Jump to content
Seriously No Politics ×

Good News On The Free Speech Front


Recommended Posts

In a recent address at UVU, Elder Oaks expressed concern that freedom of religion and freedom of speech were under attack.  (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865601203/At-UVU-Elder-Oaks-sees-hope-despite-alarming-religious-liberty-trends.html).  One example he cited was the forced resignation of the CEO of Mozilla.  Per the DN:

 

[Elder Oaks] mentioned the recent resignation of Mozilla's new CEO over a $1,000 donation he made to Proposition 8 six years ago. Elder Oaks called it "another unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."

 

Today I was very pleased to read a public statement entitled: "Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both." 

(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/freedom_to_marry_freedom_to_dissent_why_we_must_have_both_122376.html#ixzz2zfDStjuJ)

The statement expresses concern regarding the Mozilla incident similar to that expressed by Elder Oaks'.  The statement is signed by prominent supporters of SSM who believe that opponents should be treated with respect and allowed to speak dissent without punishment.  The signers include some authors I admire, including Will Saletan, Andrew Sullivan, and Eugene Volokh. 

With all the negative issues we routinely discuss on this board (especially me), I think it healthy to point to good news when we can.  For myself, I resonate strongly with the Christ-like examples of these signatories and millions of others who, to borrow a phrase from Elder Maxwell, drank from a bitter cup but did not become bitter themselves.  These people give me hope for the future.  The world is a good place and it is getting better. 

Link to comment

In a recent address at UVU, Elder Oaks expressed concern that freedom of religion and freedom of speech were under attack.  (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865601203/At-UVU-Elder-Oaks-sees-hope-despite-alarming-religious-liberty-trends.html).  One example he cited was the forced resignation of the CEO of Mozilla.  Per the DN:

 

[Elder Oaks] mentioned the recent resignation of Mozilla's new CEO over a $1,000 donation he made to Proposition 8 six years ago. Elder Oaks called it "another unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."

 

Today I was very pleased to read a public statement entitled: "Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both." 

(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/freedom_to_marry_freedom_to_dissent_why_we_must_have_both_122376.html#ixzz2zfDStjuJ)

The statement expresses concern regarding the Mozilla incident similar to that expressed by Elder Oaks'.  The statement is signed by prominent supporters of SSM who believe that opponents should be treated with respect and allowed to speak dissent without punishment.  The signers include some authors I admire, including Will Saletan, Andrew Sullivan, and Eugene Volokh. 

With all the negative issues we routinely discuss on this board (especially me), I think it healthy to point to good news when we can.  For myself, I resonate strongly with the Christ-like examples of these signatories and millions of others who, to borrow a phrase from Elder Maxwell, drank from a bitter cup but did not become bitter themselves.  These people give me hope for the future.  The world is a good place and it is getting better. 

That is good news.

 

I wish I could be certain it represented more than just a minority view in the gay community.

 

The events involving the Mozilla exec do represent, in the words of Elder Oaks, "an alarming trajectory."

Edited by Scott Lloyd
Link to comment

In a recent address at UVU, Elder Oaks expressed concern that freedom of religion and freedom of speech were under attack.  (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865601203/At-UVU-Elder-Oaks-sees-hope-despite-alarming-religious-liberty-trends.html).  One example he cited was the forced resignation of the CEO of Mozilla.  Per the DN:

 

[Elder Oaks] mentioned the recent resignation of Mozilla's new CEO over a $1,000 donation he made to Proposition 8 six years ago. Elder Oaks called it "another unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."

 

Today I was very pleased to read a public statement entitled: "Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both." 

(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/freedom_to_marry_freedom_to_dissent_why_we_must_have_both_122376.html#ixzz2zfDStjuJ)

The statement expresses concern regarding the Mozilla incident similar to that expressed by Elder Oaks'.  The statement is signed by prominent supporters of SSM who believe that opponents should be treated with respect and allowed to speak dissent without punishment.  The signers include some authors I admire, including Will Saletan, Andrew Sullivan, and Eugene Volokh. 

