Well? Does being gay mean they have to be in favour of it?
No, it just means they have an even more stupid and crazy reason for being opposed than, “Gays are evil.” Which is no small feat.
Well, obviously some are. They’re self-proving!
Dolce isn’t so dolce after all!
The designers seem to think that a private citizen calling for a boycott of their products due to something they said is some kind of censorship of their right to speak out their opinion.
I got this story on NPR, where you can see more. One of the comments therein referenced “a certain Twitter celebrity” (I have no idea who) to the effect that “the right to be an asshole and the right to object to you being an asshole is the same fucking right.” (paraphrased)
And I fully agree with your second paragraph, which is more to the point anyway than the freedom of speech issue.
Uh, I would say they should. It’s kind of like blacks supporting Jim Crow.
Will this be anything anyone will even be talking about tomorrow? I was a little agog at the local news covering it - must be a slow day. Sure, I can see Entertainment Tonight or whatever covering it, but NBC? It’s completely irrelevant, what some dumbass designer has to say will have zero effect on anybody.
“Freedom of speech” doesn’t seem to be an issue here.
What do you think “freedom to speak” means?
Yeah, but it mostly has to do with refusing to accept that standards apply to everybody equally.
They’re entitled to their opinion, so’s Elton. And everybody else is welcome to each-body-else’s opinion and let’s have a bonfire and sing kumbayah!
As I suggested, read post #2.
Uh, I would say they don’thave to. It’s kind of like saying if I’m a white man, I should be in favour of everything white men are calling for.
I didn’t say they have to. I said they should. In other words, it would be in their best interests, in the best interest of gay rights. If they don’t, they’re freaking morons. Of course, they have a right to be freaking morons.
Goodwill stores got that shit? Wow!
They also have the right to not support something that would be “in their best interests” if they believe that (a) there is an ethical consideration here and (b) ethical considerations trump self-interest.* Of course, you have a right to call people freaking morons for holding a point of view like that.
*I’m talking about what they might believe - I have no axe to grind on this issue for myself.
They’d be Ratner Awards.
First Barilla, now D&G? WTF, Italy?
It might be amusing to debate what “Freedom of Speech” really means in The Land of the Free™.
Here’s a picture of political protesters exercising free speech inside a cage with police stationed at the gate, lest a speaker escape. (That picture is from this article, though I think restricting “free speech” to parts of towns where no one goes has recently occurred elsewhere in The Home of the Brave™.)
In America the right to “free speech” led to protests when a fraternity was suspended for disgusting racism. In America “free speech” means major news stations are happy to compare the President and his wife to apes. In America, the Supreme Court has effectively ruled that “free speech” applies more to corporations than to humans; increasingly we should expect politicians to be bought-and-paid-for.
Right-wing assholes brag that the Koch Brothers and Rupert Murdoch exert enormous control in America because of “free speech.”
Pro tip for Europeans: When you see an American bragging about his First or Second Amendment Rights, run the other way.
For some people, having your position “shouted down by the crowd” gets called “fascism”(*), even if the “crowd” happens to be your own – essentially there is everywhere a segment of *every *population group that feels like freedom means anyone should be able to say anything any time, anywhere without consequences from any source. In the fraternity thread the question was asked: if something becomes so socially unacceptable that you dare not express it for fear of consequences, are you still free to express it.
The majority position in the US culture seems to be “yes”, freedom is not immunity; also, however, (and I agree with this one) that there exists NO “right to not feel offended”, if you feel offended (but it’s not false libel) then it’s up to you to counterexpress.
(*And in some parts of the world, too many things are called “fascism” to the point of seriously eroding the concept)
Which still puts D&G just blowing smoke – they are free to say they prefer traditional families for children’s upbringing and Elton is free to tell them to cram their product line and advocate that others avoid it. Freedom all around! (Ricky Martin, OTOH, I ding for posting a tweet about “spreading h8” because he typed “h8”)
BTW septimus, the last fellow who compared the First Lady with an ape on national TV got sacked muy rápido. So there’s that.
They have the freedom of speech to say what they want. Elton John also has freedom of speech, so he can say what he wants about what they said. Freedom of speech doesn’t mean you get to say whatever you want and nobody gets to disagree or say anything negative about it.
Elton John is not, as far as I know, an agent of any government. He’s also not, as far as I know, calling on any government to do anything to Dolce and Gabbana because of what they said.