Posts Tagged ‘free speech’

Obama’s ‘God Bless’ expletive is hate speech

Tuesday, July 28th, 2009

Mean ObamaAt the end of nearly every Obama speech, Obama fails the prudence test regarding the rule among politicians to avoid saying anything about anybody’s religious faith. Obama isn’t the first, nor will he be the last politician to abuse the idea of church and state separation. However, I can relate to the President — I’ve uttered those words myself on occasion. But if this were just an occasion like that, Obama would have by now offered an apology for his repeated and blatant invocation of the Christian god: “God bless you, and may God bless the United States of America.”1

So, I must ask this question: Did Obama intend to offend millions of his countrymen who choose not to worship God (or, specifically Obama’s version of god), or did he just not care if they were offended?

Either way, if Obama had invoked the name of Allah, you can be sure that Christians would be lining up to throw their “I’m offended” stones.

Hate speech is hate speech, whether it is aimed at atheists, Christians, straight people, white people, non-white people, men, or women. Whether we should tolerate this speech as a form of free speech, or whether we should prosecute it as hate speech is a different issue. In this case, we must note that “hate speech is speech meant to demean, ridicule, and discredit all who are associated with its target.”2

So, where is the outrage against Obama’s hate speech against atheists, agnostics, Buddhists, Wiccans, Pagans, and Hindus (among many others)? We haven’t heard from many of these groups, and we especially haven’t heard from Obama’s spokesman. Obama’s uncorrected cursing is indicative of the persistent asphyxiation by the tireless forces of religio-political convergence. One of atheism’s greatest gifts to America was to keep God out of the Constitution, and every time we let hate speech slip by without consequence, we come closer and closer to settling the new foundation of theocracy.

In other news, Washington Examiner commentator Mark Tapscott argues that Vice President Biden’s use of “Jesus Christ” as an “expletive” should be considered “hate speech,” and Biden should, at minimum, apologize. State of Protest attempted to reach Jesus Christ for comment, but all we received was a cryptic message: “Yes, No, Wait.” We think that Christ’s prayer-induced voicemail was on an endless loop.

Tapscott asserts that Biden, who used the phrase in an on-the-record interview with the Wall Street Journal, should have, by now, offered an apology for what Tapscott considers hate speech “meant to demean, ridicule and discredit all who are associated with its target.” Tapscott considers the victims to be American Christians, who, he is surprised to note, have not protested or made any demands of Biden.

Of course, one must ask whether Biden actually did “mean” to demean, ridicule, and discredit American Christians. I know when I say “Jesus Christ,” I’m not even thinking of Christians, let alone intending to demean, ridicule, and discredit them. Heck, if I knew merely saying something was the equivalent of all that, I would have just made one single post on this blog stating only “Jesus Christ, Muhammad, God,” and have been done with it.

Tapscott is wrong, and he shouldn’t be trying to induce an artificially created sense of a right not to be offended on behalf of anyone, let alone the most privileged of America’s religious sect.

[Poe disclaimer: I've found I need to add these disclaimers every once in a while to cure Poe Blindness on all sides. Please read the original article by Mark Tapscott and compare it to what I have written above. I hope you're able to see the parallel and how incredibly stupid it is for Tapscott and any others to accuse Biden of hate speech while simultaneously ignoring Biden and other politicians' invocations to the god of the Christians.]

  1. See http://obamaspeeches.com/ for endless examples [<]
  2. Original article [<]

WTF, Olbermann?

Tuesday, May 12th, 2009

Keith Olbermann tonight added a new feature to his Countdown show: WTF?

I mean, it’s called The WTF!?! Moment.

For the debut, he readdressed Carrie Prejean’s tragically famous emesis and her claim to “free speech.”

Some excerpts:

It’s no longer about her opinion, it’s about her.

God and Satan battling it out for the future of freedom of speech…

Where were God and Satan when you posed in your panties when you were a teenager?

Satan’s Wind!

You were not exercising freedom of speech during the pageant. You were an employee of usa inc, or donald trump inc, … the pageant people have the right to take that right away from you at any moment.

Cites First Amendment.

Clues Prejean in on the fact that employers don’t have to honor freedom of speech.

“I was punished for doing so.”

How exactly were you punished?

She assumed she didn’t win the pageant because of her answer.

Wah.

WTF!?!

The end.

Hope I captured the moment there. Prejean is definitely a good target for the WTF moment. As good as Ben Stein, but much better looking. Right? I mean, if you like viciously ambitious, Christian fundamentalist, artificially enhanced, mindless, hypocritical sellout walking vaginas. I think I’d rather screw one of those Japanese cans with lips things.

