Good As You

I agree with what a poster of Pam's blog wrote:

"This kind of protest is obnoxious, ridiculous and unfair - not to mention disrespectful of free speech. If I were a Smithie, I'd be crawling in shame."

Both you and Pam would be singing a far different tune if it were the YAF breaking up a 'pro-gay' event. I'd echo your protests too as free speech is the right of ALL Americans and not just the select few. This protest should have been held outdoors or perhaps turned into something more productive: why not challenge Sorba to a debate where he has to defend his outlandish positions? What these students did in silencing him though was reprehensible.

This is challenging; I don't know quite how to feel about the protest.

I'm tempted to take a hard line approach and say that free speech must be respected in all forms, and I'm tempted to see this as students responding to hate speech brought to their campus by letting their own voices be heard (quite literally), similar maybe to someone being booed off of stage.

I think it might come down to how you see Mr. Sorba as having been silenced. Was his voice silenced by official act, say for example the University prohibiting the event outright, or was his voice silenced because it was drowned out by the voices of civilians who disagreed with his hate?

John:

(A) Don't lump me and Pam in the same box as if we are a monolith. We are separate people with separate ideas.

(B) It's is completely unfair to suggest that the students should have only protested outdoors. What happened is that everyone was invited to attend, and it just organically came about that LOADS of pro-gay voices wanted to be on site to challenge Sorba. And they absolutely should do so!

(C) The "silencing" seems to have come about organically, stemming from the fact that most on Smith's campus view anti-gay attitides with condemnation. The voice of opposition was just that strong

(D) Don't be sure as to how I would react if the situation was reversed. If a pro-gay speech were given on Liberty University, the situation would surly be flipped. Actually no, b/c they prob. wouldn't allow such a speech. But if they did allow the speech and the exact same thing arose (again, because of the organic makeup of the audience), I would admittedly be annoyed because the forces of acceptance once again lost out to the forces of discrimination. But I would not be saying it stifled free speech!

"Was his voice silenced by official act, say for example the University prohibiting the event outright, or was his voice silenced because it was drowned out by the voices of civilians who disagreed with his hate?"

Exactly, Zortnac. It was the latter that happened. And yes, this is a distinction that matters!

But it's okay to be of two minds on this. We all too often want to boil situations down to base level. These matters are more complex than that.

I listened to one of Sorba's speeches over at Pam's. The guy can hardly speak and what he was saying seemed to be mostly quotes of others. I really don't know much about him (I'm going to Google him), but I wonder why he thinks he's such an authority?

Mike: He's pretty bad. And yes, he lifts things from all over the Internet.

In the post that I referenced in the first paragraph, I literally spent about ten minutes checking some of his "facts." It was astounding how easily it was to locate the exact places where he found his info. The worst offense I saw in my brief examination was when he took an anti-gay's assessment of a pro-gay book and tried to put the spin into the mouths of the pro-gay authors (who never said what he claims they did).

Jeremy: I understand that you and Pam are separate people with your own views, that wasn't the point. I do believe you'd be saying differently if it were a 'pro-gay' event that was broken up by an 'anti-gay' demonstration. The fact that this wasn't an 'official' action to silence Sorba is immaterial because the same principle applies. Nobody forced those who object to Sorba to attend this event, they freely chose to do so. I have a big problem with these kinds of tactics because they can so easily be turned around and used against people I myself may agree with or support. What these students did was wrong, which in no way means that the crap Sorba was peddling was right.

I recall similar anti-gay groups here recently busting into gay-friendly churches in the middle of a sermon, just to go hollering and handing out pamphlets (likely about "ex-gay" crap). These same people go walking into and around gay bars, hollering and throwing a fit.

It's about time these nuts get a taste of their own medicine, and would be nice if this happened more often.

As for "peaceful protesting with signs", forget that. Nobody pays attention to those hippies.

I've seen a lot of gay activists trying to scare the online GLBT community into believing stuff like this creates "martyrs" out of these loons. Get with the program, these kooks ALREADY think they're ALL martyrs - from this guy to Stacy Harp to James Hartline to Peter LaBarbera to Matt Barber. In their own fucked-up heads, they're "martyrs", "the persecuted", and even more hilarious "a minority".

