The Orlando Massacre: Freedom of Speech in the Wake of Violence

Note: Unfortunately, my WordPress has glitched, which prevents me from hyperlinking. I’ve posted relevant links at the end of the article.

As concern for the humane treatment of LGBT individuals grows in modern Western society, freedom of speech and expression are often perceived to conflict with sensitivity toward this group of people. On June 12, the deadliest mass shooting in American history* took 49 lives and wounded 53 other victims in a gay bar, yet has opened the door to a discussion about the appropriate response to people who celebrate national tragedies. Pastor Steven L. Anderson posted a video to YouTube saying that it least it was “sodomites” and “pedophiles” who died. He said that he does not support civilian killing of gay people because it is against the law, but that they should be executed by the government “through the proper channels.” YouTube has removed Anderson’s video for violating its policy against hate speech.

Take a look at YouTube’s “Hate Speech” policy**. Notice that it claims YouTube supports freedom of speech, including generally disliked opinions, but immediately states that “hate speech” is not allowed. The Constitution prohibits the government from restricting freedom of speech, except when that speech directly threatens others or poses a threat to their safety, i.e., is a “clear and present danger.” Legally, YouTube is entitled to make and enforce its own policies, but by removing videos based on their ideas, it violates the principle of allowing freedom of expression. Preaching the murder of gay people was once acceptable in American culture, while advocating for sexual equality was seen as disgraceful. Attacking words, not actions, sets a precedent for prosecuting thought crimes and whatever we subjectively find harmful.

The argument can be made that Anderson poses a danger by supporting violence against gays, that homophobic people may be incited by his vitriolic comments to begin carrying out murders as the Orlando shooter did. It is true that this may happen, but nevertheless, Anderson is not responsible for others’ actions, and idly claiming that certain people should be killed is not equivalent to actively planning and executing the killings.

Prejudice doesn’t need censorship to be brought down; in a rational society, a bigot will be reduced to a small, sad pile of bitterness when the majority of people agree that his opinion doesn’t merit consideration. The Westboro Baptist Church is a prime example: When they protested American soldiers’ funerals and shouted their signature line, “God hates fags,” they advertised themselves as hateful and made their name synonymous with everything that decent people despise. By deleting Anderson’s video, YouTube is protecting him from himself.

Despite its malevolent origin, intolerance serves as a warning. When we know which people want to harm us, we know who is dangerous. We need to stay alert to what is happening around us, not shut our eyes and plug our ears and then wonder what went wrong when people end up dead. If we squander every chance to prepare ourselves for an attack, we will be to blame when we never saw it coming.

Silencing Anderson will not make him stop having his opinion. It won’t change the minds of people who think like he does or of people who actually plan to kill gays. But it will make him and others feel they are being persecuted, cause them to become even more determined to hang on to their bigoted beliefs, and feed on each other’s sense of victimization. Furthermore, trying to destroy expression of an opinion shows fear of that person’s belief. Are we going to respond to evil people by not only making them unite, but by showing them we fear them? That is how people like Anderson and the Orlando shooter gain control.

But the fundamental reason not to deny an individual’s right to expression is that it undermines the freedom that is central to our society. When someone shows meanness, rather than muzzling him, we should respond with the opposite of his actions. Donate blood, volunteer at a shelter for gay homeless children, even write a letter to Steven Anderson expressing hope that he changes his mind, rather than returning the contempt that he spews. For a nation that values each person’s autonomy, the only response to liberty being taken away is to liberate others.

In the aftermath of one of America’s worst terror attacks, constraint is an ally of violence. We need to have faith that compassion, not censorship, can beat hatred.

*Information about the shooting: http://edition.cnn.com/2016/06/12/us/orlando-nightclub-shooting/index.html?adkey=bn

**Youtube’s hate speech policy: https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/2801939?hl=en

 

The Baby Market Saga: A Little Research Never Hurts

For those who haven’t heard of the latest scandal, Planned Parenthood is being accused of profiting from selling fetal organs. Is selling human organs illegal? Yes. There is a black market that makes thousands of dollars from these sales. Would it be despicable to profit from a woman’s decision to give up her baby? Yes. Is Planned Parenthood actually doing this? Although a group called the Center for Medical Progress has videotaped meetings with the family planning clinic’s directors Dr. Mary Gatter and Dr. Deborah Nucatola to try to suggest that it is, ask some questions before passing judgment.

If Planned Parenthood were making money from the alleged sales, why are the prices so low? In the video with Dr. Nucatola, the Center for Medical Progress claims at 2:38 minutes that each organ would sell for a price between $30 and $100. Again, organs on the black market are sold for much higher amounts. Dr. Gatter notes in the video of her that Planned Parenthood is “not in it for the money,” and that patients donate their fetal tissue to research: they do not sell it to Planned Parenthood. Patients gain nothing from the donation, Dr. Gatter said. Do you really believe that an organization as large as this clinic is would take a few tens and twenties for the organs when others are selling for thousands or hundreds of thousands, or that patients would agree to receiving no money while Dr. Gatter rakes it in? (Patients are making money, you say? Then where are these tissue-factory clients?) The Young Turks’ video points out that Planned Parenthood would have to pay for the shipping and handling of the tissue, especially given that fetal tissue is extremely fragile. What motivation would the clinic have to donate tissue to research if they were continually losing money for doing so? Reimbursement for something you have given to someone else is not a “sale.” The video does not even hint at how many people are willing to donate their fetus’s organs. The idea that Gatter or Nucatola are making a profit is highly questionable.

