Why's He Gotta Go Making Life Hard for Bigots?

[Tostig]

While trawling through the liberal, academic, Nascar detesting blogosphere, I came across a mildly amusing post. Anyway, onto the interesting part:

By now, you've probably heard about the flap over former Miami Heat baller Tim Hardaway's repugnant radio interview, in which he reacted to news that fellow NBA alum John Amachi is gay by proclaiming his hatred of gay people and declaring that homosexuality "shouldn't be in the world or in the United States." This morning, my inbox contained a press release from none other than uberconservative group Concerned Women for America blasting Hardaway:

A former NBA star has made disturbing and harmful comments about his feelings toward people trapped in the homosexual lifestyle. Interviewing with a Florida sports radio show, former Miami Heat player Tim Hardaway said that he “hates gay people” and that he distances himself from them because he is “homophobic.” Concerned Women for America (CWA) is disappointed that a man who is respected by many sports fans would make such inflammatory remarks.

Can it be, CWA? Is that... is that a glimmer of basic human decency I detect? Oh, wait, no:

"Hardaway’s comments are both unfortunate and inappropriate,” said Matt Barber, CWA’s Policy Director for Cultural Issues. “They provide political fodder for those who wish to paint all opposition to the homosexual lifestyle as being rooted in ‘hate.’ [....] It’s perfectly natural for people to be repelled by disordered sexual behaviors that are both unnatural, and immoral [....] Hardaway’s comments only serve to foment misperceptions of widespread homosexual ‘victimhood’ which the homosexual lobby has craftily manufactured.”

You heard it here first. The problem with espousing hatred of gay people and darkly suggesting they "shouldn't be in the world"? It creates problems for homophobes. Stay classy, CWA.

Posted by Julian Sanchez at February 16, 2007 3:42 PM

My simple question to this forum is, do the conservatives have a point? Is it is all right to consider non-heterosexuals an aberration against nature so long as you say so in a way that will lead to nothing being done, or is there something intrinsically wrong about saying that you disagree with homosexuality? Moving on from this, if the second of these is right, as I'm sure the Say Cheese Mafioso will argue, can it ever be justified in quieting bigots even if what they say is abusive? Finally, can the idea of incitement being villainous ever be compatible with lauding freedom of speech?

[Aemilianus]

My position is that you can say whatever you want, quite simply. If Tim Hardaway hates gays and wants to say so, then nothing's stopping him. If gay-haters hate gay-bashers for making life hard on other gay-bashers...well...ok...nothing stopping them either, I guess.

With regard to the point itself, I agree with neither of the parties. In my opinion, Tim Hardaway was wrong for saying what he did, and bigotry of any kind should not be condoned. The conservative group is also wrong in thinking homosexuality is some kind of "problem" when it has been relatively well shown that it is a natural occurrence, simply a way someone is unique. It's also none of my business unless people want to talk about it, and it shouldn't be the business of any fundamentalists, either. Leave it alone.

Freedom of speech encompasses all speech, not making exception for different types of speech. You and I might not like what someone says, but they can still say it if they want (re. Hardaway). Incitement is bad, but it's a perfectly acceptable tradeoff to be able to live in a free society.

[Tom Paine]

Incitement to violence infringes on my right of freedom from violence, so that's not pleasant, and not allowed thanks (cf Article 30, UN Declaration of Human Rights).

However in the course of polite political discourse we must expect people to differing views, even those we find repulsive, to be aired, and if they are aired appropriately, I don't think there are grounds to quiten them. Say what you want, so long as its polite and doesn't incite violence; "I hate queer fags [I know, tautology], they're repulsive and should be killed" is one thing, "I disagree with homosexuality on the basis of Biblical morality as laid out in leviticus and Paul" is quite another. The former? No. The latter? Fine.

[Tostig]

So essentially you're arguing that it is perfectly fine to hold a view so long as you express it in a manner which indicates you're won't do anything? Let us remove the explicit threat of violence from your quote. What about "I hate queer fags, they are repulsive [to me]." Would be perfectly fine if written down in a newspaper, but if one were to say exactly the same words in a different context (say, in front of a crowd of thousands of skin heads, who might all have a personal dislike of homosexuals due to repressed anxieties), then it is a bad thing?

Why? The harm principle? But surely the harm principle can be interpreted in such a way that any action can be seen as harming the prospects or opportunity of everyone. Jonathan Wolff's example of a choice between brown shoes and black shoes harming the interests of shoe-polish manufacturers springs to mind.

So, assuming there is no fundamental difference between an action which harms someone and a perfectly legal action such as pouring your breakfast cereal (I'm sure my hippie friends would be willing and able to tell me how my box of Kellogg's cornflakes drizzled with Tescoes milk harms the world), then why the insistence upon not harming?

