[CharlieMount]

Everything old is new again.

Miss California Anita Bryant

[Hittman]

Although Ms Dumbass's opinion is ignorant, all the controversy around this is a good example of the left getting way out of line.

The whole thing was a setup from the professionally obnoxious Perez Hilton, a man to unimaginative to create an original alias. It was intended to make her uncomfortable and create controversy.

This is not about politicians or policy makers, people whose opinions actually affect our lives. We're talking a bimbo who has nothing going for her but a nice body. Who cares what she things about anything? She's not there to think or make us think, to enlighten us or challenge our point of view. She's there to be an object, to be gawked at for a moment and then forgotten. (Does anyone remember last year's Miss America?) And since it's a role she chose for herself and worked hard to achieve, outrage about that is also a waste of breath.

I wouldn't be surprised if the whole thing was orchestrated behind the scenes by Trump to get attention to a dying contest no one cares about. It's like bringing Omerosa back on the Celebrity Apprentice for the sole purpose of stirring up the latrine pit.

[GrouchyOldDave]

Here's what Perez really should've asked her (NSFW!):

Do You Take It...

This is the kind of information that could really help the judges make their all-important decision.

[dcolanduno]

Ya,

I am going with Dave on this one. It seems to be a standard publicity stunt now with all these contests. After a winner is chosen, the news just dies right off and no one cares anymore.

The marketing goons figured out that if they can 'dig up' any sexual about a winner, and create a fake 'scandal' about it. The contest lives on in the news cycle for a LOT longer.

[Frederick]

Dave you just made my month...

[GrouchyOldDave]

Dave you just made my month...

It's a catchy tune, yes? I find myself humming it and smiling as I walk along sometimes...the world needs more romance.

[Grayven]

The bimbo has a right to be an ignorant bimbo.

Who cares?

[Dr. Science]

The bimbo has a right to be an ignorant bimbo.

Who cares?

I agree. And to be honest, while I consider myself to be a progressive sometimes I really get irritated with the way people on the left can badger others for having different opinions. I guess that it's only fair to say that many on the right are even worse in that aspect though.

What the hell ever happened to "I disagree with what you are saying but I defend your right to say it?"

[CharlieMount]

But it doesn't feel like an opinion so much as it smells of an oppressive ideology.

[Hittman]

How can that bimbo possibly oppress you?

[Frederick]

But it doesn't feel like an opinion so much as it smells of an oppressive ideology.

Freedom of speech and protection of private property are paramount.

[CharlieMount]

But it doesn't feel like an opinion so much as it smells of an oppressive ideology.

Freedom of speech and protection of private property are paramount.

Again. There is no Freedom of Speech issue here.

Not sure where you're going with "private property".

[Frederick]

QUOTE (CharlieMount @ Jun 9 2009, 04:51 PM) QUOTE (Frederick @ Jun 2 2009, 12:59 PM) QUOTE (CharlieMount @ May 27 2009, 07:41 PM) But it doesn't feel like an opinion so much as it smells of an oppressive ideology.


Freedom of speech and protection of private property are paramount.


Again. There is no Freedom of Speech issue here.

Not sure where you're going with "private property".


Someone asked her opinion, she gave it. She wasnt shouting at anybody.

She got penalised for having an opinion. Her freedom of speech was impeded, as is the freedom of speech of anybody else in a similar position in the future. That is a freedom of speech issue.

Also, freedom of speech and the protection of private property are inter-related.

Edit: I was being a jerk. sorry.

[GrouchyOldDave]

She got penalised for having an opinion. Her freedom of speech was impeded, as is the freedom of speech of anybody else in a similar position in the future. That is a freedom of speech issue.

How was her freedom of speech impeded? Freedom of speech does not mean you get to voice any opinion you want and not suffer consequences! It means that the government will not come and lock you up for saying it.

The fact that some judges (or even ONE judge, perhaps), who were selected by a PRIVATELY OWNED AND OPERATED pageant, were offended by what she said and did not award her sufficient points to win the pageant as a result does not qualify as suppression of speech.

