Meet the stupids
In response to Amanda and Melissa’s comments on their recent adventures with right-wing’s attack machine, the response has been predictable. When they post examples of death threats leveled against them, the braintrust at protein wisdom writes:
The speech is protected; there is no right, on the other hand, to protection from the fall-out that such speech might provoke.
Errr … no. There is absolutely a right to protection against violence and threats of imminent violence. Consider 18 USC 875
© Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing … any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
Which means that when people send emails threatening rape, murder or other violence, they broke the law. If a mob is allowed to beat or threaten anyone who speaks out against them, speech isn’t free.
But Dan Collins is baffled about this. He asks
So, must people who feel compelled not speak out against abortion because some lunatic might grab a rifle and shoot an abortion provider?
No. Must those who support equal rights or access to birth control silence ourselves for fear that Bill Donohue’s allies will silence us with violence?
43 COMMENTS
Why is it any different to shoot dead a babykilling abortionist then it is to go into an abortion clinic to murder your own baby? The only difference is that those who go into abortion clinics to murder their own children are murderers, while those who shoot dead babykilling abortionists are saving those children that would be murdered by babykilling abortionists. You hypocrite, you love dead babies and attack those who would save those babies.
And women are only second class citizens “eh” Rev. Spitz?
Boy Rev., there’s nothing at all hypocritical about glorifying assassins in the name of “life.” I hardly dare guess how this even seems topical.
This post is rife with dishonesty. The first thing I do in that post is state that it is not okay under any circumstances to threaten someone in an email. I describe the people who write such threats as morons.
Lots of idiots on the left throw around the term “hate speech” as speciously as Donohue does. I don’t find it much complained about at Pandagon, I must say. As much a twerp, though, as I consider Donohue, he’s not responsible for their actions, and frankly what he says about Marcotte is less hateful than what she says about Catholics.
Not to mention you ain’t even the braintrust at protein wisdom.
I think McEwan showed a lot more class then Marcotte. Marcotte just went loopy, like Deb Frisch did, way back when.
Avoiding blame for any of this is the Breck Girl and his campaign. He appears to have hired two people without doing any background investigation, and then dropped them like hot potatoes when they started looking like liabilities.
I’ve been laid off a couple of times, when the startups I was working for didn’t make it, and it’s a sick feeling, a real kick in the guts. I think both women will be ok, in the end, but I think McEwan will do better in the future: she’s simply a classier act.
Could you show me where Donohue threatened any violence? And then prove to me where anyone who did threaten her with violence as being an ally of Donohue. Please don’t lump all the people who have reactions to Amanda’s vile hate speech in one group. Amanda’s writings are horrible, but not because of who she vents against, but how she does it. I would say the same if it were a conservative ranting against any group in the same manner.
Rev. Spitz,
I’ve been pro-life for most of my adult life and you are just wrong. It’s just as wrong and immoral to shoot an abortionist as it is for him to destroy an unborn baby.
I’m not asking anyone to trust their brain with me; it’s caveat emptor, as far as I’m concerned, though I do make some attempt to represent others’ views honestly. Also, I get death threats all the time. Just not from strangers.
I’m also with RWS on this. If we start shooting people for immorality, soon we’ll all be dead. Except for The Anchoress.
Okay, so I clicked on the link for examples, and the only one containing any reference to violence was a suggestion that she might be happier in Iraq under Sadaam, when they understood womyn’s needs so well. I would have suggested that a true feminist would be supportive of Bush’s efforts to let those womyn enjoy a taste of life without oppression, but then I’ve never felt oppressed myself, and I even kinda enjoy having doors held open for me.
MS Marcotte should realize that the 15-year-old boys typing those vile and vulgar comments are not truly misogynistic, they’re just horny! That’s not to say I condone any such language or profanity being posted in public, but I can’t in good conscience call for legislation to control it, either.
I would suggest that she needs to deal with some of that anger… from a purely scientific point of view, of course. (And thanks to the real brain trust for pointing me here.)
And one more thing…
I take into consideration the type of E‑mail I might be exposing myself to EVERY time I post a comment on any site. So, I try to, like, choose my words a little, y’know?
