RECENT  POSTS:  » NOM versus David Koch » Anti-equality baseball player calls reporter 'a prick' for asking about his anti-equality advocacy » Audio: Josh Duggar defends discrimination, invalidates own point » Audio: AFA's Fischer names 'homosexual agenda' as 'greatest threat to liberty' in American history » Audio: AFA Radio caller calls for executing gays; FRC-employed host doesn't even challenge him, much less condemn » NOM president's other organization is 'in trouble' (his words) too » FRC prays to take LGBT Americans out of nondiscrimination law » In lieu of typing 'Look how desperate we are' over and over again, NOM president wrote this instead » I'll remind you that FRC also compared our marriages to human-horse unions » GLAAD: Scott Lively claims homosexuality worse than mass murder 'from God's perspective'  

« Go back a post || Return to G-A-Y homepage || Haul tail to next post »

07/20/2009

Focus on the new opportunity to push back

by Jeremy Hooper

Focus on the Family now has a blog. With comments. Oh boy.

Have at it, peeps. Be firm but fair. Be charming but unwavering. Oh, and please remember to take a screenshot for if (when?) the moderators fail to approve your comment:

Crazy Boise. [FOF's new Drive Thru blog]

With transparency, we always win. It's time to hold some digital feet to the deceptive fire!


**Here is this writer's comment, which is still in moderation limbo:

(Please excuse spelling/punctuation/grammatical errors. I didn't proof it before posting)
200907202146

**UPDATE, 7/21: Above comment has now been deleted, along with two others that I've tried to post:

Picture 15-83Picture 16-68

space gay-comment gay-G-A-Y-post gay-email gay-writer-jeremy-hooper


Your thoughts

I love it when those fighting for equal opportunity are so articulate and appear so much smarter than the opposition. Seriously, it all comes down to freedom and love and they cannot argue with that. Thank you Jeremy.

Posted by: Jeve (aka John and Steve) | Jul 20, 2009 9:58:21 PM

It looks like they haven't gotten any comments for any of the posts they have put up.

Posted by: Dawn/FFL | Jul 20, 2009 10:15:54 PM

I found their policy on comments interesting. (insert a Jeremy eye roll here) I quote:

"Comments are not guaranteed to be posted. They are moderated and will only appear if approved and selected for publication. We are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing comments, but submissions that are offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious will not be considered. Messages may occasionally be edited for content, length and privacy. Comments on this blog may not refer specifically to any current electoral candidate, or any measure on a current ballot – at any level of local, state, or federal government."

I supose this constitutes their understanding of freedom of speech. I have been trying to figure out if there is an intelgence and logic exemption in there some where. I also love that they reserve the right to "...edit for content, length and privacy..." I suspect that they are very good at that.

Your comments, Jeremy, while well spoken, logical and inteligent would probably be considered by the to be at least: offensive because you disagree with them; overly personal because you tell them that you are married; disrespectful because you use the "civil" argument as being seperate from their faith based reasons.

I would bet they will not post your comments.

Posted by: Bob Miller | Jul 20, 2009 11:01:04 PM

That "Crazy Boise" title sounds like the opposite of what it is. Are you sure these aren't moles for our side doing deep undercover work? Hilarious

Posted by: Lauren | Jul 20, 2009 11:03:18 PM

I'm not sure we can really hope for much for our comments to get through. According to their comment policy:

Comments are not guaranteed to be posted. They are moderated and will only appear if approved and selected for publication. We are eager to facilitate conversation by publishing comments, but submissions that are offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious will not be considered. Messages may occasionally be edited for content, length and privacy.

Comments on this blog may not refer specifically to any current electoral candidate, or any measure on a current ballot – at any level of local, state, or federal government.

Pretty stringent terms to screen the comments they don't agree with, if you ask me.

Posted by: Marcus | Jul 21, 2009 12:47:47 AM

"offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious"

Well my comment doesn't fall into any of these categories, and I wouldn't expect any of yours to qualify either. So there is no credible reason why they should shut us out, even per their own terms.

But this is why it's so important that you take a screen shot of your comment. Get it to me, and I'll post it on here. If they end up not showing our words, then I will make sure people see what they are shutting out.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 21, 2009 6:58:19 AM

They don't seem to have approved any comments on any of their posts, so I doubt we're going to get anywhere on this one.

