In Reply: "It’s about free speech, here and now..."

In reply to Your Free Speech Ends at the Point a Bully Says So | The Moderate Voice
---

“This shouldn’t be a partisan issue.”

Don’t tell me, tell the guy who opined that this Maryland decision has anything to do with “political expression” or “people on the far left,” rather than a legally skilled crazy person who is targeting ANYONE, right or left, who says too much about his sordid past.

It took me awhile to come around to the position that Aaron Walker was being railroaded, precisely because so many people have been making it about “the George Soros / Tides Foundation funded far left hitman” and saying that “there can be no law or justice as long as Eric Holder is running things”.

It’s not about “the Left.” It’s not about the guy’s history as a bomber or any of his convictions from the 80′s and 90′s. It’s about free speech, here and now, and what Kimberlin (and perhaps a few friends, though the evidence of their roles is still a little too vague for me) is doing to silence his critics.
---

Posted MAY 30, 2012 AT 7:15 PM

In Reply: "It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic." (Mahablog, Kimberlin-Walker, Free Speech)

In Reply to the following comment at The Mahablog ~ Brett Whozits Update: Rightie Blogger Arrested:

To outsiders–and probably to this judge–this “let’s all gang up on Kimberlin” coordinated attack made it look like THEY were the aggressors.

It was all speech, though. It wouldn’t surprise me if some of the commenters wrote stuff that could be interpreted as threats, but jailing someone for speech is deeply problematic. - jpe - May 29, 2012 @3:23 pm

I absolutely agree, which is one of the reasons I said I wasn’t sure justice was served, here…

Like others, I have a feeling there are two separate issues though; the peace order, which, if I’m understanding it right, had been in place short-term already, but was made long-term today, and Aaron Walker (Worthing)’s arrest, which may or may not have anything to do with violating the temporary peace order that was already in place, and which, if it does, may include his instigation and participation in the blogburst as a means of harassment. (Other theories / rumors include contempt of court for behavior in the courtroom today, assault, stemming from a previous physical altercation between Walker and Kimberlin (he hit him, or not; he took his iPad and refused to return it until officers showed up;…) There are also questions as to whether Walker’s continued participation in posting about Kimberlin would be a violation of the peace order.

The closest thing I’ve found to anyone speaking for the other side of this thing is the blog and twitter stream of BreitbartUnmasked. I don’t know who it is, though the righties all seem to believe it’s one of the principle players–either Ron Brynaert or Neal Rauhauser--though some even think it’s Brett Kimberlin, himself. Check it out, but since the guy’s anon, take what he offers with as much or little salt or other spices as your taste dictates…

I think at this point just about everyone left and right whose interested in the saga wants mainstream / lamestream media coverage, and law enforcement / legal system action where necessary. (Though, it is a little scary how many rightwing commenters I’ve seen at various blogs today taking about “street justice,” or similar terms… Thankfully, they’re getting slapped down by others at the blogs (mostly), but still…) If Kimberlin, etc. are guilty, I want them to face justice. But if there’s no evidence that they are, or that one or more of their accusers are stretching the truth, I want to know that — and perhaps for them to face justice.

Lastly… Anyone else have an issue viewing The Mahablog on an iPad? When I read the comments, it defaults to–and snaps back to–the top of the comment stream. I finally figured out that I could keep it scrolled to where I wanted by hitting the comment permalink that was as close to where i wanted to be as possible–for example, to write this comment in the box, i hit the permalink of the last comment submitted, and even now keep snapping back to that comment (which luckily, was short, so I can still see the comment box–but it’s something I’d never experienced on another blog…
---

Posted May 29, 2012 @9:10 pm

In Reply: With Friends Like These... (The Mahablog, Kimberlin-Walker)

In reply to The Mahablog ~ Brett Whozits Update: Rightie Blogger Arrested

I don’t know whether or not justice was served, but it is kinda–well, let’s just say ironic–that the judge cited elements of the Rightwing shit-storm against Kimberlin (threats of violence in blog posts and comments in a whole lot of the “blogburst” posts, according to rw theorists) in granting the peace order.

