On Jan. 13, 1958, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that ONE (the first national "homosexual magazine") was not pornographic and could be sent through the mail. "This ruling made nationally distributed LGBT print media possible," comments Box Turtle Bulletin, which observes:
when ONE caught the eye of the FBI, they immediately launched an investigation to try to shut it down. They went so far as to write to the employers of ONE's editors and writers (they all depended on their day jobs for income), saying that their employees were "deviants" and "security risks."
It's quite astounding, in fact, how far we've come in less than my own lifetime, with full escape from state-sponsored discrimination (including overcoming the denial of the right to marry and to serve in the military) within reach.
Alas, hard-won freedoms are not always wisely used, as such is the nature of freedom. Case in point, today's mostly slick and vapid national lesbigay publications, where nongay celebrity interviews compete with trendy takes on global warming , and knee-jerk support for "progressive" bigger government as the path to salvation is almost always the order of the day.
More. Dan Blatt (aka GayPatriotWest) shares his thoughts on how The Advocate puts Bush-bashing above gay advocacy.
8 Comments for “A Different World”
posted by Harke Ploegstra on
Why should LGBTs be any less entitled to their own vacuous media than anybody else?
Those magazines symbolize LGBT liberty, even if what’s inside them isn’t all that impressive.
posted by Richard on
(1) The USSC overturned a lower court ruling, without comment.
(2) The following argument is simply not true; “Alas, hard-won freedoms are not always wisely used, as such is the nature of freedom.”
How can you say this? Their are many LGBT-themed publications in the United States and around the globe. People are certainly using this freedom.
You said: today’s mostly slick and vapid national lesbigay publications…
This does not mean that they are not using the 1st Amendment, only that you disagree with how they may use it. Also, much of the media has become slick and vapid ‘info-tainment’ its called.
(3) I am not sure that global warming is simply ‘trendy’. It is a serious problem that people are finally begining to pay some attention to.
posted by Avee on
Richard seems to have misread Miller’s remark; Miller says the freedom of the gay press is not being wisely used (in his opinion). That has nothing to do with the number of lesbigay publications.
As for global warming, an issue about which people do disagree (although you have to read beyond the mainstream liberal media to discover this), the point is whether the largest lesbigay publication should be presenting it as a lesbigay issue. Is the Advocate (or should it be) just a liberal magazine selling to lesbigays?
posted by Richard on
Mr. Avee;
I certainly did not fail to understand his comments.
To honestly argue that the LGBT press does not use its 1st Amendment ‘well’, takes more then simply saying, “Oh I disagree with their politics, but dont want to come out and say it.”
True, much of the press (gay or straight) can be called vapid, shallow and obessed with infotainment.
Global warming is a scientific fact, that certain people wish to ignore or downplay with the same level of crediblity as a Holocaust denier.
Is global warming a ‘gay issue’? Is it a ‘straight issue’? A similar question could be put to gay conservatives about guns, or privitization of SS or the Iraq War.
posted by Avee on
Sorry, but many highly credentialed scientists dispute that human activity is relevant to the current warming cycle. I understand how anyone who reads only the mainstream and liberal media might not know this. The liberal-left has hitched on to global warming hysteria as its latest path to expanding the size and power of the state.
posted by PJ on
I agree with Stephen. What he is saying is that GLBT publications should focus on GLBT issues. There are other publications that deal with the other issues and those issues should remain in their own formats. There is little reason for us to wonder what Brittany Spears is doing when we are concerned about our own liberal rights.
Avee, I would like to remind you that this country was started because of liberals. Being a liberal is not necessarily a bad thing. Nor is being a conservative a bad thing. Telling people that they are anti-patriotic because they have different beliefs from is a bad thing.
I would also like to remind you that the “liberal media” is as liberal as the conservative businesses that own them. Considering their politics, I would not consider Time/Warner or Turner Broadcasting to be liberal. They are out to make money and if it means changing the world to line their pockets, it is not a liberal ideal. Liberal ideals are concerned with the human condition. Social Security so that you can retire at 65 is a liberal ideal. A decent education for everyone regardless of income is a liberal ideal.
At the same time, and in defense of the conservatives, conservative ideals help keep a balance. Conservatives make sure that social change does not happen too quickly.
The point that I agree with the conservatives can be found in the Second Ammendment. Whereas, I do not like firearms and consider them dangerous, I consider changing any part of the Bill of Rights dangerous. The minute we decide to change one of the Bill of Rights, we are given the opportunity to change them all. I am glad that I have the right to not have to testify against myself. I am glad that I have the right to say and write whatever and not be arrested. I am glad I have the right to not be invaded in my home or be forced to shelter soldiers in my home without my permission. For those rights, I will accept the right to keep guns in my house if I so choose.
Incidentally, this article is about the First Ammendment, Gentlemen. It is not about Global Warming.
posted by Richard on
Mr. Avee;
Few, if any, credible scientest dispute the existence of global warming.
People who do otherwise are often about as credible as Holocaust deniers or people who argue that the federal income tax is unconstitutional.
posted by Richard on
PJ;
Who decides what are ‘LGBT issues?’. I know many gay conservatives who feel that their views on guns, taxes, ss, etc. are ‘gay issues’.
I would agree that much of the media has become too focused on ‘info-tainment’, but that is hardly a problem unique to the gay press.