MEDIA ADVISORY
Elevating Unity and Love Over Divisiveness and Hate is the Goal of Diverse Coalition of Local Faith Leaders, Community Advocates, and Experts
What: A diverse coalition of local faith leaders, community advocates, and national experts will hold a press conference on Thursday, April 26 to spotlight the hateful and divisive career of Holocaust revisionist Scott Lively, author of the discredited book The Pink Swastika, which blames the Holocaust on gay people. The coaltion was compelled to mobilize and speak out after Oklahoma City’s Draper Park Christian Church unwisely invited Lively to preach to the congregation on April 27-29. Lively’s ministry, Abiding Truth is recognized as an official hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center.
“Elevating unity and love over divisiveness and hate is our goal,” said Truth Wins Out Executive Director Wayne Besen, who will speak at the press conference. “It is critical that we put a bright spotlight on Scott Lively’s reprehensible record so people understand that he is a Holocaust revisionist. Far from being the moral leader that he presents himself to be, Lively is notorious and widely discredited for cynically twisting one of the world’s most horrific historical events for political gain.”
Where: Church of the Open Arms, 3131 N. Penn, Oklahoma City
When: Thursday, April 26, 1:30 p.m.
Who: Rev. Dr. Kathy McCallie, the open-and-affirming faith community
Scott J. Hamilton, Cimarron Alliance
Nathaniel Batchelder, Central Oklahoma Human Rights Alliance
Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out
Additional Speakers TBA
Additionally, there will be an open community meeting broadcast live from Church of the Open Arms.
What: Live-Audience edition of Oklahoma: Inside Out called “Speaking Only The Truth”
When: Friday, April 27, 7-8:30 P.M.
Who: Scott J. Hamilton, Cimarron Alliance, show host
Wayne Besen, Truth Wins Out
Michael Kornblit, author of Until We Meet Again: A True Story of Love and Survival in the Holocaust
Pastor Neill Spurgeon, an evangelical minister who suffered at the hands of the “ex-gay” industry and today suffers PTST as a result
There will also be a time of reflective prayer:
What: Supportive churches will have their doors open for a time of personal prayer; individuals are asked to reflect on the importance of truth.
When: Saturday, April 28, 9AM-Noon
Background: Lively first came into the public eye twenty years ago in Oregon as an activist in the Oregon Citizens Alliance, which worked to pass anti-gay laws. Lively, a “Holocaust revisionist,” co-authored The Pink Swastika: Homosexuality in the Nazi Party in 2002. According to the authors:
“The Pink Swastika will show that there was far more brutality, torture, and murder committed against innocent people by Nazi deviants and homosexuals than there ever was against homosexuals.”
In February 2009, Lively took his teachings to Family Life Network (FLN) in Uganda. For three days he exploited Ugandan fears with his outlandish lies: gays are child molesters, they recruit children, they were Hitler’s henchmen in the Holocaust because “gay men are exceptionally brutal and savage,” their intention is to overtake society and destroy the family, and the only hope (besides imprisonment) is to get them into conversion facilities to make them straight. Within one month of the conference, FLN was quoting Lively’s work and calling for mass arrests of gay and transgender people. The very next month Ugandan Parliament leader, David Bahati, introduced a bill to strengthen Uganda’s law against homosexuality to include arrest and even death.
Lively is currently active in Eastern Europe, Moldova, and Russia bringing them the same strain of anti-gay teaching he once exported to Uganda.
Don’t believe Satan exists? Angry anti-gay activist Lively is all the proof you need.
Funny!
1) SPLC adds someone to a “hate” group list for the purpose of censoring free speech.
2) The censorship message sinks in: “The coaltion [sic] was compelled to mobilize and speak out after Oklahoma City’s Draper Park Christian Church unwisely invited Lively to preach to the congregation on April 27-29.” Key phrase is “unwisely invited Lively to preach,” which sounds to me like a warning to others not to let someone speak.
3) There will be a “press conference” where? Why of course! The “Church of the Open Arms”! Open Arms, but not to Scott Lively!!
Funny!
Really, I’m not taking sides here on the lgbt issue as libraries and free speech is my thing. But, as I just hinted, I do support free speech. Clearly there’s a threat to free speech in the actions of the SPLC and the reactions of Wayne Besen in response to the SPLC.