The "heckler's veto" is the lowest form of speech. The answer to bad speech, even "hate" speech is not less speech (and yes, an angry mob silencing someone is less speech), but more speech. Our rights only extend as far as we are willing to extend them to those we disagree with. Those that wish to silence other's speech rights deserve none of their own. Shame on the angry mob!

As a queer Smithie who decided not to attend, I can see both sides of the issue. This kind of booing offstage is playing right into Sorba's tactics--see this website on his campaign:
http://theconservativerevolution.com/campus-politics/ryan-sorbas-campus-campaign/

I wish that we had a protest that both allowed him to speak and made our views obvious. Given the lack of queer organizations/their leadership on campus at the moment, this would have been hard to do.

According to Louise's post at PHB just now. Mass Resistance posted an announcement on their site, including
"Public is Invited! Police Protection because of threats of disruption- don't let that stop you from hearing the truth.

She feels the Smithies 'GOT PLAYED.' and responded just exactly the way MR expected/desired them to do.

They certainly need a better organized movement on their campus.

Thanks for posting that link, Marc. I followed it to the Mass Resistance site and found out that Sorba is turning his talks into a book. I sincerely hope that the Religious Right exploits this as refuting it will be fun. I say that after listening to about 4 video clips of his speech. He tosses out statistics and quotes which will have to be sourced in his book and that's where the fun all begins. I'm particularly interested in his "71%" figure which claims that this amount of kids raised by same-sex couples turn out to be gay. Where on earth he pulled that from shall be amusing to see. I imagine that Jeremy at this site and Jim over on Box Turtle Bulletin will spend some commenting on it once it gains some traction among the anti-gay crowd...

Honestly being a smith student and seeing the event take place i felt a bit of shame. Smith is about respect of all views not just the majority. It is understandable that these women would have been upset that this man was coming because they didnt agree with his view. But so did many of the black students here at smith during the blackface incident last semester, but that group did not riot or attempt to attack that young lady. Bottom line, everyone is entitled to their own beliefs and opinions and doesnt deserve to silence.
On top of all of this not only did this small group of women disrespect mr sorba, but also the institution as a whole. Climbing through the windows of Neilson Library is highly disrespectful to the building. Smith College is a college of women of distinction not distruction and it only takes a small group to make the whole bunch look bad.
While i do not agree with Mr Sorba's views offer him an apology on behalf of the rest of the students who have a sense of respect for others views. While u do not have to accept it u should respect it.

In the absence of official action (i.e., the college did not limit Sorba's speech, nor was any government entity involved), what we have left is the free marketplace of ideas. There's no free speech issue involved at all. The demonstration was perhaps not the most desirable method of countering Sorba, but then democracy is an unruly sort of creature.

To take the position that we must all listen respectfully to lies and distortions and only counter them by reasoned arguments ignores the lessons of our own recent history: if those who espouse repellent causes are well-funded and well-connected, then those who espouse causes that are what we all here, I think, would consider morally superior are at a disadvantage from the start. That's what has happened with the religious right and its anti-gay campaign from the very beginning: they have gotten the coverage because their message is controversial and inflammatory; reasoned responses have been ignored because they're not "news," and they can generate huge amounts of cash by scaring the bejesus out of their adherents.

We're also dealing with sophists here -- because the protesters shut Sorba down, he's a victim and his rights have been violated (which they haven't, by any sane measure, but bigots seem to have problems dealing with the disgust generated by their screeds). If he'd been allowed to speak, then his message, with all the BS included, would have gone out. It's a no-win situation for anyone interested in gay rights. He's probably ultimately happier about the protest than not.

My suggestion would be to set him up in a panel. His talk is probably canned, which should give other participants ample time to bolster their counter arguments. Make him defend the BS in public. And then watch him squirm.

But don't give people like him a forum where they can appear unopposed.

I go to Smith College (but I'm abroad right now). I'm actually quite ashamed of my fellow students. They conducted themselves poorly, and they accomplished nothing more than degrading the reputation of Smith College. The students violated college policy against abridging free speech. Surely the women at my school are cunning enough to find some way of protesting that doesn't involve acting like four-year-olds?