Hmm, don’t recall saying that Donohue threatened violence. Dan, I don’t see how you can simultaneously say that you think the emails were illegal and say that there’s “no right to protection from the fall-out that such speech might provoke.”
It is also false to say that Edwards let the two bloggers go. Whether or not they were ever fired is unclear, but he did ultimately stand up for them. They chose to leave when they determined that their staying would distract from the campaign.
I presume that emails with the threats of rape and murder would have been held back if they were reported to law enforcement. The ones posted are plenty graphic as it is. For what it’s worth, I’ve never gotten a death threat, despite my involvement in divisive social issues and campaigns. In my opinion, that doesn’t just come with the territory.
Where did I say that the emails were illegal, Josh? Just for reference, you know.
Dan, I suppose you didn’t say they were illegal. Just “not okay under any circumstances.” Do you disagree that the law I cited would apply to emails that threaten violence? Just for reference, you know.
Josh,
And you said “…silence ourselves for fear that Bill Donohue’s allies will silence us with violence?”
Be honest. You wanted to associate Donohue with violence in that sentence.
And I want to ask again. What proof do you have that any of the things said of a graphic nature is from someone who is an ally of Donohue’s? I would bet you none of them even know him or of him. They are just freaks that spout ugly things on blogs, just like the lefty freaks do. You purposely try to tie the two together (Donohue and the ugly commenters) when there is no connection whatsoever.
Let’s stipulate for purposes of argument that this is true. It still does not demonstrate that anything Donohue said was an incitement to violence.
I would think that much more of an immediate threat of violence is posed, for example, when someone goes to speak at a campus to which he’s been invited, and his presentation is cancelled because of the behavior of those who oppose his views. I can also recall people then and now claiming that a certain blogger of my acquaintance was completely overreacting when repeated vile suggestions were made regarding his child and his treatment of his child (including references to that child’s death); in fact, people continue to make that argument, as though their second-hand judgment of the matter were better than his.
I have had people online tell me that they were going to kick my ass and that kind of thing. Obviously, Donohue’s rant hasn’t silenced you, or Marcotte, or McEwan. You will continue to make these claims, and to misrepresent what other people have said on the issues, or to intermingle them as you wish.
If, as you say, there are laws covering these kinds of communications, then I certainly think that Marcotte and McEwan should avail themselves of any recourse they think prudent. I see that Marcotte would like to challenge The Catholic League’s tax-exempt status. In my view, that would open a huge can of worms regarding the right of various advocacy groups to speak their mind. I think that Marcotte would have a hard time proving in a court of law that Donohue’s characterization of her posts and comments would constitute an incitement to violence; perhaps it is simply de facto libellous to suggest that someone who presents him- or herself as liberal is guilty of hate speech?
I think that I stated in the post you link that I don’t believe any such stuff comes with the territory, either, so I’m left thinking that there’s some special pleading going on here or you misread my actual words.
Elsewhere, if you’re interested, I’ve stated that I thought that Edwards did the right thing by keeping them. I also noted that I thought it was too bad that Marcotte had gotten pilloried for the stuff that she said about Christianity, as I personally was hoping she’d get shitcanned if she didn’t retract some of her stupidities with regards to the Duke “rape” debacle.
I think it’s fairly obvious that I intended to link Donohue’s allies with violence. The posts that people were responding to were months old. The people were not responding just for the hell of it, they were responding because Donohue singled out those two bloggers. That makes them Donohue’s allies by any reasonable standard.
Don’t you think by that logic Hinckley was an ally of Scorsese?
The whole thing is an exercise in prestidigitation. “Look, over there!” while you palm the aces.
If a rational definition of “hate speech” exists, Amanda Marcotte is one of its most prominent practitioners. It is a rare post in which she does not express ideas that, if addressed by anybody on the Right against the Left’s precious causes, would result in going directly to the lawyers. She is a bitter, poisonous, foul-mouthed person who is primarily valuable as a horrible example.
You and the rest of her apologists are attempting to defend her by pointing elsewhere and hollering “look! over there!” It is a tactic that works in the short term, but in the long term it simply defines you as being as hate-filled as she is, to your ultimate discredit. Other people’s misbehavior is not a justification for your own.