Lets say that instead of asking about gay marriage, the judge had asked her about affirmative action and she had responded by saying something to the effect of "my family has always believed that black people should stop begging for advantages and taking away jobs that should be held by white people and that's what I think, too." We've all heard people make this argument with varying levels of sophistication, haven't we? It's not really all that far-fetched that such a question could have been asked, either. So if that had happened, and you were a judge, would you penalize her by not scoring her response very highly? Would you try to make sure she didn't win? Would it be suppressing her freedom of speech to do so?

Argument by analogy is pretty treacherous ground most of the time, but in this particular case, I think the analogy is pretty accurate. There was no freedom of speech issue at all. She was perfectly free to speak her mind, and the judges were perfectly free to score her accordingly. That's the purpose of the interview section of a pageant anyway. Well, that and because it allows them to pretend it's not just about who's the prettiest lass in all the land.

[Frederick]

GrouchyOldDave, on 26 June 2009 - 11:53 PM, said:

QUOTE (Frederick @ Jun 25 2009, 03:46 PM) She was perfectly free to speak her mind

Sorry mate, I don’t agree. Penalising and humiliating someone for being retarded is wrong. I am not only referring to the judges or this silly ~@%* (only an airhead would give that response in that forum), but to the public outcry, and all future contestants. Do you think any contestant would ever give an honest answer to that question ever again? No, they are now all forced to toe the "company" line. They have to have the correct opinion, or they have to lie.

If you want an analogy (you started it ), what if she were asked "Have you accepted Jesus as your saviour?". She would be forced to say Yes, or be penalised for it. Now the same is true for Gay Mariage.

As for the pageant being privately owned, the media and the entertainment industry have (in my mind) a duty to be fair, because they have a privileged position. If you don't believe that you need to read more Spiderman. This was as close to a public forum as you can get these days. People don’t congregate on Speakers Corner anymore, they don’t read much either, they sit and watch TV. There has to be some room for dissent somewhere.

Whether you force people to say the right thing or the wrong thing doesn’t matter, it’s always a bad idea.

I can understand that what she said does not agree with some people (I don't agree with her at all), but the point of letting everyone feel free to speak their mind in a public forum is that you are then free to speak yours. It’s not like she was running up and down the stage with a bucket, throwing shit a t everyone while screaming obscenities...

I am reminded of Faurisson, who was fired for having a unpopular opinion. Would you at least agree that some other French professors are now dissuaded from airing unpopular opinions?

Feel free to disagree, I am willing to consider anything.

[GrouchyOldDave]

Frederick, on 27 June 2009 - 09:09 AM, said:

the point of letting everyone feel free to speak their mind in a public forum is that you are then free to speak yours.

We agree on this point. She was free to speak her mind, other people then spoke their minds as well.

The point that we disagree on is that (unless I misunderstand what you're saying) you believe that the fact that she suffered a negative consequence as a result of what she said constitutes suppression of free speech, and I disagree with you on that point. While you are correct that the response to what she said may discourage others from saying similar things in similar circumstances, I still say that does not constitute suppression of speech. Again I say that freedom of speech does not mean freedom from consequences as a result of what one says.

Re: your analogy of accepting Jesus as savior, I agree that your analogy is as good as mine. The question could have been asked and depending upon who was doing the asking, you are absolutely right that a particular answer would've been the "right" answer and anything less would be penalized. Unfortunate, yes. Suppression of speech, no. Sometimes free speech takes courage, doesn't it? I don't know if this young lady was exhibiting courage or not, to be honest. She may have been.

I don't know anything about the French professor you cite who was apparently fired for voicing an unpopular opinion, but yes, I'm sure others are now nervous about expressing their views as well. It would be disingenuous or stupid of me to reply any other way. If he was fired merely for voicing an unpopular opinion, that's unfortunate. In the United States, depending upon circumstances, he might or might not have legal recourse.

In any case, you and I probably won't agree on this particular case, but isn't it great that we're free to voice our opinions here in such a civil fashion?

I'm off on a camping trip with my 12 year old son for the next 7 days, so it'll be awhile before I get back here and presumably something more interesting will have taken over discussions by then.