This, by the way, is what they violated: http://www.smith.edu/sao/handbook/policies/freeexpression.php

Not for nothing, but some of our greatest advances have come from angry, loud protests: think Stonewall riots and Act Up.
It might not be appropriate for every situation, but there are definitely times when standing up and shouting down an a-hole is more than the appropriate tactic.

Hunter: The "marketplace of ideas" isn't free if one group bullies another into silence - that goes for all sides in this. This wasn't an event that was for public debate, just like if say Joe Solomese or John Corvino were giving a speech on why being gay isn't this horrible thing that the Religious Right claims. I would have had no problem if they had of protested outside and/or challenged Sorba to a future debate, but disrupting his speech like this was wrong.

Eric: Stonewall wasn't about silencing an opposing group but was in response to political and police persecution of homosexuals. As for ACT-UP, surely you don't mean misguided actions of theirs like the mid-1980s storming of the NYC cathedral? The Church hierarchy aside, how many Catholics did this stunt alienate and for how many years afterwards? This kind of behavior has consquences. If it's the group I oppose, I can live with that, but I'm not so keen on seeing my ox being gored because somebody else is acting like an ass.

I still believe this event was perfectly appropriate.

The "ex-gays" and their supporters are always trying to worm their way into each and every GLBT event "to give an opposing view on homosexuality", but would NEVER allow an openly gay person to give their opposing view at any of their events. With that, these people need to start storming "ex-gay" appearances too.

John, I don't think that Act-Up had any effect on what Catholics think about gays. They chose to alienate themselves long before, and were perfectly happy to sit back and watch god smite the ungodly homos with AIDS long before Act-Up.

The fact of the matter is that the actions of Act-Up kept the story of young men dying on the front pages of newspapers, which eventually led to early access to new antiviral drugs for a large number of very ill patients who had no hope without the drugs.

That said, I have mixed feelings about the actions of the ladies at Smith. One mantra that I live by is, "Never Piss Off The Lesbians!" Hell, surely, hath no fury like a lesbian scorned . . . and I say that with all the respect and admiration in the world, ladies.

But I do have to agree with an earlier post where someone suggested that Sorba went to Smith specifically to provoke such an uproar. Nothing sells books (or helps in the search for a publisher of the drek) like throwing the facade of a jihad on it.

John: If you take into account to my comments about recent history, funding, and connections, it's fairly obvious that the religious right has been bullying us into silence for years. I truly admire those who somehow find the grace to try to deal with these people as reasonable human beings, but I think it's a dead end. You can't have an honest dialogue with people who 1) are not honest (as witness the repeated presentation of lies and distortions as "facts" about homosexuality, which only recently have begun to be questioned by the press) and 2) do not consider that your point of view has any merit, nor does it deserve any respect, simply because they have the only correct outlook -- God told them so.

Perhaps the Smith students weren't polite, but, as Eric pointed out, Stonewall and ACT-UP weren't very polite. They were, however, effective. (And to try to separate out government repression from "private" repression in a country in which the government is working hand-in-glove with the Dobson Gang is, I think getting into shaky ground.)

And once again: Sorba's free speech rights were not violated. He's a hate-monger. That has consequences. He had to deal with those consequences. (And note how the whining always starts with "free speech," which apparently translates into wingnuttese as "I can say what I want without repercussions.") That is the free marketplace of ideas in action: if the popular reaction shouts you down, that should tell you something.

Dick: That's a misrepresentation of history. Catholic Religious and lay groups have been on the forefront of providing care for AIDS victims. I was speaking of Catholics in general, not about the hierarchy. Change tends to come from the bottom up, though it takes awhile. By their behavior, ACT-UP alienated many Catholics which was incredibly stupid.

This all aside, I've found the text of the canned speech Sorba gives:

http://conservativecolloquium.wordpress.com/?s=RYAN+SORBA

Sources for his remarks are given which makes responding all the more fun! Jim Burroway at Box Turtle Bulletin has been very good in the past showing how similiar claims like Sorba's were actually distortions of the sources used. It might be interesting to blog about that as I'm sure Jim has over the years already done most of the research far better than I could...