Speaking as the OP, I think the provided links as well as my first response made it clear that the issue wasn’t banning or even protesting. The duplicitous way that GLAAD collected a donation for a good cause then went to the press claiming that was an admission of guilt just sucks.
Sounds like they’re telling others how to live their lives. Pretty hypocritical for GLAAD. I don’t agree with the anti-homosexual comments (which they alledge are in the film), but it is just as much their right to say that as it is for GLAAD to complain (who I also disagree with in this particular circumstance.)
Once again, they assert that it is wrong to present any opinion other than the pro-GLAAD one.
Sure GLAAD has the right to their opinion, as I have my right to disagree with it.
Compelling someone to alter their free expression because it offends you is where my problem falls. I am in no way saying that GLAAD should have a different opinion. I am simply saying that they, and everyone else, should stop short of censorship.
qwertyasdfg: From what I can see, no-one is suggesting that GLAAD be given the power to stop you from saying anything - the suggestion is that GLAAD, as a body that is concerned with speaking against negative stereotyping of gay & lesbians, “should speak out against representations that pose a threat to gay and lesbian people”. You quoted this sentence yourself (the italics are yours) - didn’t you bother reading what you wrote?
Unless I completely misunderstand the concept of free speech, GLAAD are completely free to give voice their disapproval of homophobia - or is there a special subclause that allows freedom of speech for bigoted purposes.
Yes, they’re free to speak out against what they percieve to be wrong. But the fact that they essentially compelled this guy to put something in his movie that, to some degree negates it, is what bothers me.
What do you mean by essentially compelled?
constructive dialogue=compelled?
To quote GLAAD’s article
Kevin asked to make a personal donation as well. Kevin’s donation is a significant gesture of goodwill and concern for a good cause, and it stands on its own merit. and This has never been about Kevin Smith
I think that Kevin Smith was just making sure no one thought it was an admission of guilt.
Of course it was “constructive” for them. They got what they wanted. By compelled I mean that he was pressured strongly by a third party to edit his expression. If he hadn’t done anything, you can bet GLAAD would be raising hell and denouncing the movie.
If GLAAD wants to express their point of view, they should do their own movie, not force it into someone else’s.
If someone did a pro-gay movie, and the KKK demanded that their be a disclaimer at the end that said “Homosexuality is evil” nobody would expect that their demand be met. Why is this any different? Because only “right-thinking” message should be expressed?
qwerty: I’m sure there are several groups who decry pro gay movies (starting with any number of religious groups - who also generally have a tendency to call for boycotts). I’m sure they would love to see a “homosexuality is evil” diclaimer at the end of any such movie. They probably don’t ever try, because they know it’s useless - society has (thankfully) changed sufficiently to avoid expressing bigotry. GLAAD try and have disclaimers put on because they are attempting the opposite - avoiding bigotry as opposed to affirming it. If GLAAD were trying to get a disclaimer put in that read “Heterosexuality is evil”, then your KKK analogy would have some sort of accuracy - till then, you’ll need a better argument than that one.
Somehow, I don’t think you can argue that Kevin was compelled by GLAAD - they plain don’t have it in their power to do so. If he wasn’t receptive to their arguments in the first place, he just plain would not have tacked on that disclaimer.
The message that speaking like Jay does (Silent Bob obviously doesn’t speak) is unacceptable and wrong is just as intolerant as “Homosexuality is evil.” How about “live and let live” folks? It professes that a lifestyle other than what they approve is “unacceptable.” (In other words, an alliance against defamation is using defamation as a tool to further their agenda.)
I’d like to say that I am NOT against gay rights. I simply believe that the same rights should be extended to all. No matter how moronic, ignorant, or intolerant we deem them to be, you can bet they have the same thoughts about your beliefs.
If you don’t like the KKK, refute them to kingdom come, but treat them equally. Think of Confucius’s “Golden Rule.” Treat others as you would have others treat you.
The truth has never been found in censorship or ignorance.
Qwerty: We seem to be arguing fairly similar things here. The main difference is that I’m not sure that GLAAD are attempting any sort of censorship. They’re saying that they find homophobia unacceptable. You seem to think that by stating that, they are advocating censorship of homophobic statements - and I’m not sure I’m going to accept that assumption without further evidence.
I don’t think you’re going to try and tell me that they don’t have the right to freely express their opinion on matters of bigotry - so I can’t see where the problem is in what they’re doing.
Qwertyasdfg ok so applying your logic to the situation leads me to this. People can’t express their own views on movies critically, right? In fact critisizing movies is a immoral thing to do. Instead of telling a person that a movie stinks you should go out and make your own as you have no right to force your opinion onto the movie.
Sterra: Have your been reading what I said? Or just skimming it for stuff to argue about? My only problem with what GLAAD did was that they used thier influence to put their message into someone elses “free” expression.