So this is a ho hum story until you get to the funny part. The kicker is the “press conference,” that is really a means to convince others to deny someone’s freedom of speech and be “wise,” unlike “unwise” Draper Park Christian Church, is happening at the “Church of the Open Arms”! Open Arms! Really, that’s funny, you have to admit it–to yourselves, at least.
“Come, learn about censoring Scott Lively at the Church of the Open Arms!” Now that’s a snappy advertising campaign!
Funny! Funny when people like the person above feel compelled to mask their intentions, implying they are advocates of “free speech,” when a visit to their website makes it clear they are, in fact, engaged in a campaign to censor libraries. Funny when they are eager to “protect people” from sexual content, but totally fine with propogating easily historically confirmed, blatant lies about gay people being responsible for the Holocaust, among other grotesque untruths.
A censorship advocate taking others to task on trumped-up charges of “free speech?” Wow. You can’t make this up, people. Note to Dan: hate speech is NOT “free speech.” Get a clue.
Let’s get one thing clear. The SPLC does not label a group as a “hate group” for the purpose of censoring free speech. The SPLC, like most organizations are well aware of the first amendment, and understand that free speech is a constitutional right.
Their label of a “hate group” is to bring AWARENESS of the activities of that group, to provide valuable information for those who have some form of interaction with said hate group. It takes quite a lot to get on the list of hate groups. To be considered a hate group by the SPLC, the group must actively engage in dispensing known falsehoods, and use those falsehoods to demonize or denigrate a certain group of people.
Once that status is well known, then it falls upon the rest of us whether or not we want to be associated with groups that use lies as their standard. That’s not censorship, Dan. That’s common sense.
I found this quote from Mark Potok on the SPLC blog that summarizes quite succinctly EXACTLY what the SPLC would list a group as an anti-gay hate group:
“…we [do] not list groups on the basis of their Christianity, their belief that homosexuality is a sin, or their opposition to same-sex marriage. We list them because they egregiously lie in a propagandistic effort to defame LGBT people.”
Like the schoolyard bully who finally gets his comeuppance, the SafeLibraries advocate cries that his targets aren’t letting him defame with impunity anymore.
Free speech and fraud speech are two entirely different beasts. A true free speech advocate would defend accuracy rather than hide cowardly behind deceptive and malicious mythology portraying it as a right to blather nonsense.
Kleinman, we librarians are usually trying to keep our institutions ‘safe’ from bigots like you. Of course we support free speech and differing view points, *but*, that doesn’t mean anything goes. We don’t purchase materials that promote hate, bigotry, quack medicine or science or blatant distortions of history (like the Pink Swastika). We don’t censor the internet in the adult section nor what children can check out; that’s the responsibility of their parents.
If Lively was involved with the Oregon Citizens Alliance then he has blood in his hands. Oregonians were murdered by that band zealots …ironically infiltrated by Neo nazi skin heads. Maybe Lively should write a book about that. His Google search would I Clyde Salem and Albany Oregon. Just to refresh his memory. And let’s ne clear…last I checked—murder is not a protected free speech activity.
Timothy, not “infiltrated” rather actively engaged. Just as Stormfront members are posting in defense of Bradlee Dean in Minnesota publications. Let us not forget Tony Perkins buying the list serve for the KKK from David Duke. Remember this?
[...] City pastors who oppose his message, including some who also oppose gay rights. Wayne Besen has those details, which include a press conference on Thursday, and a live broadcast of Oklahoma: Inside Out Friday [...]
“gay men are exceptionally brutal and savage” is always one of my favorites. My two reactions:
1) I wish!
and
2) And that explains why we rule the world.
(Now I’ll have Eurythmics’ “Savage” in my head all day.)
Dan Kleinman’s “Safe Libraries” project is in part about keeping scientific information favorable to gay people’s human rights out of libraries. So, his above comment should be understood in the glaring light of his filthy hypocrisy.
SafeLibraries@gmail.com
In Re: Dan Kleinman’s remarks on Scott Lively
From:
Scott Rose
Contributor
The Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism
Mr. Kleinman:
This regards your comments under Wayne Besen’s post at this link:
http://www.truthwinsout.org/blog/2012/04/24451/
The distilled substance of your comment is that any criticism a pro-gay-rights person makes of the notorious Holocaust denier Scott Lively constitutes “censorship.”
Your remarks reveal that you do not even understand the meaning of the word censorship.