In “haggling” prices, as the title of the video with Dr. Gatter puts it, doesn’t the seller try to up the price, while the buyer tries to get the goods cheaply? From 2:26 to about 4:00, the poser asks Dr. Gatter what price she would prefer. Dr. Gatter suggests $50, and the poser repeatedly asks for a higher price; Dr. Gatter explains that although obtaining the tissue itself does cost money, Planned Parenthood can’t afford to be perceived as profiting financially from donating tissue. She agrees to $75 and finally $100 as the poser continues to ask for a higher “price.” Why would Dr. Gatter propose that she be paid a high-schooler’s weekly income if she were attempting to make money? She only agrees to greater compensation after the poser goads her into it, as well as accuses her of lowballing and “playing games.” Yes, given that the Center for Medical Progress sent spies to make the video and accuse Planned Parenthood of wrongdoing, it can be inferred that the poser intentionally asked for a higher price to try to expose Dr. Gatter as greedy. The tactic is obvious, and the claim of haggling isn’t supported at all if you take time to watch the interaction critically.

Planned Parenthood knows they are hated for performing abortions, among other services. If they were conducting illegal transactions, why would they do so publicly? Both videos show Drs. Gatter and Nucatola, no doubt recognizable faces for anti-abortion activists, speaking in a restaurant with the people who say in the video description that they are posing as buyers. Furthermore, if they were criminals, the doctors would never risk their reputation and that of Planned Parenthood, as well as exposing themselves to criminal charges, by conducting organ sales for measly income with people whom they had not even investigated. (Which obviously they didn’t, since the posers are, in fact, posers.) Planned Parenthood would need to do major research on the potential customers before even considering selling to them, in order to protect their business and public integrity.

While many are incensed that Planned Parenthood is, according to the Center for Medical Progress, running a supermarket of children’s organs, I have never heard a single outcry against the possibility that the clinic would capitalize on the mothers and families of the aborted fetuses. The evidence in the above videos doesn’t support the alleged organ trade, but if it did, I would speak out for the families who made the personal and often heartbreaking decision to give up their baby. Not every person who chooses an abortion feels that way, but this man and his wife did. I’m not getting into the moral status of a fetus: that’s another conversation. I am talking about the pain experienced by people who wanted to keep their child, but knew that doing so was not the right choice for them or the baby–and if the accusations were true, these parents would have unknowingly given away their child’s tissue to be sold by those they trusted. Denouncers of Planned Parenthood, where is your anger for the parents who were allegedly exploited on “the worst day of their lives”?

If the people who are calling the clinic a den of monsters had stopped to consider the likelihood of what they are claiming, they would understand how implausible the entire scheme is. Such a serious charge should never be made lightly, yet some are already calling for an investigation, while others are pushing to defund the group. Based on two videos totaling less than half an hour of edited and hysteria-surrounded “evidence.” Those demanding punishment for Planned Parenthood, with the videos as a foundation for the charges, are making a joke of both moral and intellectual integrity. Save your outrage for a worthwhile cause.

Andy Hallinan and the CAIR Vs. Progress

Andy Hallinan is a gun shop owner in Inverness, Florida, who said he will refuse to sell to Muslims who come to his store. This is his response to the Chattanooga shooting by Mohammad Youssef Abdulazeez that killed five people, including four Marines.

This guy is acting like an ignoramus. He lives in the Deep South, so he’s unlikely to have met many of the people he’s assuming are killers. All he knows is that a man with an Arabic name killed four Marines and another person. When he made this statement, the shooter’s motive was still being investigated (and as far as I know, still is as I’m writing this). Hallinan really has no proof that Islamist extremism was the motive, but he has jumped to that conclusion anyway and decided he is going to help the situation by raising Muslims’ ire. No, Andy Hallinan, you are creating division by discriminating against Muslims when every person in the country should be united against those who want to see us dead. And, of course, you’re plain foolish by assuming people in certain garb are terrorists.

Eric Harris, Dylan Klebold, Dylann Roof, and Elliot Rodger are all murderers who shot people to death, and they were not Arabic Muslims, but young, white men. By Hallinan’s logic, no one should sell firearms to this last demographic, based on its violent history. In the Columbine shootings aftermath, did anyone refuse to sell guns to white men? What do you want to bet that Hallinan would call taking this action ridiculous?

The Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) is appealing to the Department of Justice, saying that Hallinan’s discrimination is a violation of civil rights. I disagree. Yes, I think Hallinan’s decision is stupid and wrong. But regardless, his merchandise is his property, and he should not be forced to sell it to any customer he doesn’t want. No one begins a business primarily to serve others (unless it’s a non-profit). They do it for their own sake: to make a profit. Hallinan doesn’t owe anyone his property, any more than customers owe him their business. If he wants to lose money over anti-Muslim prejudice, let him.

“But it’s wrong!” people will counter. Yes, it is, but not everything that is wrong is illegal. Starting nasty rumors about someone is immoral, but that doesn’t mean the person who started the rumor can be charged with anything. The price of a free society is that not everyone will be treated fairly by every person. We are all entitled to fair treatment by the law, but we are not entitled to fairness from individuals.

I find the part about “American-Islamic Relations” in CAIR’s name interesting. How is this group promoting understanding or goodwill between Muslims and people like Hallinan by trying to force “fair” treatment? If good relations were CAIR’s goal, wouldn’t it try to influence negative opinions by speaking out against terrorists or doing other things to work for peace? Instead, it demands that Hallinan be forced to sell to people he doesn’t want in his shop. This has absolutely nothing to do with fostering tolerance. Responding gently to Hallinan’s prejudice would show class on the part of CAIR, but this organization is exchanging making progress in “American-Islamic relations” for ensuring that anger against Muslims continues.

Hallinan and the CAIR are both fanning the flames. Those of us who want peace should consider contacting both parties, to ask them to stop. Thanks for reading, leave a comment, and please share!