The sad thing here is the fate of Melissa McEwan (spelling?) She is a forceful, often vehement advocate of her views; I often (usually) disagree with her, but I have rarely seen her descending into the sewer Marcotte dwells in, and it is truly unfortunate that she has been tarred with the same brush. You, on the other hand, are voluntarily accepting the category as definitive of yourself, which tells me you are neither honest nor trustworthy.
Regards,
Ric
I don’t know where I said that Donohue incited violence. He seems to have restricted himself to calling for them to be fired for being “anti-Catholic.” I don’t happen to think the evidence justifies that claim, and so there may be a legitimate claim of libel there, but whatever.
As for silencing, you have no idea what I or the others would have written if not for this.
I do think it’s odd to claim that a group’s right to speak out is somehow limited by their tax status. I pay taxes and that doesn’t limit my right to advocate policies. Seems the same should apply to Donohue.
I didn’t claim that a group’s right to speak was limited by their tax status. I said that Marcotte seems to want to try to have The Catholic League’s tax exempt status investigated and withdrawn by the IRS. Frankly, I don’t care.
I recommend that you and Marcotte and McEwan continue to write whatever you like and be hired by whoever wants to hire you. Meanwhile, I’ll continue to let you know whenever I think you’re being stupid, and you’ll return the favor. Once in a while some big cheese grievance monger will thrust his walrussy head into the proceedings on Fox or MSNBC, and there will result a kerfuffle. Morons will threaten. Mosques will not be burnt and nuns will not be shot to death. Things will blow over, and the cycle of blogger-on-blogger violence will renew itself.
That’s what we like. Little people hitting each other!
they were responding because Donohue singled out those two bloggers. That makes them Donohue’s allies by any reasonable standard.
If that is true then I could show you hundreds of examples of “allies” of Hillary, Dean, Obama, and any leftwing spokesman you care to name. You know as well as I do if a blogger gets called out on something, left or right, the freaks come out. So, given your logic, all the freaks who post nasty things on blogs are “allied” with whoever called out the blogger, be they left or right. Please admit that the leftwing freaks are just as nasty. I can provide much evidence if you need it.
You are justifying and you know it.
“…restricted himself to calling for them to be fired for being “anti-Catholic.” I don’t happen to think the evidence justifies that claim.”
And the moon is made of cheese. This is it for me. I can’t have a reasonable discussion with someone who refuses (pretends) to not see the obvious. Her writings are so anti-Catholic and anti-Christian that the only people who would not think so must be the same.
It is fine to disagree, disbelieve, even fight against Christianity if you wish, but don’t pretend that her writings were nothing more than hate speech. Insert “blacks, gays, ect” where she wrote “Catholic” or “Christian” and you have racial and sexual slurs and we both know it. At least be honest about that.
I find it interesting that you are now moderating your comments. In reading all the comments before mine I see no one being ugly or using foul language. When I was blogging I let people speak their minds even if they disagreed with me as long as they were civil. I have a feeling I won’t see my last comment.
So typical. I don’t know why I even try.
Yeah, I submitted one last night that hasn’t appeared, either, RWS.
“I see that Marcotte would like to challenge The Catholic League’s tax-exempt status. In my view, that would open a huge can of worms regarding the right of various advocacy groups to speak their mind.”
A few hours later: “I didn’t claim that a group’s right to speak was limited by their tax status.”
Whatever. There are secret conspiracies everywhere. I don’t know why your two comments got hung up by my spam filter. I don’t control it and I don’t think there’s a lot to be gained by assuming the worst about people. I’m not moderating. Grow up.
RWS, the bloggers were pretty clearly objecting to specific policies of the Catholic Church. The Church is anti-contraception, and Amanda and Melissa both disagree. Interestingly, most Catholics disagree with the Church on that point as well.
This is where the analogy to race or sexuality breaks down. There is no official “black” policy, nor any official “gay” policy. The Catholic Church has an official leadership which purports to speak on behalf of all Catholics. Criticizing that leadership’s views does not, however, make the person anti-Catholic. I don’t see how any of the comments that Donohue quoted attack Catholics as a class. Melissa’s only comment on Catholicism is the factual observation that “some of Christianitys most prominent leadersincluding the Poperegularly speak out against gay tolerance.” Does anyone dispute that claim? Amanda’s comments also focus on the Pope himself.