With all the negative issues we routinely discuss on this board (especially me), I think it healthy to point to good news when we can.  For myself, I resonate strongly with the Christ-like examples of these signatories and millions of others who, to borrow a phrase from Elder Maxwell, drank from a bitter cup but did not become bitter themselves.  These people give me hope for the future.  The world is a good place and it is getting better. 

 

Good for them.  Wise move.

Link to comment

While we're on the subject, have the yahoos who were telling people not to see "Ender's Game" because of Orson Scott Card's views on homosexuality had anything to say about Bryan Singer and the upcoming X-Men movie? 

Link to comment

 

In a recent address at UVU, Elder Oaks expressed concern that freedom of religion and freedom of speech were under attack. (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865601203/At-UVU-Elder-Oaks-sees-hope-despite-alarming-religious-liberty-trends.html).One example he cited was the forced resignation of the CEO of Mozilla.  Per the DN:

[Elder Oaks] mentioned the recent resignation of Mozilla's new CEO over a $1,000 donation he made to Proposition 8 six years ago. Elder Oaks called it "another unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."

What are the other "unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."?

Boycott to protest gay friendliness:

"More than 540,000 people have committed to a boycott of Home Depot over its support of homosexual activism, according to a spokesperson of the group organizing the boycott.

Randy Sharp, director of Special Projects at the American Family Association, said that more than half a million people have signed the Home Depot Boycott pledge since the signature campaign launched in July 2010."

Separately towards Muslims:

"Lowe's may not be the only big company to cave under pressure from the Florida Family Association.

The conservative group claims that more than 60 companies that it emailed, from Amazon to McDonald's, have also pulled adds from TLC's All-American Muslim, according to the AP."

Link to comment

 

What are the other "unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."?

Boycott to protest gay friendliness:

"More than 540,000 people have committed to a boycott of Home Depot over its support of homosexual activism, according to a spokesperson of the group organizing the boycott.

Randy Sharp, director of Special Projects at the American Family Association, said that more than half a million people have signed the Home Depot Boycott pledge since the signature campaign launched in July 2010."

Separately towards Muslims:

"Lowe's may not be the only big company to cave under pressure from the Florida Family Association.

The conservative group claims that more than 60 companies that it emailed, from Amazon to McDonald's, have also pulled adds from TLC's All-American Muslim, according to the AP."

Using public "movements" to attempt to change corporations actions cuts both ways.

As has already been noted above, there is no requirement that everyone listen to or support other people's speech... The only issue regarding free speech is against govt censorship...

Link to comment

In a recent address at UVU, Elder Oaks expressed concern that freedom of religion and freedom of speech were under attack.  (http://www.deseretnews.com/article/865601203/At-UVU-Elder-Oaks-sees-hope-despite-alarming-religious-liberty-trends.html).  One example he cited was the forced resignation of the CEO of Mozilla.  Per the DN:

 

[Elder Oaks] mentioned the recent resignation of Mozilla's new CEO over a $1,000 donation he made to Proposition 8 six years ago. Elder Oaks called it "another unfortunate example of bullying and intimidation that too often seeks to censor speech in the public square."

 

Today I was very pleased to read a public statement entitled: "Freedom to Marry, Freedom to Dissent: Why We Must Have Both." 

(http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2014/04/22/freedom_to_marry_freedom_to_dissent_why_we_must_have_both_122376.html#ixzz2zfDStjuJ)

The statement expresses concern regarding the Mozilla incident similar to that expressed by Elder Oaks'.  The statement is signed by prominent supporters of SSM who believe that opponents should be treated with respect and allowed to speak dissent without punishment.  The signers include some authors I admire, including Will Saletan, Andrew Sullivan, and Eugene Volokh. 

With all the negative issues we routinely discuss on this board (especially me), I think it healthy to point to good news when we can.  For myself, I resonate strongly with the Christ-like examples of these signatories and millions of others who, to borrow a phrase from Elder Maxwell, drank from a bitter cup but did not become bitter themselves.  These people give me hope for the future.  The world is a good place and it is getting better. 

 

I wonder if One Million Moms and their attempts to "censor speech in the public square" will ever incur the public disapproval of Elder Oaks.

Link to comment

I wonder if One Million Moms and their attempts to "censor speech in the public square" will ever incur the public disapproval of Elder Oaks.