The arguement that violence and harming are different springs to mind, but can be rejected on several grounds, such as a Poirot-esque murder by painless poison, and your UN charter fails to hold water with me, on the grounds that it is as fundamentally meaningless as Wittgenstein holds language to be, with the addition that no-one uses it.

To look at your examples again, and approaching it from a different angle, "I disagree with homosexuality on the basis of Biblical morality as laid out in leviticus and Paul" needs a fundamental "which I believe to be a source of dogmatic morality" at the end. To me that boils down to "I disagree with homosexuality on the basis that my moral authority says it is evil." or just plain old "Homosexuality is evil [in my view]." My point? The same motives and reasoning underline both views, it's just that the latter makes it seem less threatening while still having the implications. If I were to walk up to you and say "Excuse me sir, would you mind handing over your wallet and valuables? I'm afraid that I am of the belief that failing to comply may result in a change of the power-relationships between us and make my day a bit more scary." would still be a mugging.

[Denny Crane!]

So essentially you're arguing that it is perfectly fine to hold a view so long as you express it in a manner which indicates you're won't do anything? Let us remove the explicit threat of violence from your quote. What about "I hate queer fags, they are repulsive [to me]." Would be perfectly fine if written down in a newspaper, but if one were to say exactly the same words in a different context (say, in front of a crowd of thousands of skin heads, who might all have a personal dislike of homosexuals due to repressed anxieties), then it is a bad thing?

Why? The harm principle? But surely the harm principle can be interpreted in such a way that any action can be seen as harming the prospects or opportunity of everyone. Jonathan Wolff's example of a choice between brown shoes and black shoes harming the interests of shoe-polish manufacturers springs to mind.

So, assuming there is no fundamental difference between an action which harms someone and a perfectly legal action such as pouring your breakfast cereal (I'm sure my hippie friends would be willing and able to tell me how my box of Kellogg's cornflakes drizzled with Tescoes milk harms the world), then why the insistence upon not harming?

The arguement that violence and harming are different springs to mind, but can be rejected on several grounds, such as a Poirot-esque murder by painless poison, and your UN charter fails to hold water with me, on the grounds that it is as fundamentally meaningless as Wittgenstein holds language to be, with the addition that no-one uses it.

To look at your examples again, and approaching it from a different angle, "I disagree with homosexuality on the basis of Biblical morality as laid out in leviticus and Paul" needs a fundamental "which I believe to be a source of dogmatic morality" at the end. To me that boils down to "I disagree with homosexuality on the basis that my moral authority says it is evil." or just plain old "Homosexuality is evil [in my view]." My point? The same motives and reasoning underline both views, it's just that the latter makes it seem less threatening while still having the implications. If I were to walk up to you and say "Excuse me sir, would you mind handing over your wallet and valuables? I'm afraid that I am of the belief that failing to comply may result in a change of the power-relationships between us and make my day a bit more scary." would still be a mugging.

Nicely written Tostig, I don't hold with the legislating against speech based on the harm theory. Instigating violence, I think I can accept that.

Peter

[boofhead]

It's OK to hate a group, OK to have bigoted, prejudiced thoughts. Who can legislate against feelings or thoughts?

It's stupid for a "public personality" to express them on radio, but he never "incited" hatred or suggested that any action be taken or even that others should think the same as he.

I "hate" certain groups (rapists, serial killers, pedophiles, corporate criminals, suicide bombers among others) and it is my right to think as I see fit. I will even express my hatred publically.

[Tom Paine]

Tostig, there is absurdity in the harm principle and the harm principle; English jurisprudence and lawmaking prizes common sense strongly and the absurd examples are therefore cut out from it by such jurisprudence; laws are so wide because of this, in fact, and I would argue our legal system was a good deal better than our neighbours', whose judges have less discretion.

And violence does not mean the infliction of pain; murder by painless poison is still violent, and therefore harmful.

Effectively, no matter how much I disagree with your view you have a right to express it, but when you express that view in a manner calculated to bring down violence upon someone or a group thereof you go beyond free speech, impinging on the right of others to be free from violence, a greater right I tend to feel.

[SickBoy13]

Another pressing question, why does a man represent the CWA?

[RZZZA]

Theres one important fact that I think everyone is overlooking in this tim hardaway scandal: Athletes are not known for being especially smart. So, weve exposed another idiot athlete, one of these people who probably praises god for his victories and wears platinum and diamond jewel encrusted crosses around his neck. One of these simpletons...

Why do we care what tim hardaway says? Just shut your mouth and play good. Talk less.

edit: ah....but to answer your question, no conservatives are wrong imo when they say that homosexuality is "unnatural". Its B.S., quite obviously, as homosexuality is about as old as prostitution is. So theyre natural, and both should be legalized and de-stigmatized.

But the real point theyre making is not that its unnatural, thats just an afterthought of theirs. The real point theyre making is that homosexuality is repugnant to them. Not just the act of homosexuality either, as they can easily avoid doing that if they wish. No...whats repugnant to them is the mere existence of homosexuality.