Claiming that criticizing the Pope is anti-Catholic is equivalent to claiming that criticizing the President is anti-American. By that standard, pretty much anyone who’s been politically active for more than 6 years is anti-American, having criticized either Bush or Clinton at some point.
Criticizing that leadership’s views does not, however, make the person anti-Catholic.
I agree. It is not in the criticism I find the hate speech, it is in the WAY she does it.
There is a big difference in saying “I disagree with the Church’s stance on birth control for such and such a reason” and saying ” I will f**k whenever and whoever I wish. F** the Church, I will not be punished with babies.” And let’s not forget the Holy Spirit quote where she refers to the Holy Spririt as ejaculating into Mother Mary.
Yeah, real classy stuff there.
Let’s don’t pretend this is about Amanda disagreeing..ok, Josh? This is about how she did it and you know it. How any reasonable person can defend her is beyond me.
When George Allen called a person of color “macaca” during his race for the Senate, I condemned him. I may agree with his politics, but when he puts an intentional slur out there, then I am done with him.
Why can’t you do the same?
Poperegularly speak out against gay tolerance.” Does anyone dispute that claim?
Yes, I would dispute those claims. There is a world of difference between tolerance and acceptance. You cannot expect someone of faith to accept that which their faith teaches is wrong, but they can still love and cherish the person who is wrong. Which is how the Pope describes how to treat homosexuals or any one who is involved in sexual sin. Here is an article from Father Andrew Greeley, no friend of the Pope, writing on the Pope’s encyclical “God is Love.”
http://www.beliefnet.com/story/184/story_18456.html
To put it simply, we are to love all people regardless of their sin, for we are all sinners.
But that does not keep the Church or anyone else from pointing out what is sin. Nor is there anything wrong with the Church doing so.
This is where the analogy to race or sexuality breaks down. There is no official “black” policy, nor any official “gay” policy. The Catholic Church has an official leadership which purports to speak on behalf of all Catholics.
I see, so as long as there is no “offical policy” one can say as much nasty and ugly things as they wish about blacks or gays and not be called anti gay or racist.
Good to know.…*rolls eyes*
This whole issue just screams “RED HERRING!!” Every controversial public figure gets threats of violence. Yes, lefty whack jobs are just as bad as righties. Need I remind you of Jeff’s kid being threatened by a certain deranged radical feminist?
That has NOTHING to do with why Marcotte resigned, which was entirely a function of public disapproval of her vicious rhetorical attacks on Catholics. That’s the “fallout” mentioned above, and the fact neither you nor your employers at the Edwards campaign saw it coming speaks volumes to your collective disconnection from reality.
If you have been threatened, I encourage you to seek legal remedy the nutcases responsible wherever possible. But please, don’t wave the bloody shirt to draw attention from your incompetence. It’s entirely transparent and foolish.
I have a comment caught in spam that addresses the point that Amanda was not simply being “critical.”
But I did want to point out that the Catholic Church does not speak for Catholics, It speaks for Christ. Catholics are free to accept or reject whatever they wish.
RWS, Amanda and Melissa never said anything (that I’m aware of at least) which attacked Catholics per se. They criticized official church policies. Criticizing the Pope is different from criticizing Catholics in general. Many Catholics are tolerant and accepting of other people’s sexualities.
Prior to becoming Pope, Cardinal Ratzinger said “Although the particular inclination of the homosexual person is not a sin, it is a more or less strong tendency ordered to an intrinsic moral evil, and thus the inclination itself must be seen as an objective disorder.”
Calling something “an objective disorder” is hardly tolerant. Responding to laws protecting homosexuals, Ratzinger said “the proper reaction to crimes committed against homosexual persons should not be to claim that the homosexual condition is not disordered. When such a claim is made and when homosexual activity is consequently condoned, or when civil legislation is introduced to protect behavior to which no one has any conceivable right, neither the Church nor society at large should be surprised when other distorted notions and practices gain ground, and irrational and violent reactions increase.”
