Skip to main content

Ayaan Hirsi Ali
Ayaan Hirsi Ali

With the resignation of Brendan Eich as CEO of Mozilla after protests, both within and without the Mozilla organization, led, yet again, to mass confusion about the most basic principles of free speech rights. Today, a new shunning, this time of anti-Islam activist Ayaan Hirsi Ali, who was to receive an honorary degree from Brandeis University, will no doubt add to the confusion.

It so happens I agree with the "shunning" of Eich but disagree with the shunning of Hirsi Ali (I am pretty strongly anti-organized religion). But my personal views on the relative merits of these actions is really not to the point—free speech rights include the right to criticize and yes, shun.

Let me give the most obvious example that in fact everyone agrees with this conception (that non-state actors can shun, boycott, protest, etc. anyone for their speech)—imagine an accomplished person in any field espousing the view that interracial marriage should be outlawed. Who do you suppose would protest in defense against calls for removal of such a person from a position of public leadership? No one, that's who. And therein lies the point—we all agree that lines can be drawn. We often disagree with where the lines are drawn.

Let's discuss the line drawing on the flip.

When it comes to non-state actors, I think it is clear that everyone would draw their lines differently. The trick to getting folks to agree with your line drawing is to have a sufficient group of people to agree with your line and to have them act in a way that establishes your line. It really is as simple as that.

I can accept that folks disagree with where a line is drawn, indeed we engage in disagreement in all aspects of line drawing in any manner and number of things. Why is this treated differently?

Let's go to our resident Slate contrarian who predictably disagrees with the idea of line drawing (except when he doesn't), Will Saletan (I choose not to pull up Andrew Sullivan for the simple reason his arguments are consistently too dumb to address):

That’s the argument: Each company has a right—indeed, it has a market-driven obligation—to make hiring and firing decisions based on “values” and “community standards.” It’s entitled to oust anyone whose conduct, with regard to sexual orientation, is “bad for business” or for employee morale. The argument should sound familiar. It has been used for decades to justify anti-gay workplace discrimination. [Emphasis supplied.]
I hope we can all recognize how supremely stupid this argument is. Indeed, Saletan does not realize that this argument completely contradicts his point. Setting aside the fact that gay rights activists fought for legal protections against workplace discrimination based on sexual orientation, the fight against Eich was precisely an attempt to set new norms and "community values." That is its precise purpose. It is part of the battle to win hearts and minds.

Here is a simple test for a Saletanista—was the 1955 Montgomery bus boycott something you would support? After all, it was a private enterprise that was shunned for its views on segregation. Or how about the shunning of South Africa during the apartheid era?

Saletan wrote:

It used to be social conservatives who stood for the idea that companies could and should fire employees based on the “values” and “community standards” of their “employees, business partners and customers.” Now it’s liberals. Or, rather, it’s people on the left who, in their exhilaration at finally wielding corporate power, have forgotten what liberalism is.

Someone has forgotten something here without question. I submit it is Will Saletan.

Predictably, with the help of Ross Douthat, Saletan goes even further down his rabbit hole:

Douthat offers this political deal:
In the name of pluralism, and the liberty of groups as well as individuals, I would gladly trade the career prospects of some religious conservatives in some situations—not exempting myself from that list—if doing so would protect my own church’s liberty (and the liberties of other, similarly-situated groups) to run its schools and hospitals and charities as it sees fit.

Would you, Dear Liberal Reader, accept Douthat’s deal? Would you let conservatives run their own companies and organizations by their own rules, even if it means removing a gay CEO?
I hate to break it to Saletan, but that's not a deal Douthat gets to offer. You see we have these pesky things called laws (I'm think of two in particular, the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment and the Civil Rights Acts) that limit the ability of employers to discriminate n the basis of race, sex, origin, etc. There has been (and continues to be) a great fight about whether those protections should extend to sexual orientation.

Now if Saletan wants to stand against gay rights, then let him say so clearly. He claims to be a supporter of gay rights. (his continued diatribes against women's privacy rights make his claims of "support" for women's privacy rights humorous at best). Does he want to stop pretending? Because the way to protect gay rights is by enacting laws that do that. Not demanding "free speech rights" for bigots that include being safe from criticism, protest and shunning.

Here's how we know Saletan is full of it:

Maybe someone will come forward to testify that Eich treated gay and straight couples differently outside the context of defining marriage. But it’s striking that so far, despite all the uproar, nobody has. [Emphasis supplied.]
As I suspected, this is a dispute about line drawing, not "free speech rights." To Saletan, opposing gay marriage is no big whoop. Just as opposing women's right to choose is not a big whoop to him. But imagine for a moment this:
Maybe someone will come forward to testify that Eich treated [interracial] couples differently outside the context of defining marriage.  But it’s striking that so far, despite all the uproar, nobody has.
Would Saletan write those words? I submit he would not. Why? Because opposition to interracial marriage is now beyond the pale of community norms. The hope of gay activists is that opposing  gay marriage will be viewed in the same way opposing interracial marriage is now. It's that simple.

Post Script: Regarding the Hirsi Ali shunning, I recognize that community norms do not agree with my anti-organized religious views, but the reality is the support Hirsi Ali will receive will come largely from anti-Islamists, not anti-organized religion people like me. If her statements were anti-organized Christianity, I'm pretty sure Ali Hirsi would not be receiving the Fox News martyr treatment.


Originally posted to Armando on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 09:48 AM PDT.

Also republished by Daily Kos.

Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags


More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  but it isn't yet (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    The hope of gay activists is that opposing  gay marriage will be viewed in the same way opposing interracial marriage is now. It's that simple.
    And i don't know if it ever will.

    Historically speaking, it was the banning of inter-racial marriage that was the aberration rather than the norm. Not that there was a lot of it in the world before long range travel.

    Similarly same-sex marriage is an innovation to the historical practice.