Supreme Court Review 20090421

Tuesday, April 21st, 2009

All 50 states have laws banning animal cruelty and dogfighting. In 1999, the federal government passed a controversial law banning the sale of images of animal cruelty, such as video of dogfighting or “crush” videos depicting women crushing to death small animals. The law acts as an exception to the free speech protections of the First Amendment. Although a federal appeals court in Philadelphia indicated that preventing animal cruelty is a worthy goal, the court held that banning the sale of videos showing animal cruelty illegally restricts speech, in violation of the First Amendment. The case is U.S. v. Stevens (08-769). For more information, see Supreme Court to consider whether ban on pit bull videos violates free-speech rights.

The Supreme Court declined to review a challenge to the constitutionality of a jury verdict in a death penalty case. The jury had consulted a Bible during deliberations to help decide on a sentence. The case was Oliver v. Quarterman (08-833). More information about this and other cases regarding a jury’s use of a bible can be found at the following links: Ninth Circuit OKs jury’s use of the Bible in death penalty deliberations; Jurors consulting the Bible; Supreme Court won’t disturb death sentence in case of Texas jurors who had Bible with them.

Also see the Supreme Court Blog for more details about those and other cases.

[Ed's Note: I'll be doing regular Supreme Court Review posts, but they'll be limited to the topics that interest me (which are generally those regarding free speech, privacy rights, religion, etc.). I'll also be on the lookout for prominent federal and state cases.]

DC Metro Bus Ad “Commendation” Equals “Complaint”

Monday, December 29th, 2008

A few weeks ago, I posted an article about the new DC Metro Bus anti-God ad campaign.
The Humanist DC Metro Ad Campaign

Since then, there have been a number of pro-God counter-campaigns in DC (God believes in You, and the Foolish Atheist campaigns). One of the issues many rationalists have had with the response to the humanist ads is not the counter-ad campaign, but, instead, the complaints lodged with the DC Metro. In my campaign watch article, I noted that the DC Examiner reported that 251 complaints had been filed against Metro regarding the humanist ads, but only a single compliment. I joined together with a number of other bloggers and readers to reply boldly to those complaints with a commendation to Metro for not judging ad content, and by doing so, upholding the First Amendment. Our take on the situation was that it was within the rights of the counter-campaigners to put up their own ads, with their pro-God content, but there is no justification for trying to coerce Metro into choosing sides based on the content of those ads — i.e., chilling free speech.

My compliment (which, in Metro lingo is “commendation”) stated:

Please accept my thanks for granting equal opportunity to both the religious and non-religious advertisers. I ride the metro daily, and it’s nice to see that Metro hasn’t stifled the speech of any side, and has played fair, despite controversy.

Also, if you could get the escalators working, that’d be great, too.

Lo and behold, I got a response from Metro! I’m certainly happy that they took the time to respond, but I’m rather disappointed with the tone of the response. See if you recognize what I’m talking about — the tone of the response suggests that I was lodging a complaint, not a commendation: (emphasis mine)

Dear Mr. [X]:

Thank you for contacting the [Z] Line team via e-mail regarding a specific ad in the Metro System. We appreciate hearing your views about this topic.

As a public agency, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) is constrained by the First Amendment with respect to accepting or rejecting advertising. WMATA makes no implied or declared endorsement of any ideology, product, service, or event by displaying advertisements in the transit system. We simply provide the medium for advertisers to use within the parameters of the First Amendment. We cannot reject an advertisement because an individual or group finds it offensive or inappropriate. In this instance, displaying the advertisement was consistent with the First Amendment and WMATA’s policy of remaining content-neutral.

As an individual, you may want to direct your commendation regarding this type of advertising to the advertiser. They are in the best position to explain their point of view and reason for the content.
I trust that this explanation will assist you in understanding the constraints within which WMATA’s administers its advertising program
.

Again, thank you for contacting the [Z] Line Team and we hope your future travel experiences on Metro are positive ones. To speak to a [Z] Line Customer Service Representative for Comments, Complaints or Suggestions, please call — weekdays between the hours of 8:00 a.m. – 5:00 p.m. You can leave a message at all other times or e-mail us at csvc@wmata.com.

If you ever need to speak with a Customer Information Agent for assistance with general questions, please call 202-637-7000; Mon-Fri. 6am.-10:30 p.m., Sat.- Sun: 7 a.m.-10:30 p.m.

Sincerely,

[Y]
[Z] Line Customer Service Representative

Notice how the third paragraph makes absolutely no sense? You may want to direct your commendation to the advertiser so that you can understand why Metro was “forced” (I mean, that’s kinda what constrained means) to post this advertisement that you’re commending.