That’s a hop-skip-and-jump from justifying violence against homosexuals, and certainly isn’t tolerant.
He went on to say that “There are areas in which it is not unjust discrimination to take sexual orientation into account, for example, in the placement of children for adoption or foster care, in employment of teachers or athletic coaches, and in military recruitment.”
That is not tolerant either. It does not reflect the views of all Catholics, and condemning Ratzinger for writing such things is a far cry from condemning all Catholics. Hope that helps clarify the situation.
“I did want to point out that the Catholic Church does not speak for Catholics, It speaks for Christ.”
ITYM, “It purports to speak for Christ.” Other churches would and do strenuously disagree about the Catholic Church’s authority in those matters.
When you leave comments that get caught in moderation, are you logged in to Typekey? Because that’s supposed to skip the spam system entirely. I don’t know why it’s happening.
I don’t have any interest in arguing about whether it is classy or not. Talking about slapping someone with your penis isn’t classy either. The statements you cite here are not anti-Catholic. They are expressions of disagreement with Church policies.
I dare say that little of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter’s ouvre would be called “classy,” either. Do their classless attacks on President Clinton make them anti-American?
You wonder “This is about how she did it [expressed her disagreement] and you know it. How any reasonable person can defend her is beyond me.”
I stand with Voltaire, who famously wrote: “I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write.” I consider that attitude foundational to the liberal democracy the Founding Fathers created, and that I want desperately to strengthen and broaden. I’m disturbed that you find that concept to be “beyond [you].”
Donohue claimed the two bloggers were “anti-Catholics.” I see nothing in their writings which indicates a distaste for Catholics in any general sense. They oppose particular policies of the Church, policies which many Catholics also disagree with. By Donohue’s standards, there are Catholic anti-Catholics, which seems nonsensical to me.
It doesn’t give me vapors to learn that women are using foul language on the internet. Dick Cheney told a US Senator to “go fuck yourself” on the Senate floor. That’s crude too, and no one asked him to resign. Interestingly, Patrick Leahy (the recipient of that foul language) is Catholic. Where was Bill Donohue on that? Where, for that matter, were you?
I don’t recall writing anything about it, since I don’t get too worked up over profanity in politics.
Josh,
Please. You are just justifying again. If foul langage alone offended me, then I would have been off the net years ago. It’s all in the context and you know that too.
Just as I have no right to insist that what something someone says does not offend blacks, you have no right to insist that something someone says does not offend Catholics. It does. I know. I am Catholic and I am deeply offended. (and I don’t offend easily)
And please don’t try and compare Jeff to Amanda. Jeff’s site is satire and it is meant to be funny. (except in his serious pieces where he totally behaves himself) There is NOTHING remotely funny about Amanda. I find just sadness and bitterness there.
The difference is illustrated by the comedian Kramer. Comedians use the “n” word all the time in being funny and no one gets offended (at least not most people, I do) But when Kramer used it he was being serious and then we all knew that he was racist. That’s the difference between Jeff and Amanda. Jeff isn’t serious in his jokes, but Amanda most certainly is.
I dare say that little of Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter’s ouvre would be called “classy,” either.
I agree, but then they have never been asked to be an official writer for a Presidential campaign.
But this goes beyond being “classy.” This is just about common decency. I’m sorry you can’t see that.
If I were still a Catholic, I would demand that Pope Sturbanfuherer Bendict excommunicate the crap out of Donohue. Come on Catholic’s — Throw the bum out! He acts and sounds like a Lutheran to me anyway, so you know he’s going to He11! Mach Schnell!
First: “Yeah, real classy stuff there.”
Then: “this goes beyond being ‘classy.’ ”
Whatever. The women were hired more in a technical capacity than as “official writers” for the campaign.
There is a bright line between being anti-Catholic and being offensive to Catholics. As I’ve said, many Catholics agree with what Amanda wrote and with what Melissa wrote. You don’t, which is fine.