    And going forward, the Catholic Church (among others i expect) will continue with opposite sex marriage only.

    Will there come a day when devout Catholics are shunned from positions of public leadership?

    •  You must have different history books than me (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder, just another vet

      "Historically speaking, it was the banning of inter-racial marriage that was the aberration rather than the norm."

      You must be joking.

      •  i could be quite ignorant here (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        do you have some examples?

        •  Um (0+ / 0-)

          the Virginia law that was struck down in Loving?

            •  Yes (0+ / 0-)

              America had laws against it before Loving (good thing its gone too, as i have an Asian wife). But i'm talking across the globe through the course of history.

              How many countries had those sort of laws? How far back in time do they go. That i can only think of a few examples of those sorts of laws is why i say that they are the aberation.

              Most people in history have not lived under a system that prohibited them from marrying outside their race.

              Most people in history have lived under a system that they could only marry outside their gender.

              Thus the former, from a historical perspective is easier to see as beyond the pale than the latter.

              •  I have to say (0+ / 0-)

                this is quite the silly construct.

                DOMA was not enacted until 1996.

                By your reasoning anti federal laws against gay marriage are fairly recent.

                •  no (0+ / 0-)

                  before the last few years, no state permitted gay marriage.  And the religious prohibitions are quite ancient and widespread.

                  I can think of no major religion that had a prohibition against marrying a different race. Though i'm sure some local ones existed in the U.S.

                  looking across countries, religions and history

                  Allowing gay marriage is a new thing
                  Allowing interracial marriage is not a new thing

                  •  You'll have to show me the (0+ / 0-)

                    express prohibitions on gay marriage that existed "historically."

                    As for religions, there were and are express prohibitions on homosexuality period. Marriage was never a question.

                    Why you choose to concentrate on marriage discrimination as opposed to the entire prohibition on homosexuality is not clear to me.

                    You seem to think the recent vintage of gay marriage prohibition arose independent of the rise of gay rights.

                    Your exercise is quite silly.

                    •  Isn't the absense (0+ / 0-)

                      of gay married couples in history proof that it was prohibited? You aren't suggesting that it has long been permitted, but that no one bothered to do it are you?

                      Marriage historically was a religious institution and i can't think of any significant religion that allowed it historically. But i can only speak with certitude about the Catholic Church since that's what i grew up with.

                      I wonder when the first  church decided to allow it as a matter of doctrine.

                      The context of the diary was marriage discrimination. So that's just staying on topic.

                      I don't think that the gay marriage prohibition is recent. The cracks in the old prohibtion lead to patches like DOMA. The cracks certainly came from the rise of gay rights movement.

                      •  Homosexuality was prohibited (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:

                        I donl;t get what your point is.

                        •  His point is straightforward (0+ / 0-)

                          and was stated fairly clearly in his first comment. He’s saying that objecting to gay marriage is not really analogous to objecting to interracial marriage, because if you look at the entire span of human history, permitting gay marriage is the exception, but in the case of interracial marriage it’s the prohibitions against it that are the exception.

                          It’s a broad generalization, but it’s basically correct, not least because the whole notion of race is a fairly modern construct.  Whether it actually affects the argument in your diary is another question; I don’t think that it does.

                          •  Yeah no (0+ / 0-)

                            The notion the interracial marriage was just accepted in history is well, ridiculous.

                            But you go with that if you want.

                          •  I repeat: the whole notion of race (0+ / 0-)

                            is a fairly modern construct.  For most of the historical period people simply weren’t classified by race as we use the term; they were classified by religion, language, wealth/status, and other cultural markers.  The very term race only appeared in the 16th century, and then only in the sense ‘tribe, nation, people of a common stock’; the common only modern sense appears in the second half of the 18th century.

                            By the way, you could stand to read a little more carefully: I did not say that the notion of interracial marriage was ‘just accepted in history’.  I said that the prohibitions against it are relatively modern, which is true.  I also explained why it’s true: the notion itself makes sense only in relatively modern terms. Obviously, then, the notion can’t have been ‘just accepted in history’.

                          •  Race is a modern concept, but 'foreigner' isn't (2+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            happymisanthropy, BMScott

                            The hatred of Samaritans in the New Testament (and in the post-Exile parts of the Hebrew bible) is about they rejection of people they perceived to be half-bloods. The story of Ruth, on the other hand, pushes back against the idea that you can't marry foreigners. (Despite the setting, Ruth is written post-Exile).

                            Many societies have been open to mixed marriages. Many societies have banned them (although accepting non-marital sexual relations). Endogamy, of one form or another, is commonplace.

                            And no, same-sex marriage is not merely a modern phenomenon. Wikipedia may not be the best place to get your history, but it's a heck of a lot better than the 'common wisdom' of contemporary America.

                          •  Really? What about all the noble savages, and all (0+ / 0-)

                            the slaves around the world? Historically, slaves were of another race, tribe or town.

                            I don't think you nor Sam know much about interracial marriage bans. They were everywhere until the late 20th Century. All over the world.

                            Where did both of you get your education? I got mine from decent public schools and universities.

                          •  Define "modern" (0+ / 0-)

                            Yes, we are at that point in this debate.

                            No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

                            by koNko on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 03:03:55 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                    •  It didn't occur to anyone that same sex marriage (0+ / 0-)

                      would be a thing, so nobody ever undertook to ban it until approximately the 1990s when some people began to take it seriously.

                         The laws against racial intermarriage derived from the institution of slavery and started out as bans on marriage between free people and slaves or free people and indentured servants. Apparently it had to do with status at first, with the concept of "race mixing" coming along later.
                        The term "miscegenation" wasn't invented until 1863.
                        In 1870, a (white) Mississippi state senator married an African American woman with no adverse effects on his political career.

                  •  The early Christian Church performed (3+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    koNko, happymisanthropy, Tonedevil

                    gay marriages.