No commonly-accepted meaning of “censorship” applies to SPLC’s (or anybody else’s) behavior in fact-checking statements Scott Lively makes or publishes.
Fact-checking is not censorship. Scott Lively’s anti-gay hate speech book “The Pink Swastika” — which he does use as hateful propaganda to suppress the human rights of gay human beings — has been definitively documented as non-scholarly claptrap.
You are to free speech what Bozo the Clown is to Sir Laurence Olivier.
Scott Rose
Hello everyone. You all mischaracterized me. I don’t blame you. My blog is huge.
In addition to missing things on my site, you have also missed what the SPLC has done. Yes, of course they can point things out, etc., etc. But what crosses the line is when the SPLC takes its message and advises media outlets to stop allowing people to speak in the media. The SPLC is seeking to silence the speech of all groups it labels as hate groups.
That is a serious problem. Indeed, that is the problem I raise.
Picking one, let’s look at Scott Rose’s argument:
“The distilled substance of your comment is that any criticism a pro-gay-rights person makes of the notorious Holocaust denier Scott Lively constitutes ‘censorship.’”
False. That it not the “distilled substance.” Free speech should be for everyone, except for cases such as shouting fire in a crowded theatre. Free speech should protect “pro-gay-rights” and also “anti-gay-rights” equally. Criticism is never censorship.
“Your remarks reveal that you do not even understand the meaning of the word censorship.”
Perhaps, but that depends on the definition of censorship. Some use it to mean true censorship. Others use it to mean “censorship,” in quotes. Example. The last book censored in the USA was censored about half a century ago and it was called Fanny Hill. Compare: I can’t believe that in every community across the USA there are several cases each school year of some parent seeking to “censor” the reading choices of everyone else. I hate “censorship”!
“No commonly-accepted meaning of ‘censorship’ applies to SPLC’s (or anybody else’s) behavior in fact-checking statements Scott Lively makes or publishes.”
True. But that is not the issue I intended. Ok, honestly I was not clear. What I had in mind was not the “behavior in fact-checking statements.” Obviously that is not censorship, and it is not even “censorship.” Forgive me but what I had in mind was that the SPLC works actively to convince other media to stop going to the “hate” groups for anything. That’s the problem. And although the SPLC cannot censor by virtue of who they are, censorship of a sort is the intended effect of the SPLC pressuring other media to stop reaching out to the “hate” groups.
“Fact-checking is not censorship.”
True.
“Scott Lively’s anti-gay hate speech book ‘The Pink Swastika’ — which he does use as hateful propaganda to suppress the human rights of gay human beings — has been definitively documented as non-scholarly claptrap.”
This is beyond my knowledge, and I have not read the book.
“You are to free speech what Bozo the Clown is to Sir Laurence Olivier.”
Logically false. Arguments that attack the messenger are logically false.
So when Wayne Besen comes along with a potentially legitimate argument but ties it to the SPLC’s active attempts to silence others, that’s where the problem comes in. Besen can make his point as he sees fit, but if he hitches his wagon to an organization that is actively agitating to get the media to squelch the free speech of others, that’s a problem.
Look, I am giving you constructive criticism. If you unhitch yourselves from the SPLC attempts to actively silence others, you will only improve your argument and improve your standing in the eyes of others. Further, reasoned argument might help support your point of view. Name calling never really gets anywhere.
That said, Besen needs to explain: “unwisely invited Lively to preach.” It sounds to me like he is using similar pressure to the SPLC to silence others like the SPLC. That would be unfortunate. So will someone ask Besen to clarify?
Thanks.
@Gary (NJ), you said, “Kleinman, we librarians are usually trying to keep our institutions ‘safe’ from bigots like you.”
You need to specify exactly what shows you I’m a bigot, or you need to retract that statement. You’re a librarian, you can research those things. Go find evidence of my being a bigot.
Gary, you also said, “We don’t censor the internet in the adult section nor what children can check out; that’s the responsibility of their parents.” You know that filtering out porn is not censorship, right? You know you can legally restrict what children check out, right? If you can’t get these basic facts right, it’s no surprise to me you made that other false statement.
Lastly, as you are a librarian, you’re willingness to jump to accusations does not speak well for you or your profession. Fortunately, most librarians I know are not like you.
