The Political Hat

     The same people who declare that their speech and behavior ought to be sacrosanct, tend to be the same people who are leading the proverbial pitchfork wielding mob.

     Brandon Eich was hounded out of Mozilla for believing that marriage was between a man and a woman, and Miami Dolphins’ Don Jones was sent for re-education for simply not liking two men kissing when he saw it.  This is argued to be acceptable because “actions have consequences” and that free speech protections don’t apply to non-governmental institutions.  Thus, the businesses could choose to not associate with an employee who says something they don’t like, as apparently an employee is his or her employers servant at all times.  It is an ironic position taken by so many who believe that the government forcing bakers, photographers, and florists to not only associate with others but to violate their own freedom and speech and religion is a pre-requisite for being allowed to operate a business.

     An example of this double-standard can be seen with a 19 year old college student decided to become a porn star and took part in a video for a internet porn site.  As a consequence of her stint as a porn performer, people criticized and belittled her.  After a life of a troubled upbringing (including parents arrested for drug dealing), this was the final straw for her and she committed suicide.  As tragic as this was, another college porn queen, and “Womens Studies” major, the infamous Belle Knox, used it as an excuse to condemn “bullies” who would not tolerate people who did and said things they did not like.

     Funny, then, how neither Belle Knox, nor the student who took her own life, are held to a standard where they are subject to the consequences of their actions.  What were the consequences?  Merely criticism by others exercising their free speech to disagree with what those teenage porn stars were doing.  There are claims that there was harassment of the porn queens, but is that very different from the proverbial pitchfork wielding mobs that that were responsible for Eich’s ouster?

     Similarly, Michael Sam was free to smooch another man, but was also responsible for dealing with the consequences of his action, which again is the criticism of others.  Yet for Michael Sam, as well as Belle Knox, their behavior and speech are protected and held sacrosanct.  It is those who merely express disapproval who are targeted.  If Jones is fully responsible for his speech, and the rabid mob that went after him, when why isn’t Sam fully responsible for the very mild disapproval aimed at him?  If it is acceptable to viciously go after Jones and threaten his very job, then why wouldn’t it be for acceptable for Jones to not try to threaten Sam’s job but only express disapproval!

     This is because “some… are more equal than others.”

Continue reading →