                    This is an interesting article worth reading in its entirety:

                    Were these same-sex unions in the middle ages the same thing as today's gay marriages? Probably not. People at the time may not have viewed two men forming a union as anything out of the ordinary. Marriage itself meant something different thousands of years ago, and social taboos against homosexuality had not yet solidified. Still, in Boswell's work, we find records of institutions where same-sex couples were honored with the same ceremonies that opposite-sex couples enjoyed. Two men could live as "brothers," sharing wealth, home, and family. And yes, they could love each other, too.

                    It always seems impossible until its done. -Nelson Mandela

                    by chuckvw on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:18:05 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

          •  Depends on your snapshot in time (0+ / 0-)

            When Loving came down in 1967, only 15 states had a ban on inter-racial marriage to include Virginia.


            KOS: "Mocking partisans focusing on elections? Even less reason to be on Daily Kos."

            by fcvaguy on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 02:26:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Only? (0+ / 0-)

              That's a key word. In 1967, when I was a kid but politically aware, and especially interested in racial justice, it was very clear that inter racial marriage bans were on the way out. Only the RW and conservatives wanted them. However, everything I'd read and heard about it in the 1950's was that society opposed interracial marriage, whether by law or social pressure.

    •  With regard to devout Catholics (4+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Richard Lyon, a2nite, oculus, BMScott

      being shunned, it depends imo.

      Will they insist on imposing their views on others?

      In which case, I say I hope so.

    •  this is remarkable (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, Richard Lyon
      Historically speaking, it was the banning of inter-racial marriage that was the aberration rather than the norm. Not that there was a lot of it in the world before long range travel.
      because no.

      it WAS the norm.

      my goodness.

      Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

      by terrypinder on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:19:09 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  looking at this article (0+ / 0-)

        it does not seem that it was the norm. It only includes a few countries, and mostly recent times.

        Perfectly willing to be corrected here if i'm being a moron. But i would like to have the examples that this was common across the world through history.

        •  you seem to be pushing back the goal (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          posts with "recent"

          when is recent?

          your link incidentially points that such laws have been used off and on for over a millenia in parts of the world.

          democracy and democratic processes that include everyone is "recent", i mean, if we're going to play the "historical aberration" game.

          as for same-sex marriage and relationships, it's also really not that new. at least one roman emperor (sadly, he didn't last long) had a husband, that i know of.

          Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

          by terrypinder on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:47:54 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  most of the examples given (0+ / 0-)

            S. Africa, Germany Egypt and Saudi Arabia sound like they've happened in the last 100 years.

            France had laws against it for about a generation

            China for about a century

            Other than America, and South Africa i don't think any country had banned inter-racial marriage for a majority of it's history.

            It appears to me that the vast majority of people who have ever lived have not been banned from marrying outside their race.

            They probably could not from a practical perspective as most people in history probably never met a person of another race.

            •  i read that link again (0+ / 0-)

              wikipedia (sure, hardly a good source) says CHINA had laws banning interracial marriage in 836CE--that's well over 1,000 years ago, and has had them off and on ever since.

              So yes, it's safe to say the concept of making the cultural practice of "sticking to ones own kind" legal is not "recent".

              Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

              by terrypinder on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:03:27 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  mostly off it sounds like (0+ / 0-)

                the 836 one ended in the Song Dynasty (960-1279). The article doesn't mention any on-off after that. Though the Ming dynasty  "instituted a pro-miscegenation policy where all West and Central Asian males were required to intermarry with native Chinese females, hence assimilating them into the local population."

                I think it is fair to say that China for most of its history did not have laws against it.

                Banning inter-racial marriage is a rare thing in human history. This still seems correct...

                It appears to me that the vast majority of people who have ever lived have not been banned from marrying outside their race.

            •  You mean where countries (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:

              had institutional racial discrimination, after those barriers started to come down, there was a rise in racial marraige discrimination.

              Gee, how can we explain that?

              Your construct is silly.

              •  in a nutshell (0+ / 0-)

                how beyond the pale a postion is can be judged in part by the company it keeps.

                A person who opposes inter-racial marriage has few fellow travellers. And he gets racist America and Nazis as major members of his coalition.

                A person who opposes same sex marriage also gets the Nazis and racist America, but he also gets the Catholic Church, Islam, Judaism, China, the Roman Empire...

                To say that his position is beyond the pale is to say that every nation in history, every religion and every important religious leader is also beyond that pale. That seems to me to be a tougher road to hoe.

    •  That all depends. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Armando, terrypinder, Noisy Democrat
      And going forward, the Catholic Church (among others i expect) will continue with opposite sex marriage only.

      Will there come a day when devout Catholics are shunned from positions of public leadership?

      Most if not all Roman Catholics in the US have accepted that their church's decision not to acknowledge or bless the marriages of divorcées isn't going to be enshrined into American law.

      Their church continues to hold to their own norms of marriage in that regard, but doesn't expect US law to conform to their church's norms, and doesn't hold to those norms where they provide public services.

      For example, Catholic hospitals don't claim that they should be exempt from laws dictating spouses' legal rights in the medical sphere if one or both of the spouses in question are divorced; while the Church doesn't believe such marriages are valid in God's eyes, they have no trouble going along with the state's view outside the Church's doors.

      Those Roman Catholics who believe that same-sex marriages should occupy a similar position—legal and acknowledged in public services, but with the Church retaining its right within its own walls to bless or not bless any marriage it chooses for its own religious purposes—will have no trouble at all.

      It's only those Roman Catholics who believe that their church's position on same-sex relationships should be the legal norm for society who will have trouble.

      "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

      by JamesGG on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:40:16 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Catholic hospitals (3+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Armando, terrypinder, JamesGG

        do run into issues with the legally assured right to abortion.

        •  That's on a different level, though. (0+ / 0-)

          A woman's legally-assured right to have an abortion does not mean that she has the legal right to demand of any medical professional that he or she perform that abortion.