Dan,
Lively is actively and knowingly endangering people’s lives by spreading his pernicious lies and falsehoods, his theories have been almost universally discredited as totally false and dangerous, and his writings are used as justification in the victimisation and villification of innocent gay people in third world countries.
I do not agree with censorship either, but that does in no way mean that one opinion is always just as valid as another.
The SPLC pointing out to media outlets that Lively tells out-and-out lies, and that his assertions can be easily and totally discredited, is to me just performing a vital public service.
Dan,
“This is beyond my knowledge, and I have not read the book.”
Then your whole argument seems to fall pieces. Do you think the 1st Amendment protects ANY speech? Lively’s book and what he did in Uganda is incendiary. It has no place in civil society.
I applaud Truth Wins Out. It clearly is NOT censorship. As a librarian your ignorance of the term shocks me. Censorship is removal of a book, the closing down of a radio station the pulling of a TV program by force or by law or by mob rule.
What censorship is NOT, is argument and discussion in the public arena (that includes press conferences and press statements and peaceful assembly). The free flow of ideas is what this is about and when the ideas (which are lies in this case, Scott Lively is a liar regarding the Nazis), are exposed and if enough people beleive Wayne Besen is right then they will not invite Lively again. Lively can go find another audience if he can, usualy in places with a far lower standard of free speech than the US (just think, this is a man who finds ready audiences in Lithuania, Moldova, Uganda – all bastions of free speech).
Peter Hargmier and Paul Mc, thanks for addressing the issues.
Peter said, “The SPLC pointing out to media outlets that Lively tells out-and-out lies, and that his assertions can be easily and totally discredited, is to me just performing a vital public service.” I agree. But the SPLC went further than that, and that is the problem. I am sorry I cannot put my finger on the source for this but I recall it was a direct quote quote from an SPLC leader. If I were to publish it here, you would all see what I was talking about and perhaps even agree the SPLC went too far.
Paul said, “Lively’s book and what he did in Uganda is incendiary.” As I said you can’t yell fire in a crowded theatre, but that’s a far cry from calling a book incendiary. With the last book having been banned in the USA about half a century ago, do you really want to make Lively’s book the next to be banned? That will only make the book more popular, not less.
“Censorship is removal of a book, the closing down of a radio station the pulling of a TV program by force or by law or by mob rule.” By that definition, the SPLC’s action amount to censorship. It seeks to shut down the “hate” groups “by mob rule,” sort of like how I was mobbed in comments on this post, only far, far worse.
@Dan Kleinman –
You have a certain point of view, which you are entitled to — however, I think you badly misunderstand the idea of censorship.
Let me be clear, I have openly refused to sign petitions that would actually curtail the rights of Neo-Nazis and others whom I totally oppose in fact to fully enjoy the rights that my great grandfather, many times removed, Colonel Ebenezer Reynolds died to help establish in the Revolution.
Curtailing those rights, including the right to assemble and the right to publish THAT would be censorship.
It is censorship when Right Wing parents try to remove pro-gay books from school libraries, or Left Wing parents try to remove books clearly showing the racism that was our reality in America a hundred years ago.
It is censorship when a group tries to block someone from speaking, or block a rally, or block those rights guaranteed in the Constitution and Bill of Rights of our great country.
IT IS NOT and CANNOT BE censorship when someone criticizes what someone else says. It cannot be censorship when a respected organization condemns the work of another organization as disreputable. It cannot be censorship when someone sues another for defamation, for lies, for slander, for damaging efforts to mislead others – particularly when/if those things lead to other, particularly illegal or unacceptable outcomes.
I have debated Scott Lively at length by email. It is my personal opinion that he has nothing whatsoever to offer, and I do believe that he is a more decent and reasonable man in person than his publications and public speeches would indicate. He lives in a very black and white world where those who are not with him are very much against him and where the equation is, as far as I can see, VERY zero sum.
I do not want to bar his books or lock him up. Another words I do not want to censor him. I do however want him exposed for exactly what he is — a bigot and a hate-monger who, while he has never directly called for the deaths of gay people grossly misconstrues them to the public in ways that can easily lead to deaths, or even organized murder. He has directly told me that such is not his intent, and I do believe him. Nevertheless that is the result. Just as increased racism in some quarters was the result of apparently academic discussions of the intelligence and sexual stamina of African American males in the past.
