The Dialogue

I'm not completely banned from the internet -- just have to catch things on the fly.

Speaking of which, I noticed this post by Andrew Sullivan from a couple of days ago, referencing this one from the Daily Irrelevant on the court decision against Phelps's Raiders. Sullivan's simplistic comment is "Sometimes, you have to defend free speech even if it also means defending 'an asshole of metaphysically transcendent proportion.'"

There's a conceptual gap here that Sullivan, as usual, doesn't bother to investigate.

The Daily Irrelevant goes on:

Although they appear to deserve it, this may be a bad precedent for Free Speech.

How far away from the funeral home would they have to be in order for privacy not to be invaded? Would it be invaded if their protest was on an internet forum instead of a sidewalk?

Whose privacy was invaded? How closely do I have to be related to the deceased in order for my privacy to have been invaded?

Being an asshole is not equivalent to invading privacy. Even if, as in the case of Phelps and his ilk, you are an asshole of metaphysically transcendent proportion.

And if you don’t stand up for the free speech of people that you disagree with, you don’t stand up for free speech at all.

These are all valid questions, in the context of the specific case (someone finally sued the Phelpsburgers -- and won), but there's a piece missing, and it's one that's more significant than you might think. The poster in this case gives the impression that these are rhetorical questions (although in the comments he insists they were meant seriously). But the fact is, the debate has always been about the limits of free speech. To accept blindly Phelps's assertion that limiting his protests in any way infringes on his free speech and freedom of expression rights is silly. That's not the case at all, but the left has become so hypersensitive on this sort of thing (not without good cause, considering the current regime) that we've lost sight of the fact that it is quite legitimate to take those assholes to court and determine where those limits are in this case.

Or, as The Gay Recluseputs it:

Those who latch onto to the Phelps case as an example of government excess are really doing themselves an injustice, unless it is their desire to present themselves as unthinking morons.

Sure, you stand up for everyone's free speech rights (or freedom of conscience, or freedom to do whatever) as a general principle, but in specific cases you have to determine whether that exercise is, indeed, legitimate. (There's quite an impassioned post at Pam's House Blend on this one that is totally wrongheaded.) This has impact far beyond Phelps and his children/brothers/sisters/cousins (if they can figure out which are which). It ties in directly with the Big Lie from the anti-gay right, that any acknowledgment of the rights of gay men and lesbians to live as full citizens on this country infringes on their freedom of religion, and that any disapproval of their misrepresentations and falsehoods is an infringement on their rights. And people buy it, because "freedom of religion" and "freedom of speech" have become buzzwords. I have yet to hear of any instance in which someone stood up to James Dobson or James Hartline or Tim Wildmon in a public forum (probably because they'll only address friendly audiences -- wonder if they got the idea from Bush or vice-versa?) and asked them point-blank how their freedom of religion is being abridged by my having equal rights -- and demanded a clear answer. (Hint: You won't find any member of the press doing this.)

I'm reminded of the pious sentiments that we should be prepared to engage in dialogue -- that's the obverse of this particular coin. In that vein, Jim Burroway came up with this little tidbit, quoting Jim Rudd of the Christian Street Preachers Alliance:

Civil officials have a God ordained duty to execute sodomites.

And the politically correct in this country want me to sit down and talk to this guy? With a sawed-off shotgun in my lap, maybe.

My point being that you cannot reflexively accept anything that the anti-gay, so-called "Christian" right says about anything. They are, as a group, documented liars, and have managed to move the center in this country so far to the right that those of us who grew up before the Moral Majority don't recognize the place any more simply because no one has publicly challenged them. It makes no difference that they are completely unhinged -- and if you don't believe me, read this quote from Lou Sheldon, via Box Turtle Bulletin:

Lou Sheldon: But remember, homosexuality could strike you! It could strike this man here taking pictures…

Max Blumenthal: How could it strike me?

Sheldon: Because you could go into a gender identity confusion because it is a psychological imbalance. Something happens in a person’s life. It’s not only… It becomes a spirit…

"Gender identity confusion"? "It becomes a spirit"? WTF? I can't believe Sheldon is still spouting the same line. Actually, what I can't believe is that he does it and no one laughs in his face.

Loudly and often.