          I don't have a problem holding both the belief that a woman has a right to get an abortion from a doctor or hospital that is willing to provide her with one, and that doctors or hospitals for which abortion violates their conscience should have the right not to perform abortions.

          There's already a precedent set here, though, in that Roman Catholic hospitals deem any legal marriage valid for purposes of spouses' medical rights, rather than insisting that their church's rejection of certain marriages entitles them to deny those spouses their medical rights. They would do well, I think, to take a similar position on same-sex marriages as they do on marriages between divorcées.

          "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

          by JamesGG on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:01:13 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  The mere fact that Catholics (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            pick and choose what religious issues they want to dig in their heels over leaves open the possibility that they could apply their religious beliefs to areas that they had let slide. The point that you are making about divorces, does not establish any clear principle.

            •  It's not just "picking and choosing," though. (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              SamBRoberts, nextstep
              The mere fact that Catholics pick and choose what religious issues they want to dig in their heels over leaves open the possibility that they could apply their religious beliefs to areas that they had let slide.
              This is more than simply "picking and choosing," I think; for Roman Catholics, there's a big difference between acknowledging a legal marriage for purposes of a spouse's medical rights, and performing an abortion.

              The former is acknowledging an existing legal structure that differs from their church's framework, but in the end doesn't force the Roman Catholic doctor or institution themselves to violate their own conscience; to the extent that they believe that remarriage after divorce is a sin, the guilt for that sin is entirely on those who choose to remarry after divorcing. I don't see why they couldn't take the same view toward same-sex marriage—that to the extent that they view same-sex romantic or sexual expression as a sin, the responsibility would be on the heads of those who do it, not on those who acknowledge the relationship's legal validity.

              In the case of abortion, however, they believe that it is the murder of another human being—and that if they are expected to perform abortions, then they are complicit in the sin and guilty of it. I disagree strongly with their belief that abortion is murder and believe it should be legal, but I also can respect a Roman Catholic doctor or institution's conscience on that issue in not wanting to be directly complicit in what they believe to be a grave sin. I don't think the law should force them to do what they believe to be committing murder.

              "When I give food to the poor, they call me a saint. When I ask why the poor have no food, they call me a communist." --Dom Helder Camara, archbishop of Recife

              by JamesGG on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 11:24:41 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I suspect that any Catholic (0+ / 0-)

                who really has an issue about divorced people getting married in the Church would nevertheless have no trouble recognizing legal marriages outside the Church because they're thinking of it as a slightly different thing. That is, "married in the eyes of the law" and "married within the Church" are just two different categories. I've never heard of any Catholic hospital requiring any married couple to prove that they were married within the Catholic Church before they would be treated as a married couple (otherwise, Jewish, Protestant and atheist couples would be considered to be unmarried), so one can hope that the distinction will continue to carry over into equal treatment of same-sex couples that are also married in the eyes of the law.

      •  Thanks for explaining that so clearly (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        I'm  Catholic and that's exactly how I look at it -- same-sex marriage should be the legal norm, and the Church should be able to follow its own traditional standards regarding which marriages are recognized inside the Church. I think that's a fairly widespread view among Catholics.

    •  Genetic evidence suggests (0+ / 0-)

      More historical diversity than you allow.

      No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

      by koNko on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 03:02:07 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  not even conservatives would accept (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Armando, angry marmot, basquebob, a2nite

    Douthat's deal when they realize that'd mean Muslims would get to use sharia (which they don't understand anyway, and neither do liberals for that matter) if they so chose to. they hate muslims and barely tolerate Jewish people, although next week they'll hold a bunch of fake seders and whatnot.

    americans are such idiots about this "religious liberty" thing because in the United States, "religious" is synonomous with christian, and increasingly (since at least the early 1980s) "christian" is synonomous with "clobber-text calvinist evangelicalism" or to put it another way "jesus says i'm allowed to hate you and i'm going to make sure the law reflects that and oh i'm better than you because i have jesus".

    FWIW no LGBT groups actually called for a boycott of Mozilla at least i don't think. I might have snarked that I quit using it ages ago because it's a damn CPU hog, but that hardly counts as a boycott.

    Dawkins is to atheism as Rand is to personal responsibility. uid 52583 lol

    by terrypinder on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:13:14 AM PDT

    •  Oh sure (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      terrypinder, basquebob, a2nite

      The absurd idea that this was because of professional gay  whiners is worth shooting down.

      But I sort of went at it in a high concept way.

    •  no one should be judged (0+ / 0-)

      solely on affiliations or inferred beliefs or how they look.  I would go as far as to say a member of the KKK or the DAR should be judged on how they act or what they say, not on an inferred philosophy.  However, if a person is defending pedophiles or promoting pedophiles, for instance, that is a stated belief and something that is valid to pass judgement.

      That said, companies are not persons.  However, the right is promoting the idea that beliefs of the leadership of a company is the beliefs of that company.  Look at ChickfilA and Hobby Lobby.  Like these two Mozilla is a private firm, with a tax paying subsidiary.  The right has gone to court to support the idea that the ideas of the leaders are the same as the ideas of the company, therefore no one who supports the right of these corporations to limit rights of workers should say that the leader of Mozilla and Mozilla are not the same.

      As far as Mozilla goes, there are a few theories, none of which has to do with a "gay mafia".  One is that Google, which basically bankrolls the whole operation, did not want the negative publicity.  Another is that Mozilla did not want to lose market share which is what gives it the power to set open standards on the web.  Firefox has been losing users for the past couple years.

      I think it mostly has to do with open source software.  Firefox and the Gecko engine still nominally depend on developers around the world to help with the software.  These are volunteers.  Unless on is going to depend on ambivalence, it is not good practice to arbitrarily piss them off.