His organization also does want to harm the lives of, if not kill, gay people- and they do use gross distortions of fact in pursuit of the type of majority of voters they need to accomplish that goal. By the very nature of the definition that the SPLC (and the Rosenthal center which has also declared him a revisionist and so forth) his group does fit the hate group label – and the SPLC has just as much right to apply that label as he has to publish his work. Morally they have more right, because they aren’t making things up.
Kind thoughts,
Reyn
Well said, Reyn.
What I really need to do to explain what I am saying is to get the quote where the SPLC leader said his goal is to get the media to stop going to “hate” groups for statements on this or that. It was a few years ago and I simply cannot put my finger on it now.
But such a statement stuck in my mind, and it is such a statement that caused me to write here, combined with Besen’s “unwisely invited Lively to preach” phrase. That sounded to me a lot like he was punishing others or threatening to punish others for allowing someone to speak, and that reminded me of the SPLC telling media not to allow others to speak that it targeted as “hate” groups.
Like who died and made SPLC arbiter of what speakers media are allowed to contact. I found the same or similar sentiment in what Besen said here.
I am suggested that Besen could improve his message by dropping any hint that he is threatening others who dare let someone speak. And any alignment with organizations that also actively seek to silence others is suspect as well. You counter speech with more speech, not with orders that others may not let people speak.
Dan said:
“What I really need to do to explain what I am saying is to get the quote where the SPLC leader said his goal is to get the media to stop going to “hate” groups for statements on this or that. It was a few years ago and I simply cannot put my finger on it now.”
That’s not censorship.
That is merely trying to persuade media outlets that using Scott Lively as a ‘resource’ for accurate or salient information is erroneous, and that his ideas are so far out-of-whack that by using Lively, these media outlets would only succeed in making themselves look bad.
And also that there are plenty of other resources they could be using for the opposing view that are far less insane.
One of the criteria the SPLC employs in deciding whether to assign the label ‘hate group’, is if the group in question tells out-and-out falsehoods in order to portray their targeted group in a negative light.
Why would a serious media outlet want to go to an individual or group that has been shown to tell blatant and demonstrable lies in order to further their own twisted agenda?
As far as I can see, SPLC is merely trying to provide a public information service, that is all.
Peter Hargmier, right, but if it applies to one, does it not apply to all? As I oppose the American Library Association for its defiance of federal law that harms communities, I advise people about exactly how it defies the law, who said so, and where. I don’t call up newspapers and tell them not to take calls from the ALA and not to report on its activities. It may not be strictly censorship but it is sure deeply suspect. Imagine the chaos if everyone demanded this.
Hey, media, never take a call from Wayne Besen since he’s a hate monger. And say that as a major organization with a lot of pull. Would that be acceptable to you, to anyone? Of course not. Why should it suddenly be acceptable for SPLC to do that to those it defines as “hate” groups?
SPLC has gone beyond mere criticism and is explicitly saying media needs to stop giving “hate” groups a voice and using its pressure to make it happen, as evidenced by Wayne Besen essentially repeating the message here. Who will be defined as the next “hate” group? Where will it stop?
Dan you have no idea what censorship is or what the first amendment does. No one is stopping anyone from speaking. The first amendment does not give everyone an automatic right to any platform they want. Denying someone your platform is not censoring them.
It would not be acceptable to attempt to blacklist Wayne as a “hatemonger” because it is a lie. The SPLC’s list actually are hatemongers so yes it is perfectly acceptable to tell people that they should not be given a platform to spew their hate. No one is “giving them a voice” they are for some bizzare reason giving them a platform which they are under no obligation to do.
What does someone have to do before you consider them hateful? Is it not enough that they lie about us every time they open their mouths? Is it not enough that their organizations exist for no other purpose than to deny us our legal rights with the eventual goal of recriminalizing our very existance? Is it not enough that they are currently trying to commit genocide against us in the developing world? Where do you draw the line?
RainbowPhoenix: “Denying someone your platform is not censoring them.” Right. But that’s not what SPLC did. SPLC is demanding that media outlets generally deny certain people access to those media outlets.
Look, it’s called “Truth Wins Out,” right? That’s all I’m saying. It’s not “Bullying Wins Out.” It’s not “I’m the SPLC, These Are Hate Groups, and You Will No Longer Seek Their Input Else You’ll Be Added to the Hate Group List.”
And how is the SPLC wrong to do that?
