Thin-Skinned, Aren’t They

by on

IGF CultureWatch contributor Dale Carpenter, blogging over at The Volokh Conspiracy site, takes note of a federal district court ruling that rejected a bid by supporters of an anti-gay marriage ballot initiative in Washington state to keep secret the names of those who signed the petition to get the anti-gay initiative on the ballot. As Dale recounts, the evidence in Washington state was comprised of allegations by initiative supporters that

involved “bothersome” phone calls, and name-calling using words like “homophobe” and “fascist.” A couple of claims involved alleged physical threats, which were reported to police. There were, however, apparently no prosecutions, much less convictions, for actual threats.

As Dales surmises:

The law protects us from violence and threats of violence. But it does not protect us from criticism, even harsh criticism, when we take public positions on public matters. It does not protect us from having our feelings hurt or from having others think poorly of us.

That’s a point that gay-baiting GOP presidential contender Rick Santorum should bear in mind. As The Hill reports:

Rick Santorum criticized a Saturday Night Live skit that poked fun at his anti-gay marriage views and trailing poll numbers as “bullying” in an interview this weekend.

Santorum also said that the gay community had “gone out on a jihad” against him. His comments are not only insulting to those who have actually suffered physical threats and bullying (e.g., gay students), but to victims of actual murderous jihad. What a loser. (And it’s our right to call him one, and his right to take offense—as lame as his offense-taking is.)

8 Comments for “Thin-Skinned, Aren’t They”

  1. posted by Tom Scharbach on

    Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion got it right:

    “And it may even be a bad idea to keep petition signatures secret. There are laws against threats and intimidation; and harsh criticism, short of unlawful action, is a price our people have traditionally been willing to pay for self-governance. Requiring people to stand up in public for their political acts fosters civic courage, without which democracy is doomed. For my part, I do not look forward to a society which, thanks to the Supreme Court, campaigns anonymously (McIntyre) and even exercises the direct democracy of initiative and referendum hidden from public scrutiny and protected from the accountability of criticism. This does not resemble the Home of the Brave.

    When I compare the current crop of wimps in the anti-gay movement to the men and women who fought toward “equal means equal” in the early days of the movement, the former come up lacking. Big time.

    “Losers” isn’t a bad word for them, Stephen.

    • posted by Tom Scharbach on

      The concurring opinion I am referring to is Doe v. Reed, 561 U. S. ___, 130 S Ct 2811 (2010). The opinion is on issue.

      • posted by Jorge on

        Oh.

        I think I read that one. He makes an intriguing argument.

  2. posted by Houndentenor on

    Freedom of speech does not include freedom from criticism or even mockery. Look at the things written about public figures from 200 years ago. We live in tame times compared to the kinds of things hurled at Adams, Jefferson and company. We’re just bigger crybabies. To compare an SNL sketch to children being bullied until suicide seems preferable to going to school another day is pathetic.

  3. posted by Lori Heine on

    Santorum is what he always has been — a candy-assed little piece of crap. What might the millions used to fund his empty ego-trip of a presidential campaign have done for the poor and homeless?

    He, of course, insists he is a “Christian.” Which — not surprisingly for the crowd he wishes to lead — means absolutely nothing.

  4. posted by Jorge on

    “A couple of claims involved alleged physical threats, which were reported to police. There were, however, apparently no prosecutions, much less convictions, for actual threats.”

    Oops! Being wrong has consequences!

    Santorum also said that the gay community had “gone out on a jihad” against him.

    Even I think that is such extremely old news as to be irrelevant. As I recall, that jihad (and I agree with him) was responsible for kicking him out of the Senate. That and his support for the Iraq War. If that jihad still exists in any meaningful way, it says more about him as a candidate and a leader than about the gay community as a group that holds a grudge.

    • posted by Houndentenor on

      Santorum used anti-gay politics to get elected and now wants to cry foul when the tide has turned and those views are unpopular. Boo effing hoo. He thought gays were too weak and powerless to fight back. Think again, FrothyMix. This isn’t holding a grudge. He’s still up to his old bs. Nothing has changed. Holding a grudge would be stalking Anita Bryant in 2011. (Is she even still alive?)

Comments are closed.