  •  The NYT article on Brandeis' decision (5+ / 0-)

    is a useful summary.

    To my mind, Khalidi is on-target here:

    “You would think that someone at Brandeis would have learned to use Google,” said Rashid Khalidi, a professor of Arab studies at Columbia University, who said he thought Brandeis had arrived at the right position: not awarding a degree, but welcoming Ms. Hirsi Ali to speak.
    Btw, Armando, I'm not sure that "anti-Islamists" here...
    but the reality is the support Hirsi Ali will receive will come largely from anti-Islamists quite correct. Much of her support comes from diehard Islamophobes who either don't grasp or won't recognize a distinction between Islamists and Muslims. Pamela Geller's post this morning is a representative example.

    Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

    by angry marmot on Wed Apr 09, 2014 at 10:18:28 AM PDT

    •  I'm not sure on the nomenclature (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Noisy Democrat

      But my reading of her statements is she is understandably against the religion.

      So am I.

      I also oppose organized Christianity FWIW.

    •  Would anyone insist on such a distinction -- (0+ / 0-)

      between being anti-extremist vs. being against the religion in general -- if Ms Ali were an outspoken critic of the Catholic Church? It seems to me that I've seen plenty of posts on DailyKos calling on all Catholics to leave the Church, calling the entire Church corrupt and evil, etc., and I don't remember people insisting that we draw a distinction between types of Catholics or types of Catholicism.

      So why can't someone, especially someone who was raised Muslim in a Muslim-majority country, be critical of Islam in general? Why the insistence that this religion get respect?

      •  Heh... (0+ / 0-)

        A cursory review of your diary and comment history (including at least one previous tête-à-tête) indicates to me that you're spoiling for a fight on issues more expansive than my gentle nudge to Armando regarding his inaccurate use of "anti-Islamists" in this context.

        Wrong place, wrong time.

        Real stupidity beats artificial intelligence every time. (Terry Pratchett)

        by angry marmot on Thu Apr 10, 2014 at 05:58:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Sullivan is very proud of the fact that... (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    terrypinder, a2nite, StevenWells

    his Eich posts have gone viral.

    He doesn't seem to give a shit that the people sharing them are the ones who think he needs gay conversion therapy.

    •  it should have gone viral (0+ / 0-)

      what happened to Eich was way overboard and disproportionate the crime. The fact is.. no one should have have even known who Eich was let alone known about his puny donation to a struck down law. Who companies hire should have no bearing on whether the product is worth while.

      We all need to back off and stop listening to the concern troll, always offended, radical, social justice warriors on tumblr.

      These tumblr assholes are so bad that Bill Oreilly is picking up on it and painting the entire democratic party as the same as these hyper-sensitive assholes.

      •  What I enjoy is (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Glenn45, joshd

        the people who are trying to shame people for trying to shame anti-equal-rights activism, because trying to shame someone is wrong.

        "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

        by GussieFN on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 09:38:42 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  shaming someone for bigotry (0+ / 0-)

          is fine. running them out of a job is wrong.

          and this is quickly rising to the level of a witch hunt.

          First Eich, then yesterday I hear about the same thing going on to Condoleezza Rice and now I'm hearing about this person... whom I've never heard of before. This is bigoted revenge movement. They hurt you and now you're going to hurt them back..

          •  So all the shaming is fine, (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:

            as long as it doesn't have any consequences?

            If the CEO of Greenpeace donated $50 to the American Nazi Party, you think they should be shamed, but not asked to resign?

            You think I'm wrong to not buy Koch Industry products? You think the anti-Colbert-doing-Late Night people are wrong to raise a fuss bout Colbert doing Late Night? That is free speech. You can't only be for free speech for CEO. That's not how it works.

            We all need to back off and stop listening to the concern troll, always offended, reactionary, CEO-sycophant warriors on tumblr.

            "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

            by GussieFN on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:44:43 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

      •  What happened to Eich was his decision (0+ / 0-)

        In every respect.

        No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

        by koNko on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 03:13:21 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Eich got screwed (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anime1973, dallasdunlap

    It has already been established that the Mozilla people chased Eich out of his job, for exercising his right of free speech. The people who cheered his defenestration are the same people who were outraged that the Dixie Chicks got the same treatment. Any liberal who celebrates Eich's demise is a hypocrite: every liberal cause in human history began with unpopular speech, and if we stop defending unpopular speech, liberalism dies.

    •  So are the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      counter-protesters at Westboro Church 'God Hates Gays' rallies wrong?

      They're not defending unpopular speech. They're killing liberalism?

      "Gussie, a glutton for punishment, stared at himself in the mirror."

      by GussieFN on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 09:54:37 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Why? (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Two things. Society is changing. Free Speech doesn't mean what you think it means.

      Sinead O'Connor went after Pope and the establishment behind the Catholic church as it killed her career. Twenty years later, we have a new Pope that is addressing many of the problems people have known about the Catholic church.

      Hillary will meet with Pussy Riot. Hillary will not meet with Sinead O'Connor. Hillary kicked the anti-Iraq war organizations out of her office in a most demeaning manner. Yet people will pretend meeting with Pussy Riot means Hillary is hip to anti-establishment rebel rousers. Hillary would be the first to kick an American Pussy Riot out of her office if they said something about the Iraq war.

      I only point to this as an example of our entire political class. And here I will bring up the Dixie Chicks. What support did they get from the Left? Hillary sure as shit wasn't going to bat for them.

      I have no problem with free speech. But to pretend it has no political impact is stupid. I will never be candidate for any office because the views I have are so against the power structure that no one would support me. Just as they are against the majority of Americans.

      I wish just about every CEO and congressman/woman was chased from their job. They don't represent our society. They aren't working to benefit our society.

      I am glad people are starting to be held accountable for their backwards beliefs. I think it is nothing but a good start. It needs to be expanded to those accountable for war. Those accountable to sweat shops. Those accountable to screwing the working class over.