And bullying? Really? You’ve got a lot of nerve to say that when you and the bigots you defend are literlly bullying our children to death. Your description of the SPLC is also a complete lie. Standing up against bullying is not bullying and the continued insistance to the contrary is why children are still being bullied to the point that they think killing themselves is the only way out.
Dan Kleinman, Scott Lively regularly is brought onto shows as an “expert” and is not corrected by hosts (who are not knowlegable of the subject). He regularly says things that are inaccurate and possibly even lies. SPLC is right to tell media outlets that the man should not be treated as an expert. He’s not coming on as a bigot with an opinion–he’s being brought on as someone who supposedly has some sort of background. It’s like bringing on a KKK member to discuss African American issues or a member of the Nazi party to discuss issues of Jews.
You keep admitting that your knowlege on this is weak–why don’t you do some more research before you go on defending your shaky positions.
Daniel, here’s the problem with that. Who gets to decide whose message is wrong? And if it is wrong, why should it be suppressed?
I get the people here clearly have an issue with Scott Lively. I might too but I have not read his book. But I cannot think of a single book that could possibly be so bad that no one is allowed to talk to the author.
There’s another issue. Why should every message allowed in the media be a mainstream message? Step out of line, the men come to talk you away (Buffalo Springfield).
Truth wins out. That’s how you handle this. You make your case. You don’t handle it by getting others to shut down your opposition.
Think of that crazy doctor, that one who said Pellegra was a nutritional disease. He was a Jewish guy. He went into black communities to solve this disease. He was constantly ridiculed by the mainstream medical establishment. They made racist attacks on him as well. He was eventually proven correct and he saved many, many people from a terrible disease that turned out to be caused by the lack of a single vitamin in the typical southern diet.
Or that other crazy doctor. The one who said ulcers were bacterial in origin. What a joke that guy was. Everybody laughed at him. Uh oh, he was right. Most ulcers are now treated with antibiotic.
Okay, true, there were other people who had a singular message who then turned into mass murderers. Right.
But how do we decide ahead of time who is it that it is politically correct to ignore?
That said, the conversation here become mainly about issues, not personalities. Refreshing, isn’t it? Thanks everyone.
Dan you are completely misrepresenting what TWO and the SPLC are doing and I suspect you are doing it deliberately. No one is capriciously saying “this message is wrong”. They are say, with plenty of evidence to back it up by the way, that “this message is dishonest and is hurting and killing people and therefore should not be tolerated.” People are literally dying because of Scott Lively and his fellow bigots. They are literally attempting genocide against gay people in the developing world. Their organizations exist for the sole purpose of if denying us our legal rights and eventually making us criminals again. And you think that’s all perfectly fine.
“People are literally dying because of Scott Lively and his fellow bigots.” Are you serious? Scott Lively is being sued at this moment for basically this very claim. The case has only just started. If you know he is guilty, perhaps you should contact the plaintiffs’s attorneys. Until the case is decided, it has not been proven that people are literally dying because of Scott Lively and his fellow bigots. He is innocent until proven guilty.
Besides, are you this concerned about all of the millions and millions who have died as a result of Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring,” mostly sub-Saharan Africans? Or the millions who have died as a result of having been aborted, in the USA mostly black Americans?
“People are literally dying because of Scott Lively and his fellow bigots.” No one with an open mind will believe that until it has been proven in a court of law. And I doubt a court would make that finding. People with a closed mind will definitely believe that. But truth wins out. So let’s all wait until the court case is final before make prejudicial statements.
As for TWO and SPLC, TWO is not the problem.
As for SPLC, it is not merely saying Lively “is dishonest and is hurting and killing people and therefore should not be tolerated.” SPLC is going further, actively working to stop the media from contacting or writing about groups it calls “hate” groups. I just can’t find that quote so I can’t prove it, and for that I apologize.
Lively is actively contributing to the bullycides of teenagers across America. Lively convinced the Ugandan government to begin its attempts at commiting genocide against gay Ugandans and several, such as David Kato, have already died because of it. Lively inflames bigots here causing them to feel justified in murdering gay Americans. This is simple emperical data.
If you had any argument to make you wouldn’t feel the need to deflect by bringing up “Silent Spring” or a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body.
You’ve also once again completely misrepresented what the SPLC does. Now I’m sure you’re doing it on purpose.
God bless Scott Lively. He’s picking up a lot of flak, so he must be near the target. If his words weren’t true, there would never be this level of hatred against him.
