you're getting a TV.

But what if some of those TVs are used to watch pronography?! You'll be supporting pornography! Get the boycott ramped up again, American is selling pornography machines!

That argument that I just made is stupid. It is also no different than your argument in favor of boycotting American.

Do you actually believe the gay lobby has an obligation to fund a speaker whom they disagree with?

Can you read? Or is there some commenter here going by the name of StrawMan23 that you're arguing with?

11:29 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

When you buy a TV at American, you're funding American. That's it. And you're getting a TV.

Suppose American sponsored a Klan rally?

How would you feel about that?

Do you actually believe the gay lobby has an obligation to fund a speaker whom they disagree with?

Can you read? Or is there some commenter here going by the name of StrawMan23 that you're arguing with?


Sashay(tm)!!

Your argument is that if somebody refused to support a particular kind of speech, they are engaged in disruption.

But you would be happy if a gay lobby group refused to sponsor or support somebody who (for example) was out front in opposing "gay rights" laws?

A gay lobby group that did that would be within their rights. They aren't within their rights if they disrupt a speaker.

It's not that complicated.

But you have to think in terms of principle, rather than simply approving any tactic when used against people you don't like, and disapproving any tactic when used against people you agree with.

3:29 PM  
Anonymous James said...

"Well, disruption is a fairly broadterm Professor. Frankly, grouping it with violence or force seems a bit disingenuous."

Unfortunately, for those of you that do not pay attention to human nature, it's not that big of a step to go from disruption to violence. Fortunately for those that will use violence, many simple stand by and ignore it until it's too late. For some it's just easier to submit to a totalitarian demand that actually stand on a principle

6:32 PM  
Blogger JesusIsJustAlrightWithMe said...

"If you want to prove me inconsistent, find any place were I ever condoned disruption, force or violence to shut up a speaker one disagrees with."

No. Your idea of "inconsistent" is off base. I'm not going to use it. In real life, your position is inconsistent because you want to shut some people up, but you are upset when others want to shut other people up. I don't care about the methods all that much (but I agree with Paul that the disruptors you talk about in this post are worse than you. It's the same ballpark though.).

"But you have to think in terms of principle, rather than simply approving any tactic when used against people you don't like, and disapproving any tactic when used against people you agree with."

Heh. Nice example of irony.

12:18 AM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Where is the security at these events? This is not new behavior?!

It's clear that these grievance groups are incredibly marginalized and increasingly frustrated. Not to mention, incredibly confused.

We'll see more of these tactics.

Also, if you want a good chuckle check out this: http://docweasel.wordpress.com/2008/04/27/whine-on-you-crazy-feministe/ and this: http://dearwhitefeminists.wordpress.com/2008/04/17/an-open-letter-to-the-white-feminist-community/

It's pretty revealing stuff. The contradictions are hysterical.

10:30 AM  
OpenID Nick said...

What's your argument here John? You seem to go from wanting to stop people from speaking (Mahr) to wanting people to speak (Horowitz, Sorba), to not wanting them to speak (KKK).

Pick one! Either its acceptable for third parties to find ways to stop people from speaking, or they can't.

Unless of course your goal is to have all speech in the country approved by you... which is how its starting to sound.

1:50 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

I don't care about the methods all that much (but I agree with Paul that the disruptors you talk about in this post are worse than you. It's the same ballpark though.).

It's very simple, and please pay attention.

"Methods" are the key thing.

I'm sure you are a leftist that wants to get the Republicans out of power.

So what methods do you want to use?

Defeat the Republicans in the 2008 elections? You have a right to do that.

Stage a military coup and throw all Republicans into detention camps?

I'm sure the latter appeals to you, but that's fascism.

Refusing to subsidize or support hateful speech is a perfectly acceptable "method."

Using force or disruption to shut down speech you don't like is not.

11:01 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

What's your argument here John? You seem to go from wanting to stop people from speaking (Mahr) to wanting people to speak (Horowitz, Sorba), to not wanting them to speak (KKK).

Pick one! Either its acceptable for third parties to find ways to stop people from speaking, or they can't.


Are you being intentionally obtuse?

First, answer my qustion about the Klan!

What would you think if American sponsored a Klan rally?

If you evade that, it will be obvious you aren't intellectually serious.

But as for who can speak:

Maher, Horowitz and the Klan all have a right to speak without disruption.

