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


Surprise -- Matt's rage is once again misplaced

by Jeremy Hooper

Picture 28-9 1Aggressive gay foe Matt Barber is trying to make a big stink out of some aggressive comments that have been written on some gay blogs, with Matt acting as if isolated hyperbolic comments are (a) indicative of the gay community at large, and (b) something to which the individual blog owners should have to answer. Here's what Matt had to say to WorldNetDaily about the comments:

"This is not free speech; these are 'hate crimes' under the existing definition. Imagine if Christian websites were advocating such violence against homosexuals. There'd be outrage, and rightfully so. It'd be national front-page news. Federal authorities should immediately investigate these threats and prosecute the perpetrators to the fullest extent of the law."

Okay, first off: Hate crimes? Puh-leeze. Out of line? Perhaps. Uncalled for? Maybe. Deserving of scorn? Yes, some are. But anonymous people blowing off steam in a web forum is a "hate crime"? Well that's just ridiculous! And aren't the anti-gay evangelicals the ones who are always decrying anything that encroaches on "hate speech" regulations?!?!

Secondly: While most blog editors will delete comments if called to their attention, no blog owner is responsible for the comments. There are sometimes simply too many for all of them to be monitored. If social conservatives had the fortitude to open up comments on their sites rather than run closed-off (or heavily edited) forums, then they might understand this point.

Third, and most importantly: Flying off the handle is, unfortunately, something that happens online. From all sides. If we really had the time and energy, we would round up every crazy comment we have ever received from an ant-gay person. However, all we really have to do is direct you to the Digg page for this particularly story. There you will see that the very first comment made in reaction to Matt's outrage is this:

Picture 9-106

It completely invalidates and defuses his point! And this is just one of hundreds of instances of people on his side calling for "proactive or reactive" violence against gays -- over at FreeRepublic, you can see many more in direct response to this particular story. So is Matt going to give equal ink to these? Is he going to speak out against these supposed "hate crimes"? Or is that to Matt, these sorts of comments are just "self-defense" to having to share the Internet with us pesky gays?

*Matt's misplaced outrage: 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban [WND]

*The Digg page where you can find the above nasty comment (as well as others): DIGG- 'Gay' threats target Christians over same-sex 'marriage' ban [Digg]

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

Your thoughts

Under what existing definition are they Hate Crimes?

Posted by: Bill S | Nov 6, 2008 5:41:47 PM

I'm adding Matt Barber's name to the list of graves I'll be dancing on.

Posted by: Rainbow Phoenix | Nov 6, 2008 6:06:32 PM

So... I guess Matt really CAN'T tell the difference between hateful WORDS and hateful DEEDS. I wonder why that is? How weird! He really can't tell the difference between someone saying "I'mma kill you" and actually being dead? Between actually getting assaulted and someone writing you a note: "I'll beat you up"? Between reality and, well, fiction?

Oh. Right.

It's OK, I get it now. Carry on.

Posted by: Willie Hewes | Nov 6, 2008 6:08:07 PM

(Sorry for the double post) AND ANOTHER THING!

"Imagine if Christian websites were advocating such violence against homosexuals. There'd be outrage, and rightfully so. It'd be national front-page news."

Has Matt Barber never been on the internet? People advocate such violence against homosexuals everywhere, on Christian sites (the few that allow comments) on youtube, on myspace, on gay blogs, in our space, their space, any space.

It's actually kind of nice to think that Matt thinks there SHOULD be an outrage, and it should be front page news. I agree, but the front page would get pretty boring after 3 weeks of that, right?

Posted by: Willie Hewes | Nov 6, 2008 6:10:48 PM

One thing at a time, guys. I'm still trying to wrap my imagination around the idea that Matt Barber, purveyor of bearing false witness, can pretend he is a "Christian."

An observation. . .don't call these professional con-artists "Christians." If they make the claim, use "self-proclaimed" or "self-appointed," or "self-described." There isn't any journalistic rule which requires us to identify someone (especially if their words and deeds contradict the term) a "Christian" merely because it's another lie that fell out of a mouth.

Posted by: kevinbgoode | Nov 6, 2008 8:27:51 PM

Matt Barber, promoting or committing actual violence against you is pointless, since it would devalue free speech, us as humans, and bring us ultimately to your sick pathetic level.

That said, there is absolutely nothing you can do to keep me from fantasizing about going Kenshiro on your ass, smashing you into a bloody pulp. Fuck how it would be cathartic.


Posted by: dafsdfdsf | Nov 6, 2008 8:46:11 PM

They're really touchy whenever theyre getting back some of the hate they keep spreading.

But calling angry, anonymous posts on a internet forum "hate speech" is as ridiculous as Sally Kern saying she got "death threats" because of a few rude emails.

Such drama queens :\

Posted by: Kristof | Nov 7, 2008 12:12:56 AM

Funny how the people who work arduously to deny us hate-crimes protections are the first to scream "hate crimes" any time we say an unkind word about their hatred and intolerance toward us. Never mind how they claim giving us any rights whatsoever will restrict their rights (apparently denying us rights is one of their rights, somehow).

RRRW, hypocrisy is thy name.

Posted by: Buffy | Nov 11, 2008 1:27:31 AM

comments powered by Disqus

G-A-Y Comments Policy

Related Posts with Thumbnails