Redeem The Rainbow!
(p.s. – “If you had any argument to make you wouldn’t feel the need to deflect by bringing up “Silent Spring” or a woman’s right to decide what to do with her own body.” – right – if it’s HER body. A baby on board is ANOTHER BODY – HELLOOO!
Stan, Lively is getting such hatred because people are literally dying because of his. And a fetus is not a baby.
Truth Wins Out – what a misnomer for an organisation that promotes falsehood and encourages the silencing of all opposition to homosexual practice. You, Mr.Besen and your ilk are simply parroting out the strategy clearly outlined in Madsen and Kirk’s book “After the Ball”.They suggest portraying those opposed to homosexual activity as deranged preachers drooling with hate.This is exactly the way you are portraying Scott Lively, who is a courageous,compassionate Christian gentleman.By the way,regarding the murder of David Kato in Uganda,which we condemn,as does Pastor Lively. David Kato was killed by a male prostitute, so stop trying to portray the murder as something it was not.You are not fooling us. By the way,we reside in the UK.
Calling you lot out for your inhuman behavior isn’t silencing, Sola. You are still allowed to speak, just as we are allowed to refute your lies. As for the “deranged preachers drooling with hate” line, that is an apt description of you lot. Thank you. Also, there is nothing courageous, compassionate, or gentlemanly about Lively. I agree he does make a very good Christian though, he knows how to hate and spew nonsense very well.
For those who keep on saying the SPLC is trying to censor Scott Lively are really clueless. By your argument any time something do with race comes up CNN should interview the Grand Wizard of the KKK because we don’t want to sensor them. We don’t do that because we as a society realize that not all speech is worthy of a wider audience. This isn’t the government censoring this is decent Americans who realize there is no value in hate speech.
SOla, yes, some of us are in teh UK and we too care about deranged Americans preachers drooling with hate (deranged because he believes homosexuals were responsbile for the Nazis coming to power; drooling becuase he speaks of LBGT people as not fit to be human – have you read what he says about gay men? Oozing with hate).
He is exporting a particular nasty strain of homophobia and he is deluded that his form of preching is compassionate as other posters have tried to say.
Repeating his own words to mainstream media and asking them to consider if he is a fit person to be an expert on anything other than his own homophobia is NOT censorship. Those media are able to decide and should decide for themselves if such is the case. It IS the case and they will eventually stop inviting him and Peter Spriggs and Tony Perkins and all the other hatemongers just they wouldn’t invite KKK keaders on to discuss racism.
Comments on a message board is NOT mob rule. Check out ‘gay bashing’ on google and find out what mob rule ACTUALLY looks like.
That’s you Dan.
Sola said “They suggest portraying those opposed to homosexual activity as deranged preachers drooling with hate.This is exactly the way you are portraying Scott Lively, who is a courageous,compassionate Christian gentleman.”.
That you would foolishly think you can describe Lively as the exact opposite of what he obviously is shows you have no respect for the truth and that you can’t support any of your anti-gay arguments with the truth.
Dan Kleinman, the media should do research. Scott Lively misuses studies–the people who did the studies say he is misusing them but they don’t report that on the shows he’s watching. He uses studies that are demonstrably wrong (look at various reports here and on Box Turtle Bulletin that demonstate how these studies use faulty science) you don’t hear that on the tv and radio shows he’s on. The “truth” here is not relative–there are actual facts and Lively misrepresents them. Again, do research before you criticize.
Dan Kleinman, you keep saying that you don’t actually know what Scott Lively says–that is clear. I suspect you may be disingenuous but I’ll pretend you’re telling the truth. If you don’t know what he’s saying why don’t you find out? No, the media should not just invite any crackpot on to slander an entire group of people and just treat it as another opinion. These things are not a matter of “balance” they’re a matter of right and wrong and if someone like this is on a media show the audience should be aware that they are misrepresenting the truth.
Dan @17 — yes most librarians ARE like me! Anyone who defends Scott Deadly and his filthy book and outrageous lies that lead to the murder and imprisonment of lgbt people in places like Uganda IS a BIGOT and you most definitely are one!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
I know this might sound like a silly question, but as a Brit I’d like to know, how far does this freedom of speech business go? I mean, it seems to be all right to picket funerals and say unkind things about the deceased and the loved ones haven’t the right to stop you. Or give a speech about how LGBT people are fascists and anarchists trying to destroy religion and the true family and say it in a public park, owned by local authorities.