      This is not about politics. This is about elevating society.

    •  The controversy over Eich's contribution is two (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      rduran, Tonedevil, Glenn45

      years old.

      From the LA Times

      The record of the donation has been available since at least 2008, but it was rediscovered by the Twittersphere last month and the information -- and outrage -- has continued to spread, with more than 5,000 people tweeting about Eich's contribution Tuesday.

      Here's the link to the article which includes more links to coverage of the story at the time.

      The company knew about this two years and it didn't chase him out. It decided to promote him to CEO and then chase him out. Is that what you think has already been established?

      The only way it would ever be established is if Eich files suit and he's awarded a judgment or settlement for damages.  The company says he left on his own. He gave an interview to Venturebeat and said he didn't want the job but they twisted his arm because they couldn't fill the position after processing 100 candidates and putting 25 through the mill.

      The company has problems with the IRS for one thing because of the Foundation's tax-exempt 501c3 status.
      The browser is bleeding market share. He took his marbles and went home. The Prop 8 donation controversy v.2.0 was picked up by the rightwing because it's a perfect match for their new ideology:

      Gays are the most intolerant bigots in the universe.

      It was just another financed media stunt to smear the left and it homofascist agenda. On our side, it's important to recognize this rightwing sewage for what it is.

      The free exchange of ideas means that all voices get heard. It can get a little rough sometimes. A thick skin and level head helps.

      Eich could have been a game-changer and a gentleman if he had done certain things differently when he had the chance. He could have made an authoritative statement after he left to quiet down the howling at the moon that was coming from the rightwing. It was socially divisive but he let it ride and that may be a clue to the 501c3 issue. The company claimed for years that it was operating for the public good. His actions aren't consistent with that.

      •  The overreaction to Eich's departure serves (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        an obvious objective, to blunt coalition effectiveness in combating with anti-gay corporate behavior in the future.  We've seen this playbook before; it was deployed against the Reverends Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson and numerous leaders of other Black organizations twenty years ago.

        No need to even cultivate a friendly gay "middle" to act as confessor-redeemer for companies that stumble into the briar patch.  All the next Mozilla need do is plug into the diversity counseling industry, make a few public appointments, and move on.

  •  Douthat... (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    happymisanthropy, Glenn45

    already has his deal, if we're talking solely about CEOs/leadership, churches, and religious nonprofits. A church can make it a requirement that its head be of the same religion, and can even make that position open only to men. Religious nonprofits can fire their CEO based solely on that person's sexual orientation.

  •  There is a truly simple way to protest a specific (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    anime1973, happymisanthropy

    person getting an honorary degree you don't agree with:

    Don't show up.

    "Nothing in all the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." --M. L. King "You can't fix stupid" --Ron White -6.00, -5.18

    by zenbassoon on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:26:34 PM PDT

  •  "I wouldn't Douthat if I were you, Pilgrim." (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    You can't make this stuff up.

    by David54 on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:28:32 PM PDT

  •  Lines should never be drawn... (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    poco, Chi, scott5js, Tonedevil

    ...through the human rights of anyone.  It's okay if people feel uncomfortable around transgender people, but that is no reason to deny us our basic rights and freedoms.

  •  Armando - this is dumb. (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    DCPatriot, mickT, ORDem

    Being pro- or anti-organized religion has ZERO to do with Hirsi Ali not getting the honorate.

    Does this really need explaining?

  •  The problem with Ali is her past statements (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    mickT, ratcityreprobate

    She has singled out Islam --and not just radical Islam -- as needing to "be destroyed". Not all religion. Just Islam.

    If she said the same thing about Judaism or Christianity, there would be no question that her statements were over the line. When the Pam Gellars of the world are cheerleading her, it's worth taking a moment of pause.

    No, you can't fix stupid. You OUTNUMBER stupid. -Wildthumb, 1/10/2013

    by newinfluence on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 08:59:11 PM PDT

    •  Ali said "defeat" not "destroy" (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      If you please. But Ali does not distinguish, deliberately, between Islamists and Muslims. She also has the experience that we do not in Somalia, The Netherlands and in the US to be able to say this, IMO.

      If her statements were anti-organized Christianity, I'm pretty sure Ali Hirsi would not be receiving the Fox News martyr treatment.
      Armando nails it. Ali comments on the blindness of liberals in this regard, to avoid saying anything against Islam itself but are perfectly happy to dis Christianity at will.

      I was once threatened with HR'ing for perceived anti-Islamic statements on DKos. There is plenty to admire about Ayaan Hirsi Ali even though I do not agree with her in toto.

      What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

      by TerryDarc on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 09:53:21 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Actually, anti-Christian rhetoric has become (0+ / 0-)

      pretty respectable among a certain set of people. If she had said that Christianity must be defeated, many people would be defending her. There is still a taboo against attacking Islam and Judaism, though.

  •  Shunning Ayaan Hirsi Ali is ridiculous IMO (6+ / 0-)

    In that her criticisms of Islam primarily revolve around the systematic oppression of women in most of the Muslim world.

    She was subject to female circumcision (Female genital mutilation is a better word) and according to her was supposed to be forced into an arranged marriage that she had to desperately escape.

    I think it's a little disturbing that so many progressives are willing to overlook the suffering, disenfranchisement and powerlessness of millions of women because they don't want to appear culturally insensitive.

    Whatever you think of her politics, her co-filmmaker Theo Van Gogh was murdered in the street and a lot of people want to murder her for expressing her opinion.

    When we stop putting leaders from the past up on pedestals and ignoring their flaws, we can start seeing our present leaders for what they really are.

    by PhillyJeff on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:08:04 PM PDT

  •  I suspect I'm in a minority on both cases (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cris0000, sandbox, anime1973

    First, let me say that Mozilla and Brandeis are both private institutions and thus have the right to make whatever decision they want to in these realms.  But...