 

I don't know this group well.  I just glanced at their website.  To the degree they oppose porn, I'm pretty sure Elder Oaks would consider that as less worthy "speech" than religious speech.  However, they also appear to oppose shows that provide support for polygamy (e.g., My Five Wives).  I could see how polygamy could be a religious speech issue worthy of equal protection to any other religious speech.

 

I also wish that the church would lead by example on this issue at times where it is others' speech/religion that needs to be defended rather than our own.  For instance, it would have been nice to have LDS members in Manhattan and Tennessee show up to voice support for muslims building mosques in those communities.  It would also be nice for the church to recognize that much of the support for SSM stems from religous views that have as much place in the "marketplace of ideas" as the LDS church's views.  To wit, I have to wonder if our support of Prop 8 had the effect of limiting the religious freedom of other faiths who wished to perform those types of marriages as a part of their religious expression.

Link to comment

I don't know this group well.  I just glanced at their website.  To the degree they oppose porn, I'm pretty sure Elder Oaks would consider that as less worthy "speech" than religious speech.  However, they also appear to oppose shows that provide support for polygamy (e.g., My Five Wives).  I could see how polygamy could be a religious speech issue worthy of equal protection to any other religious speech.

 

I was thinking of their recent actions against Honey Maid for its commercial that showed families headed by same-gender couples.  And, the OMM boycott of JC Penney for having hired Ellen DeGeneres (gay marriage advocate) as their spokesperson.

 

I also wish that the church would lead by example on this issue at times where it is others' speech/religion that needs to be defended rather than our own.  For instance, it would have been nice to have LDS members in Manhattan and Tennessee show up to voice support for muslims building mosques in those communities.  It would also be nice for the church to recognize that much of the support for SSM stems from religous views that have as much place in the "marketplace of ideas" as the LDS church's views.

 

Totally agree.

 

To wit, I have to wonder if our support of Prop 8 had the effect of limiting the religious freedom of other faiths who wished to perform those types of marriages as a part of their religious expression.

 

I suppose that it didn't "limit" religious freedoms as every church still had the ability to perform whatever marriages it approved of.  But it certainly gave special recognition to those who believe that only man-woman marriages are affirmed by God.

Link to comment

True.

But I'm not seeing the relevance of this comment to the subject of the thread. Can you connect the dots for me?

Free Speech is a freedom "from" Govt interference in our expression...

It is not freedom from objections and responses from non-govt entities that disagree with us, or even freedom from a govt. response expressing dissent to our speech.

The fact that society is objecting to some forms of speech or lifestyle statements, and that groups in society are expressing their discontent with such speech and life style statements via shopping preferences and other forms of capitalist and economic sanctions, is the result of a society where freedom of expression is a reality.

Religious freedom of speech is not under attack.

The substance of some forms of religious speech is under attack, but via legitimate means.

We don't have the right to live in a society and have our beliefs and ideas fully supported, but do do live in a society (assuming you live in one of a number of first world democracies) where such beliefs must be tolerated by the Govt. and the maximum legitimate response is other people telling us they disagree and some predictable shifts in capitalist market purchasing habits.

Edited by Bikeemikey
Link to comment

Buckeye,

What does the Mozilla CEO resigning - which we are lead to believe was due to a boycott - have to do with Freedom from government interference with speech?

I don't think it has anything to do with it.

Here is a repost of my most recent thoughts on this:

Free Speech is a freedom "from" Govt interference in our expression...

It is not freedom from objections and responses from non-govt entities that disagree with us, or even freedom from a govt. response expressing dissent to our speech.

The fact that society is objecting to some forms of speech or lifestyle statements, and that groups in society are expressing their discontent with such speech and life style statements via shopping preferences and other forms of capitalist and economic sanctions, is the result of a society where freedom of expression is a reality.

Religious freedom of speech is not under attack.

The substance of some forms of religious speech is under attack, but via legitimate means.

We don't have the right to live in a society and have our beliefs and ideas fully supported, but do do live in a society (assuming you live in one of a number of first world democracies) where such beliefs must be tolerated by the Govt. and the maximum legitimate response is other people telling us they disagree and some predictable shifts in capitalist market purchasing habits.

