(TRIGGER WARNING -- HOMOPHOBIC SLUR)
Recently there was a controversy, and by “controversy” I mean “a right wing celebrity
provocateur incited a homophobic mass harassment campaign, explicitly and flagrantly
against his platform’s terms of service, but then said platform declined to penalize him in
any way because he’s famous and they don’t actually think that gay people getting
harassment and death threats for multiple years is a big deal.” I won’t name the platform
here, but it was one on which You could post video the internet, which has sometimes
been described as a series of Tubes.
provocateur incited a homophobic mass harassment campaign, explicitly and flagrantly
against his platform’s terms of service, but then said platform declined to penalize him in
any way because he’s famous and they don’t actually think that gay people getting
harassment and death threats for multiple years is a big deal.” I won’t name the platform
here, but it was one on which You could post video the internet, which has sometimes
been described as a series of Tubes.
But where the calvanism comes in is that the explicit and undisguised goal of the
years-long harassment campaign was to make the target, a journalist, shut up and stop
criticizing conservative positions. Yet when the journalist, and other LGBTQ people,
objected to the harassment, they were immediately accused of trying to silence
“freedom of speech.” So was this mere cognitive dissonance, that freedom of speech is
bad when person A does it and good when person B does it? I think not. I think it’s too
conscious and self-assured for that, and the terms in which it is asserted and defended
are too tied to the categories to which the persons in question belong: Person B has
freedom of speech, if people ask a video hosting platform to ban him for violating its
rules then his rights are being violated. Person A’s freedom of speech simply doesn’t
count, and if he’s harassed and shouted down then it’s no more than deserves. In both
cases, whether your right to free speech counts is entirely dependent on which category
you belong to, the Elect who are straight and white and conservative, or the Reprobate
who, in this case, is Latino and--they actually unapolagetically used the word--a Fag.
years-long harassment campaign was to make the target, a journalist, shut up and stop
criticizing conservative positions. Yet when the journalist, and other LGBTQ people,
objected to the harassment, they were immediately accused of trying to silence
“freedom of speech.” So was this mere cognitive dissonance, that freedom of speech is
bad when person A does it and good when person B does it? I think not. I think it’s too
conscious and self-assured for that, and the terms in which it is asserted and defended
are too tied to the categories to which the persons in question belong: Person B has
freedom of speech, if people ask a video hosting platform to ban him for violating its
rules then his rights are being violated. Person A’s freedom of speech simply doesn’t
count, and if he’s harassed and shouted down then it’s no more than deserves. In both
cases, whether your right to free speech counts is entirely dependent on which category
you belong to, the Elect who are straight and white and conservative, or the Reprobate
who, in this case, is Latino and--they actually unapolagetically used the word--a Fag.
That distinction, in their minds, was why it was ok for them to hit, but not ok for them to
be hit back. The Elect may strike the Reprobate, but if the Reprobate objects he infringes
on the rights of the Elect. Example 2
be hit back. The Elect may strike the Reprobate, but if the Reprobate objects he infringes
on the rights of the Elect. Example 2
No comments:
Post a Comment