    1. With regards to Eich, I found the campaign to have him resign misplaced.  The country has changed rapidly on the issue of marriage equality and I'm grateful for that but I don't think someone should be shunned for holding an opinion that was the majority opinion in California just six years ago.  (And is still the law of the land for 2/3 of the country.)  If we want to keep changing the country, then it's better to engage with the people who disagree with us, as long as his opinions don't interfere with his ability to do his job.

    2. As for Ms. Hirsi Ali, I happen to agree with pretty much everything she has to say on these issues. And I think Brandeiss should have known about these comments before picking her for an honorary degree.  But it is just that-an honor. Imagine being a Muslim student who worked so hard for 4 years to graduate.  And then at your graduation, with your parents and siblings and whoever else present, an invited guest of that university stand up and says that your faith is a force for evil.  That's not really the place for it.  I do hope she takes Brandeis up on their offer to appear on campus and speak about these issues.  Whoever wants to attend, can.  But no one will have their graduation marred by such a hostile speaker.  

    "Unrestricted immigration is a dangerous thing -- look at what happened to the Iroquois." Garrison Keillor

    by Spider Stumbled on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:09:55 PM PDT

  •  And here are the abbreviated Ali remarks (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    cris0000, sandbox

    Including this

    I stand before you as someone who is fighting for women's and girls' basic rights globally. And I stand before you as someone who is not afraid to ask difficult questions about the role of religion in that fight.

    The connection between violence, particularly violence against women, and Islam is too clear to be ignored. We do no favors to students, faculty, nonbelievers and people of faith when we shut our eyes to this link, when we excuse rather than reflect

    Regretably, Ali was NOT permitted to stand before the Brandeis students and speak freely.

    What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

    by TerryDarc on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:10:35 PM PDT

    •  Utterly repugnant on many levels (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      Violence against women is not limited to one religion and to claim that all Muslims are in someway condoning this violence is utterly despicable.

      Brandeis did the right thing to rescind the honorary degree though she never should have been offered it in the first place.

      •  Accurate (1+ / 1-)
        Recommended by:
        Hidden by:

        repugnant only if you cling to this concept that Islam is somehow an "honorable" and "tolerant" religion.  

        Its not even a religion in our sense at all. Its foremost a politico-religious system. We need to stop constructing (and judging) Islam as a religion.

        Like actual existing Socialism, actual existing Islam as a political system is neither honorable nor free. Islam as a pure relgion is manageable to some degree as long as its adherents are a minority and don't wield substantial political power.

        Show me ONE Islam-majority state, though, where the majority has NOT enacted unacceptably repressive restrictions. Even islamic states with serious, territorially grounded non-islamc minorities (like Indonesia) constantly suffer from islamist bouts of the majority.

        •  The asylum called (0+ / 0-)

          RedState is looking for you.

        •  This is abuse of Hide Rating (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          and the same sort of nonsensical, pure but misguided opinion that "all religions" are the same, they all do the same stuff.

          Even though I disagree with you, I applaud your openness to say your piece. Keep doing it. We have lost a great deal when we cannot criticize what we wish to criticize, Islam, Christianity, LBJ, BHO, Newt Gingrich...

          What stronger breast-plate than a heart untainted! Thrice is he arm'd, that hath his quarrel just; And he but naked, though lock'd up in steel, Whose conscience with injustice is corrupted. Henry VI Part II Act 3 Scene 2

          by TerryDarc on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 09:52:58 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  Here are some other Ali remarks (3+ / 0-)
      Hirsi Ali: I think that we are at war with Islam. And there’s no middle ground in wars. Islam can be defeated in many ways. For starters, you stop the spread of the ideology itself; at present, there are native Westerners converting to Islam, and they’re the most fanatical sometimes. There is infiltration of Islam in the schools and universities of the West. You stop that. You stop the symbol burning and the effigy burning, and you look them in the eye and flex your muscles and you say, “This is a warning. We won’t accept this anymore.” There comes a moment when you crush your enemy. Reason: Militarily? Hirsi Ali: In all forms, and if you don’t do that, then you have to live with the consequence of being crushed
      This is some really twisted stuff. It advocates taking away all sorts of civil and constitutional rights specifically (and only) from Muslims. The government is supposed to "stop" Westerners from freely choosing their own religion (when that choice is Islam). And the government is supposed to tell Muslims that they - and they alone - are not allowed to "infiltrate schools and universities" (whatever that means) or "burn symbols", despite every other group being allowed to do these things.

      And if Muslims do not willingly relinquish their civil and constitutional rights and accept being designated second class citizens and discriminated against in all these ways, the government should then "crush" them (i.e., kill them all if necessary).

      That is some deranged and dangerous nonsense, particularly offensive and threatening to Muslims, but really it should be seen as such by us all.


      Hirsi Ali: We have to get serious about this. The Egyptian dictatorship would not allow many radical imams to preach in Cairo, but they’re free to preach in giant mosques in London. Why do we allow it?

      Reason: You’re in favor of civil liberties, but applied selectively?

      Hirsi Ali: No. Asking whether radical preachers ought to be allowed to operate is not hostile to the idea of civil liberties; it’s an attempt to save civil liberties. A nation like this one is based on civil liberties, and we shouldn’t allow any serious threat to them. So Muslim schools in the West, some of which are institutions of fascism that teach innocent kids that Jews are pigs and monkeys — I would say in order to preserve civil liberties, don’t allow such schools.
      Reason: In Holland, you wanted to introduce a special permit system for Islamic schools, correct?

      Hirsi Ali: I wanted to get rid of them. I wanted to have them all closed, but my party said it wouldn’t fly.

      So, in addition to not being allowed to convert to Islam if you want, or to "infiltrate schools or universities" (whatever that means), Muslims are also not allowed to have any schools of their own. The state is supposed to "get rid of them". So Ali wants a giant asterisk to be placed next to the First Amendment saying "Muslims excluded". And if Muslims don't quietly accept this? Well, you gotta kill them.