Posted by: Sean Wills | Jul 21, 2009 7:17:36 AM

Well Sean, since we've only been posting during non-work hours, I'm gonna give them the benefit of the doubt. G-A-Y's comments don't go through overnight either.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 21, 2009 7:33:30 AM

We have to remember to be careful about tossing out accusations that they're curbing speech... It's their website, and they do have that right, just as much as Donald Trump has the right to fire his employee, say... Miss California ;)

As long as the government isn't deciding who can speak, FRC can do whatever they want. It's a very poor editorial choice when you give a voice only to your side. But who ever accused FRC of making good decisions?

Jeremy, your screenshots are a great reminder of how dishonest these people are (your comments *clearly* do not violate their Terms of Use), and they're also very entertaining in a Liberty Live kind of way. Geez, I miss your highlight clips. Ever think of making a best-of Liberty Live compliation post?

Posted by: DN | Jul 21, 2009 9:35:34 AM

DN: Well of course nobody is denying FOF their legal right to deny comments. We are just going to use it to highlight how insistent these folks are on shutting out dissenting views. The screenshots (I already have a few) will help to do that.

I must admit that I do miss Liberty Live. I'd love to know what went down behind the scenes to make AFA to abruptly pull it.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 21, 2009 11:01:27 AM

As of Tuesday morning @ 11:55 am (in PA) there are now two comments that are time stamped July 20, in the evening. The one from Jonathan actually makes sense. The other one sounds like a cheer for FOF.

Posted by: Bob Miller | Jul 21, 2009 11:58:42 AM

My comment must have given them something to think about....there are approved comments above and below my own. sigh.....

Posted by: keltic | Jul 21, 2009 12:08:47 PM

Update: Some (but not all) of your comments have been posted. However, none of my own have been published. The one that I printed above has been completely deleted. Two others are now in moderation limbo.

Also, it's interesting to note that they've posted a comment from one of their supportes who calls David Boies a "lunatic," yet have shut out my perfectly fair words that fully push back on the message rather than the individual.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 21, 2009 12:20:59 PM

woot! I'm approved!

Posted by: keltic | Jul 21, 2009 1:17:35 PM

I'm still "awaiting moderation." It would be a funny metaphor were I prone to excess.

Posted by: Derek in DC | Jul 21, 2009 2:10:28 PM

Some get through, some get strewn...

Clearly, however, the moderator isn't receiving very many comments from readers of his own ilk. That's ha-ha-ha funny to me.

Posted by: David Cox | Jul 21, 2009 4:50:43 PM

Amusingly, most of the approved comments are in favor of marriage equality.

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Jul 21, 2009 5:00:52 PM

Well mine are no longer even in moderation: They have apparently been deleted.

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 21, 2009 5:20:08 PM

"offensive, vulgar, overly personal, cynical, disrespectful, irrelevant, redundant or unnecessarily contentious"

I have yet to read one of their own blog posts that would withstand the very scrutiny that they are supposedly applying to comments.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 21, 2009 7:19:21 PM

To their credit, of the 7 or 8 that they have "approved", only one of them supports her lies.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 21, 2009 8:46:49 PM

Goodness gracious, mine wasn't approved.

Hmmmm. Imagine that.

And I did give a measured, non-confrontational comment simply discussing how a society is best benefitted by encouraging same-sex couples rather than single same-sex attracted singles. It reduces the burden on the state.

Posted by: Timothy Kincaid | Jul 21, 2009 9:47:41 PM

And my comment has been censored (deleted) as well. At the same time that they approved another comment which lavishly praised their willingness to publish dissenting comments.

Posted by: Dick Mills | Jul 22, 2009 11:56:11 AM

Everyone: Check out the twitter page of FOF's Gary Schneeberger for an "explanation" of why some of us have been shutout. Of course he's working the "terms" lines, even though we have clearly demonstrated not to be in violation. And he is seriously comparing this decision to the NY Times not printing an editor's letter:

http://twitter.com/gschneeberger

Posted by: G-A-Y | Jul 22, 2009 12:14:10 PM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy


 
Related Posts with Thumbnails