You distinguish between Jeff talking about slapping people with his penis and Melissa referring to herself as Queen Cunt of Fuck Mountain. I don’t see it. We all adopt a persona on our blogs, a persona that is a reflection of ourselves and the community we create. The voice of Pandagon evolved on the basis of the various personalities who have operated it, including Amanda’s. Her persona there is as a firebrand, in other contexts she is able to adopt a different persona, just as Jeff presumably doesn’t slap many people with his dick in daily life.
I understand that what she said offended you, and that you are a Catholic. This does not mean that she offended all Catholics, or that she is anti-Catholic. When someone offends me, that does not make that person anti-Semitic, does it?
When someone offends me, that does not make that person anti-Semitic, does it?
It does if that statement was a nasty Jewish slur. At least you should be offended.
I am willing to bet that MOST Catholics would be offended by her writings.
But, this is clearly a waste of my time. Thank you for remaining civil. Sometimes on my blog, where half of my commenters were leftwing, we were able to learn from each other because we started from a point of understanding common human decency. I can’t get past that particular point with you so I will say goodbye.
Good luck and God bless…
Kathleen
Hmm.. My comment got eaten. I will try again.
When someone offends me, that does not make that person anti-Semitic, does it?
It does if that statement was a vicious Jewish slur. At least you should be offended.
I am willing to bet that MOST Catholics would be offended by her writings.
It is time for me to go. Thank you for being civil. On my blog, where half the commenters were leftwingers, we were able to sometimes learn from each other because we started from a common point of human decency. I can’t seem to start at that point with you, so I will leave.
Good luck and God bless..
Kathleen
How “undecent” of me to fix your typo.
Look, I don’t see any anti-Catholic slurs. Not denigration of “Papists” or whatever. Just disagreement with particular positions of the Catholic church. Yes, expressed crudely, but the crudeness was not directed at Catholics in general. If someone criticizes a Rabbi for taking a particular position on abortion or birth control, I don’t take that as anti-Semitic. It’s only anti-Semitic if the comments attack Judaism per se or Jews at large. None of the comments anyone has quoted even approach that level.
Yes, they are crude. But simple crudeness is not at issue here. Lots of people are crude. Dick Nixon’s potty mouth isn’t what forced him to resign, nor has Dick Cheney’s profanity on the Senate floor brought him any political harm. Bill Donohue hasn’t turned Cheney into an anti-Catholic, despite the fact that most Catholics would probably be offended by Cheney’s use of profanity towards a Catholic.
You have applied a double standard to justify the abuse inflicted upon those two women, and I consider that more indecent than anything I’ve said.
What are you Josh, a creationist? Because you seem to be adopting their tactics. Like your nice quote mine of changing this:
“To say that Donohue doesn’t have the right to characterize these comments is as absurd as the claims of these womyn that they’ve been smeared by the practice of having their own writings reported. So, must people who feel compelled not speak out against abortion because some lunatic might grab a rifle and shoot an abortion provider? The speech is protected; there is no right, on the other hand, to protection from the fall-out that such speech might provoke.
into a claim that he’s defending violent threats?
What the hell? Seriously how the hell could an honest person get there from the original quote?
I never said that Collins was defending violent threats, merely expressing my strong disagreement with his claim that “there is no right to protection from the fall-out that such speech might provoke.” There is.
I suppose I could ask you how you got from what I wrote to “a claim that he’s defending violent threats,” but that wouldn’t get us anywhere. Not only are the people, in Collins’ words, “morons,” they may well be criminals. Because there is very surely a right to protection from that sort of fall-out. It goes back to the classic quip about your right to swing your fist ending at my nose.
If you want to talk about quotemining, look at what has been done to Melissa and to Amanda.
“As for silencing, you have no idea what I or the others would have written if not for this.”
Let loose. Seriously. It’s good to get it off your chest.
“I see nothing in their writings which indicates a distaste for Catholics in any general sense.”
Really?
(head tilt)
*Really?*
- A non-Catholic
Oh crap Josh. You went and used the “A word”.
ZAPP! Instant wingnut magnet.
To the nutz who are fighting ESC research:
CLUE: If you need a microscope to find it, it ain’t a baby!
And here’s a great link from Rev. Falwell, for those of the fundie camp.
http://www.fallwell.com/ignored%20verses.html