None of them has a right to be subsidized or supported by anybody who doesn't like what they say.

You are refusing to accept this simple principle because you like Maher.

11:05 PM  
OpenID Nick said...

Actually I can't stand Bill Maher. I've never been able to watch his show, and I think he's opportunistic, and can't make a strong argument to save his life. I never said I liked Bill Maher, and it's a poor statement to assume I do simply because I support his right to speak freely.

I would say that the appropriate response to any of these types of situations is to simply stop shopping at American, whether it's Maher or the Klan.

But by going on a public rampage, you put fear in people and organizations that has a real possibility of stifling any type of speech, no matter how un-objectionable it is. They will fear possible retribution by someone. Maybe not you next time, but surely another group.

It creates an atmosphere of what is called "censorship envy". You were able to stop sponsorship of one person, so now people will be envious of that, and will try to do it to someone else... very likely someone who you like. And because you help set the precedent of acceptability, it will be easier to do next time.

That is the danger here.

9:40 AM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Nick,

OK, now we have a serious argument being made, so thanks for that.

I would say that the appropriate response to any of these types of situations is to simply stop shopping at American, whether it's Maher or the Klan.

Good. That's what I was saying.

I never called for anybody to boycott American. I did say that I was going to stop buying there.

And I did publicize what they did.

(Interestingly, Sly in the Madison market beat me to it, although I didn't know he had when I put up my blog post.)

Conservative talk radio people publicized the American endorsement, although none of them called for a boycott either. But American, at that point, knew they had done something controversial.

So I suppose your argument is that I should have blown the whole thing off and not blogged about it.

But by going on a public rampage. . .

Apparently you are saying I should not have blogged about it.

It creates an atmosphere of what is called "censorship envy".

When have liberals ever refrained from boycotting any business of which they disapproved?

They have created an environment in which corporations are judged by the political stands they take.

Of course they have a right to boycott Wal-Mart or (years ago) Coors.

But I didn't invent the idea of refusing to buy from a corporation that takes political or social positions I disagree with.

10:14 AM  
Blogger Sir Satire (The Serious) said...

Just another example of the fact that hate, closed-mindedness and bigotry has found a home in the American Left.

They can't stand anyone else's freedom but their own.

1:44 PM  
OpenID Nick said...

"When have liberals ever refrained from boycotting any business of which they disapproved?

They have created an environment in which corporations are judged by the political stands they take."

Exactly... censorship envy. They do it to Walmart so I want to do it to American! Although in this case, they are boycotting Walmart for Walmart's immediate practices. You are going after American b/c of Bill Maher's speech, which was in fact part of a larger series of speakers.

It comes down to a playground attitude as if everyone is 5 years old. "He hit me!" "He hit me first!" "They do it, so why can't I?!"

Just because they do it is no reason to do it yourself. The appropriate response is to try to prevent them from doing it at all, not using their same poor tactics.

1:54 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Although in this case, they are boycotting Walmart for Walmart's immediate practices.

A lot of Wal-Mart opponents explicitly don't like the company because the Walton family contributes to conservative candidates, and to causes such as school choice.

It was certainly the same with Coors, and the fellow who owns Domino's Pizza.

Just because they do it is no reason to do it yourself. The appropriate response is to try to prevent them from doing it at all, not using their same poor tactics.

In the first place, they have every right to do it.

But in the second, you need to bone up on something known as the "prisoner's dilemma."

In the absence of rules prohibiting certain behavior (and the Constitution mandates that people can boycott when they want) using a "tit for tat" strategy is indeed appropriate.

Put another way, the only way that liberals are going to stop doing something that gives them an advantage (like, say, judicial legislation) is if conservatives are willing to respond in kind.

In the absence of any conservative response, the liberals will simply keep doing it -- and enjoying the advantage.

3:03 PM  
OpenID Nick said...

Said in another way...

If I'm going down, I'm taking you with me.

You'll notice that the end result is that everyone is sunk.

3:18 PM  
Blogger John McAdams said...

Said in another way...

If I'm going down, I'm taking you with me.

You'll notice that the end result is that everyone is sunk.


Actually, no.

If one side (the liberals, let's say) know that any unfair tactic they use will be visited on them, they have a huge incentive to avoid unfair tactics.

If they know they can use the tactic with no harm coming to them, they will use it.

We have plenty of history on that.

But note that there is nothing unfair about boycotts as a tactic.

4:02 PM  

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home