Link to comment

Censorship!!!!!!

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!!

 

I hope I don't draw the ire of the mods, but the deletion of your comment is somewhat ironic considering this thread.  At least you got 6 rep points.  That should be some kind of record for a deleted comment.

Link to comment

I hope I don't draw the ire of the mods, but the deletion of your comment is somewhat ironic considering this thread.  At least you got 6 rep points.  That should be some kind of record for a deleted comment.

Don't tell anyone but I was actually kind of hoping the comment would be removed for that very reason.

Link to comment

Free Speech is a freedom "from" Govt interference in our expression...

It is not freedom from objections and responses from non-govt entities that disagree with us, or even freedom from a govt. response expressing dissent to our speech.

The fact that society is objecting to some forms of speech or lifestyle statements, and that groups in society are expressing their discontent with such speech and life style statements via shopping preferences and other forms of capitalist and economic sanctions, is the result of a society where freedom of expression is a reality.

Religious freedom of speech is not under attack.

The substance of some forms of religious speech is under attack, but via legitimate means.

We don't have the right to live in a society and have our beliefs and ideas fully supported, but do do live in a society (assuming you live in one of a number of first world democracies) where such beliefs must be tolerated by the Govt. and the maximum legitimate response is other people telling us they disagree and some predictable shifts in capitalist market purchasing habits.

There seems to be some confusion on the part of Elder Oaks regarding free speech. Free speech has never been considered to protect a person from private economic reprisal, only from governmental suppression. Since that is a fairly basic legal concept, his comment would appear to be a rather willful example of a Church celebrity attempting to manipulate members politics. One can make legitimate arguments to defend anti SSM advocates , but this was not one of them.

Link to comment

I'll post a picture when I get home, as I threw my copy in the recycling, but I was reading the newspaper on the subway to church today, where it discussed the accreditation denial of a Christian law school here in Ontario.

 

Trinity Western, a private Christian school in BC, requires that its students sign a "covenant" to refrain from sexual activity before marriage, marriage being defined as a sacred relationship between a man and a woman. They just applied to start an accredited law school, and while they have received tentative approval from the federal and provincial BC government, the Ontario Law Association just voted not to accredit them. The chief reason was the covenant, which is seen as discriminatory against homosexuals, and as such, any graduate from the school will not be recognized by the Ontario bar. There is also a lawsuit which has been filed against the BC court which first approved the law school, along with several protests to do so.

 

Edit: Found relevant article online - http://www.vancouversun.com/life/Ontario+society+votes+accrediting+Trinity+Western+University/9770891/story.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3a+canwest%2fF229+(Vancouver+Sun+-+News)

Edited by halconero
Link to comment

There seems to be some confusion on the part of Elder Oaks regarding free speech. Free speech has never been considered to protect a person from private economic reprisal, only from governmental suppression. Since that is a fairly basic legal concept, his comment would appear to be a rather willful example of a Church celebrity attempting to manipulate members politics. One can make legitimate arguments to defend anti SSM advocates , but this was not one of them.

Elder Oaks isn't a "Church celebrity." He's a senior apostle; I doubt that any plausible Latter-day Saints are going to accuse him of "attempting to manipulate members politics." He was also a distinguished jurist. If there's any "confusion" about "free speech," I doubt that it is his.

Regards,

Pahoran

Link to comment

Elder Oaks isn't a "Church celebrity." He's a senior apostle; I doubt that any plausible Latter-day Saints are going to accuse him of "attempting to manipulate members politics." He was also a distinguished jurist. If there's any "confusion" about "free speech," I doubt that it is his.

Regards,

Pahoran

Stone holm has a rather caustic dislike for Elder Oaks, which he has been rather unguarded in expressing on occasion here on this board.

Link to comment

Stone holm has a rather caustic dislike for Elder Oaks, which he has been rather unguarded in expressing on occasion here on this board.

Does that mean you disagree with Stone's statement"

 

Free speech has never been considered to protect a person from private economic reprisal, only from governmental suppression

 

 

or are you just here to attack him.

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...