Like I said… To outsiders–and probably to this judge–this “let’s all gang up on Kimberlin” coordinated attack made it look like THEY were the aggressors, not their target(s). They came off looking like a lynch mob out for frontier justice, trying to do the job that law enforcers and the courts refused to do.

And it bit ‘em in the ass.

Kimberlin / Walker Peace Order

“With friends like these,…”
---

May 29, 2012 @1:53 pm

In Reply: There is such a thing as hate speech, but this wasn't it. (Madeleine McAulay)

In reply to Open Thread: Does Madeleine McAulay's View On Gay Marriage Constitute 'Hate Speech'? (Video)
---

Nope, it never was hate speech.

I disagree with the idea that religious beliefs should be the basis of secular laws, and would prefer to see the word "marriage" (a religious rite) stricken from all secular laws (perhaps replaced with "legal union," or some such thing), dividing the religious definition from the secular one (the state could recognize the religious marriage ceremony as one form of a legal union, without diluting the term "marriage" by equating the religious rite with the ceremonies performed before judges, ship captains, etc.. It would also allow legislatures to write laws about legal unions that are not beholden to anyone's religion, and without the charge that they're "redefining" anything.

But, I have no problem with folks who see it differently for whatever reason--including their religion--expressing their thoughts on the subject, and do not think there is much of any hate expressed in the video. (If anything, she's more snarky toward (& I believe, politically bigoted against) liberals (as a group, I mean) than she is gay folks... ...though I wouldn't say she hates them, either.)

The video's back up on YouTube, by the by... (I was actually searching for commentary about that--whether YouTube said anything as to why, even after reaffirming their decision a second time when Madeleine appealed, they chose to put it back up--when I stumbled onto this site.)
---

Submitted for moderator approval Posted 5/28/12), 11:30 am (or thereabouts... This is one of those "posted 7 hours ago" set-ups... ...and I can't be bothered to watch for the minute "7 hours ago" becomes "8 hours ago.")

In Reply: Standing Up For What You Believe is Right isn't Always Easy (Ask Replacements Ltd. and Madeleine McAulay)

Revised and extended, in reply to the following comment at the American Conservative post "Punishing Businesses on Gay Marriage," about the backlash against Replacements Ltd., a North Carolina business who rallied against the anti-marriage equality amendment that recently passed in that state:

I doubt that the conservatives who stop shopping at Replacements will take the course of action that homosexual activists have taken against those opposed to SSM. The homosexual activists are especially aggressive and are determined to shut down all speech that they disagree with check out this link American Power: YouTube Pulls Madeleine McAulay Gay Marriage Video as Violating Guidlines on 'Hate Speech' to see an example
5/26/12, 10:22 AM
---

It was the wrong decision, to be sure... ...but it was youtube's wrong decision.

I get why people might be offended when you suggest they're second class citizens, so I don't actually blame the "homosexual activists" who complained about Madeleine McAulay's video--though they were wrong; it isn't hate speech to spout Christian dogma about marriage; it just fails to take into account that we shouldn't and generally don't look to the Bible to write the laws in this country, in part because this is the result when we do--but it was up to youtube to stand up for speech, and in the end it was youtube who failed Madeleine McAulay ...and all of the people who use their service. (Twice, in fact. Madeleine appealed their original decision calling the video hate speech, and even after looking a second time, they still said it contained hate speech.)