      Whatever good work Ali may have done in some areas, she is also a fanatic who has some really dangerous and deranged views that, if accepted more widely would be quite threatening to the lives or livelihood of Muslims in this country, as well as more broadly to the rest of us, and basically requires the overturning of the US Constitution, since everything she is advocating here is unconstitutional. It is no surprise to me that Muslim students or groups would disagree with her being selected for an honorary degree and make that loudly known.

      She has a right to say this stuff, but that is all. It is not her right to have the people whose victimization she advocates stand silently while she's given awards.

  •  rail against Religion you're a madman or a thinker (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:

    but rail against one religion and that is bias.

    Righteousness is a wide path. Self-righteousness is a bullhorn and a blindfold.

    by Murphoney on Sat Apr 12, 2014 at 10:27:43 PM PDT

  •  your analysis is fundamentally wrong (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    dallasdunlap, DCPatriot

    The usual cop-out phrase in such cases is that as long as no state action is involved, there is no censorship.

    But that is not true.  Collective enforcement-style action against single persons based on their views, past or present, is always censorship.

    And with collective action i do not refer to debate-style activities like, say, letter writing campaigns or the (in)fmaeous twitter "shit storms". THose attack the message at the core of the controversy, not the messenger.

    I refer to enforcement-style actions, where the livelihood or unrelated social constructs of the censored person are attacked, in order to inflict damage upon him.

    This kind of collective action is always censorship, and it needs to be recognized as such. Thus, both Eich and Ali were victims of censorship, and we should stand against it.

    •  So how do you feel about pressuring Limbaugh's (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      advertisers to cancel their ads? Is "This kind of collective action is always censorship, and it needs to be recognized as such... and we should stand against it"?

      When people are in positions of leadership, whether it is CEO of a company or a prominent broadcaster, and they take controversial positions they need to expect and be prepared to deal with hostile reactions. Eich's problem is that both his customers and employees don't like his very publicly stated positions. Limbaugh has more power because his listeners agree with him and he can afford to kiss off a large number of advertsers.  Eich would have survived had he said he was wrong 6 years ago but apparently he doesn't think he was wrong. Tough shit, this is the way the world works.  If you can't afford the consequences of making controversial personal positions public, don't do it.

      Most people who post here do not use their real names. Some of these people do so because they know that if their employer saw their comments they would be fired.

      The situation of Ayaan Hirsi Ali is somewhat different. Brandeis really screwed up in not vetting her before extending the invitation. It is really ludicrous that someone with her views would be honored at a Jewish University or any religious school for that matter.

      •  Limbaugh's opinions ARE his product (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:

        Companies that buy ads on his show are paying for his opinions.  That's not the case with private political activity outside of work, and it's ridiculous to compare them.

        If the politics of non-political employees are fair game, we're all potential layoffs.

  •  Eich resigned. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    Tonedevil, Glenn45

    Eich got to exercise his freedom of speech before, during and after, and also exercised his freedom of choice to no longer work at Mozilla.

    Erich's critics and supporters also got thier opportunity to exercise thier freedom of speech.

    So what exactly is the problem?

    No one is coming to save us, the future is in our hands.

    by koNko on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 02:59:03 AM PDT

    •  Eich's resignation was obviously exacted by the (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:

      attacks on him and Mozilla by activists and the "progressive" media.
         If you can't exercise your freedom of speech without suffering serious economic consequences, then you do not really have freedom of speech.

      •  You don't understand what freedom of speech means (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Tonedevil, Glenn45

        You're also using passive voice language to equivocate around this: someone exercises their freedom of speech, and then "suffering" somehow arises, with no agent or means specified.

        That is simply not any coherent definition of free speech ever accepted by any society. Free speech does not include a freedom from criticism. Nor does it include freedom from economic consequences arising from market forces or social disapproval based on such criticism, precisely because all of those things arise directly out of free speech. If your critics have free speech, there can always be economic consequences.

        Your invented rules are unworkable and not even desirable.

      •  Where do the freedom of speech... (0+ / 0-)

        rights of those who "attacked" Mr. Eich figure in this?

        This makes about as much sense as Mike Huckabee on mescaline. - Prodigal 2-6-2008

        by Tonedevil on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 01:31:56 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Not giving someone an honorary degree... (4+ / 0-) hardly shunning.  By that standard I've been shunned by every university in the world.  And what kind of genius thought it would do humanity any good for a Jewish-identified university in a pluralist society to step up and offer an anti-Islam activist an honorary degree?  

    It's not the side effects of the cocaine/I'm thinking that it must be love

    by Rich in PA on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 04:47:31 AM PDT

  •  She Is a Troubled Person (0+ / 0-)

    Look, her name is not "Ayaan Hirsi Ali."

    She was not a refugee from Somalia. The Dutch government was on the verge of throwing her out of the country because she lied on her asylum application. She had to resign from her position in government and she fled to the U.S.

    Her name is Ayaan Hisri Magan. She was raised not in Somalia but in Kenya in very comfortable surroundings as the daughter of an exiled Somali warlord. Her fabrications about her upbringing in Somalia in a conservative Islamic environment are just that.

    This whole thing taints her ability to make credible critiques of Islam. The university is right to decline her an honorary degree.

    "I'll believe that corporations are people when I see Rick Perry execute one."

    by bink on Sun Apr 13, 2014 at 05:08:05 AM PDT

  •  Short version: People I disagree with should be (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sandbox, happymisanthropy, anime1973

    shunned and banned from employment.
      People I agree with should have their free speech respected and honored.

  •  I think that as far as Eich goes (0+ / 0-)

    that if his ousting is at least somewhat controversial on a progressive blog then you can only imagine what the rest of the political spectrum thinks of it.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site