I’ve heard the example ‘you haven’t got the freedom to shout ‘fire’ in a crowded theatre’ which I take means something like (bad example) campaigning to make iced tea illegal because it causes your nose to rot, when it doesn’t, that is spreading fear and panic without cause.
But say, someone states, in public, at a meeting, that the only to stop women getting pregnant out of wedlock is by shooting unmarried pregnant women in the back of the head.
Would they be allowed to say that?
They’re not advocating shooting unmarried pregnant women, just stating, by way of a thought experiment that this was the only way to fully discourage a woman from getting pregnant without being married.
If this is legal under the freedom of speech rule, say someone else picked a gun up and shot a woman who was pregnant and not wearing a wedding ring and stated this speakers opinion as the reason why. Who would be to blame? Would the speaker as well as the shooter be apportioned blame, or just the shooter?
When does freedom to speak infringe on someone else right to the pursuit of happiness, say?
Thanks in advance.
Jessica said “But say, someone states, in public, at a meeting, that the only to stop women getting pregnant out of wedlock is by shooting unmarried pregnant women in the back of the head.
Would they be allowed to say that?”.
I’m pretty sure there’d be no problem in the States with someone saying that and if someone shot an unmarried pregnant woman saying the speaker motiviated him to do so only the shooter would be charged.
To refocus the debate on homosexual practice (and away from Scott Lively ),did you know that AIDS was not always given that diagnostic label? Initially, it was called GRIDS (Gay Related Immunodeficiency Syndrome).It was changed,for obvious reasons.Anyone care to comment?
@Daniel, you sound reasonable.
@Becky, libraries and freedom of speech are my thing. Scott Lively is not. But when I saw TWO subtly warning others that they would be punished for allowing free speech, I spoke up to defend free speech. I need not and have not defended Scott Lively. To me, the identity of the speaker has nothing to do with the right to free speech. Apparently, from what I can tell in the comments here from some, the identity of the speaker has everything to do with free speech, and if you cross a certain political line, your free speech is no longer free. In my library world, I have noted that free speech is not free if you do not say what certain self-arrogated free speech advocates do not want people to hear. I suppose the situation is analogous. Other similarities are that if you do not say something politically correct, you are viciously attacked personally. Speaking of which:
@Gary (NJ), you have made up facts about me, made up a crime you state or imply I did, then made up a conviction. You have labelled a book as a “filthy” book. You have shouted I’m a “BIGOT” for defending freedom of speech, as if I’m supposed to shrink under the power of your personal accusations. Well I’m a volunteer librarian. Your actions as a librarian, Gary (NJ), which is how you represent yourself here, are an embarrassment to librarianship. I’ll bet you have not even read the book. Parents who try to remove books from schools are laughed at by the likes of you for not reading the book through first, but here you are attacking someone repeatedly and I’ll bet you have not even read a book. Double standards, another hallmark of the self-arrogated freedom of speech people. Thank goodness there are people here having an honest conversation based on the issues.
@Becky said, “If you don’t know what he’s saying why don’t you find out?” Actually, I have zero interest in reading The Pink Swastika. My interests are libraries, etc. And I need not read the book to point out when others are free speech killers.
@Gary (NJ), and it hasn’t escaped my attention that the first time you attacked my as a “bigot” I challenged you to find evidence of such. I’ve been writing for over a decade so this shouldn’t be hard, especially for a librarian. Yet you come back here again without evidence merely to raise your voice and shout, “BIGOT.” You realize people are not fooled by such behavior, right?
Dan, I doubt anyone can get through to you. Just substitute ‘Jew’ for ‘gay’ anywhere where Scott denigrates and demeans and dehumanises LBGT people then try to imagine him being asked by anyone outside cults whether he is a fit person, an expert, a ‘compassionate christian’.
The answer is he would get nowhere and be confined to small dark corners of the web – and rightly so. Anyone in the mainstresm thinking of inviting such a person would be unwise as it would damage their own credibility. That you take that as a threat speaks volumes about your own silly paranoia about this whole post and TWO vs Lively thing.
@Sola – no one here is going to back track 20 years and go over that again.
But your raising it says a lot about your anti-gay animus.
(‘Sola Scriptura’ – wins the award for most pompous self righteous web handle).