And (tying this back to the original subject) there are a whole lot of conservatives and others who feel strongly about speech who are vowing not to use YouTube, based on decisions like these. I'm all for voting with your wallet and your feet when you feel strongly about a political or social issue. So, perhaps I'll use youtube a little less, and spend less time and money in CA and NC, until they get right with human rights... except for Replacements, Ltd. and others in those states who stood firm against laws that make love and equality a crime. (And having spent some time in the dinnerware industry back in the 80's and 90's, I can say that I heard nothing but good things about Replacement's Ltd. back then, so even apart from my being down with their stance on marriage equality, I recommend them highly to anyone who needs to find discontinued dinnerware, flatware, crystal pieces for their table.)
---

Submitted Posted 5/27/12, 2:13 AM
---

Also:
Replacements Limited’s Stand for Gay Marriage Has a Cost - NYTimes.com
American Power: Bob Page, Replacements Ltd. CEO Who Turned Firm Into Pro-Gay Campaign Outlet, Now Concerned His Radical Politics Could 'Hurt Our Business' ("Radical politics"... What a maroon...)
Gay 'Replacements Ltd' Owner Faces NC Hate After Opposing Amendment One| News | Towleroad

In Reply: "The only way to keep the word “marriage” a sacred bond, is to keep it from being used in secular law."

In reply to the following comment at the post (VIDEO) Controversies of Gay Marriage :: Faith Hope and Politics:

Wellspoken. My question is: In states where Civil Unions are recognized, and give gays the same “rights” as heterosexual married couples, why do gays still insist on being “married”?
May 23, 2012 at 9:06 am
---

In case I was in any way unclear, I’m in favor of secular marriage equality… (just in case anyone wants to rethink how well spoken I am, or anything… 8>)

As to the question, I seem to recall reading that there are over 1300 federal benefits attached to the word “marriage,” not to mention that DOMA prevents a gay couple legally “married” or “civilly united” in one state from moving to a state without marriage equality / civil unions from remaining legally united in that state, which really must stink for those affected, not to mention calling that whole US Constitution “full faith and credit clause” into question (though obviously, the powers that be in the legal / justice profession didn’t see it that way…)

That’s why I believe that the only way to keep the word “marriage” as a sacred bond, is to keep it from being used in federal, state, and local secular laws, which, if you ask me, is where the real redefinition of marriage took place years and years ago, when they first turned a religious sacrament into a term of secular law.
---

Posted May 23, 2012 at 9:35 am

In Reply: Defining Marriage: Church for Church, State for State, and Never the Twain Should Meet (Madeleine McAulay, Faith Hope and Politics Blog)

In reply to re: Vulgar Comments from “Controversies of Gay Marriage” :: Faith Hope & Politics, and more specifically, the following video:



(And shame on YouTube, both for taking it down, and for making me link to Breitbart to put it back up here.)

---


The problem as I see it is that the religious sacrament of marriage was written into secular law, where it has no place. It is and should be one's faith that defines marriage, NOT state or federal secular law.

That's not to say that secular law should have no interest in who is or is not a family unit, but there is no reason that any church or faith should set the rules for the general population, at least some of whom are not adherents to the faith setting those rules. We are not a theocracy, and it makes no more sense to use biblical definitions in secular law than it would be to allow secular law to define religious sacraments.

US law cannot redefine sacred marriage. But then, the church cannot define secular "marriage,"(that is, the term as used in federal and state laws) either.

In a more perfect world, the word "marriage" would be stripped from all secular laws--perhaps be replaced with "civil union," or some similar non-sacred term--leaving marriage to God and church alone. But since that will probably never happen, I have to hope that folks are intelligent and sophisticated enough to understand that legal marriage (and all the laws and legalities that stem from it) and sacred marriage (the sacrament, and all that God expects from those who enter into it) are not necessarily the same, and indeed never have been.

I'm fully in favor of religions defining sacred marriage for their believers with as little outside interference from the government as possible. I'm also in fully favor of we, the people, legislating, enforcing, and adjudicating the state and federal laws concerning "civil marriage" with as little influence from religious institutions as possible. To do otherwise is to allow the State to control the Church, or the Church to control the State. Neither circumstance is in keeping with American values or tradition.
---

Submitted May 21, 2012 at 5:00 am (or thereabouts... I didn't know it wasn't going to post, so I didn't pay sufficient attention to the exact time.)
Resubmitted May 21, 2012 at 12:07 pm (It doesn't seem to be a moderated blog... Maybe there was a glitch, the first time... ...but it didn't post the second time, either...)
---