Replace “commendation” with “complaint” in the letter above, and, voilà, it makes sense.

I wonder if Metro blindly stamped my commendation as a complaint, based, say, on some OCR text-recognition filing system that created an automatic stock response (adjusted to reflect the subject matter), and filed it neatly away in the ever-increasing pile of complaints about those wicked atheists.

I plan on calling to find out. Stay tuned.

-Procrustes

StOP

Best StOP Posts of the Entire Friggin Year – 2008

Monday, December 22nd, 2008

I was going to do a best blog posts, taking from other blogs, but after churning through a single month archive of a single blog, I realized that it would take me about a year to accomplish such a feat. So, I’m just going to pick stuff from this blog. It’s not wholly narcissistic, since some of the posts will have been written by people who are not me.

In mostly chronological order:

JNTB debunks the Significance of the Dead Sea Scrolls

Philadelphic challenges the idea that there can be “fundy atheists.” in Readings… The Hilariously Bad, The Good, and the WTF

Laura analyzes the impact of pro-abstinence laws on public school sex education, in Sexual Education and the Implications of Senate Bill 155

Velkyn doesn’t like living within A Culture of Lies

Procrustes rants about the meaninglessness of prayer in Mourning Cards and Tornadoes

Laura dissects the Watchtower and puts it on display in Jehovah’s Witnesses Unearthed

Velkyn debunks Dr. Brandon Carter’s “God did it” claims with regard to those nasty gaps in the universe, in Secrets: God: the Evidence, part of the Unearthed series (which is really very good!)

Procrustes addresses Roger Severino’s arguments against gay marriage in Regarding Roger Severino’s “Legalizing Gay Marriage Will Spark Lawsuits…”

Procrustes’ early criticism of Obama’s fierce loyalty to Christianity, in Thank God Obama Worships the “Right” God (follow up with The Trend of Obama Doubt)

FormerFundy argues that Personal Responsibility is Paramount Especially in the Political Realm

Spider details and then skillfully criticizes Catholic World Youth Day 2008

Procrustes agrees that we should be teaching creationism in schools, but Why Stop at Creationism?

In light of the inability of certain groups to protest outside the Democratic National Convention, Laura questions limits to the right of free speech in Run DNC

Procrustes, with help from Velkyn, explores what it means versus what it should mean to be tolerant today in Intolerable Tolerance

Apropos, JNTB asks, Would a Christian Bail You Out?

As the Bush era is finally ending, many of us acknowledge the fact that it’s not really ending. It’ll take decades, if ever, to undue all the harm he’s caused. Procrustes gives us a reminder of all that harm (if you can stomach it) in More U.S. Anti-Contraception in Africa, Plus a Look Back on Bush’s Anti-Choice Legacy (You can follow up on this by reading Laura’s article: Bush Administration Makes Last Ditch Effort to Diminish Women’s Rights)

Laura identifies the Mormons as having a terrible amount of power and coercion in the Proposition 8 debacle, in Proposition 8, the Mormons, and the New “Separate But Equal” (Also see the follow-up: Erasing Decades of Moral Progress with Proposition 8)

JNTB questions the American ideological pursuit of spreading democracy in Spreading Democracy?

Shar’iah Law Rocks (Unfortunately, literally)

JNTB examines the perception of what life is, and what human life is, with reference to Motl Brody, in Life and Death

Mutha (rearing her head, finally) discusses what real patriotism is (or should be) in Waiter! There’s Dogma in My Primordial Soup!

What’s really the State of Christmas?

Procrustes asks, Why is there a Legal Provision Allowing a Lighter Sentence Based on Religious Beliefs?

If you hadn’t already heard, Being Religious is Like Eating Sand

Laura and Absinthium for their amazing Comics (and I’ll take partial blame for most of them, as I was the idea person, they were the artists — were it not for them, all StOP comics would look like a take-off on xkcd or Stick Figure Death Theater)

Finally, and out of order, but appropriate for the time of year, Procrustes asks, Is Banning the Words “Christmas” and “Easter” an Appropriate Secular Goal?

There’s so much more that I really enjoy, but I can’t rightly put them all on an end-of-the-year list. If anything, be sure to check out the Unearthed series, which really sheds some light on a variety of religious beliefs. For easy access to all StOP’s articles, see the Archives in easy-to-open/read format in the sidebar. Thanks for reading State of Protest!

(Oh, and if you have a favorite StOP post that’s not on the list, let me know in the comments!)

StOP Christmas  (heheh)
(man, that’s ugly — My fault!)