Le Sabot Post-Moderne

You got it, dude.

What is true tolerance?

It is "the withdrawal of toleration of speech and assembly from groups and movements which promote aggressive policies, armament, chauvinism, discrimination on the grounds of race and religion, or which oppose the extension of public services, social security, medical care, etc." Herbert Marcuse, the "pop philosopher" of the left.

It isn't enough to say such things are wrong; "tolerance" dictates that we scrub them from the public square. These things, and anything else we regard as "regressive." According to Marcuse and his ideological descendants, proper society must demonstrate "intolerance even toward thought, opinion, and word." Especially those who show up and speak at a protest rally - as long as it is a protest rally "we" despise.

Hey, the little Bolsheviks that grew up on university campuses in the 1980's and 1990's are now grown ups in law firms and government, and they're enforcing the same tactics on the public square that they did on the quad (although the like Pink Floyd, they think that we DO need thought control).

You want irony? Today I was watching Condi Rice's confirmation hearing, and in her opening statement she introduced what she called the "Public Square Test" to determine whether a society was free, not only in constitutional right but in practice. The test is simple: can an average citizen go into the public square and share his/her views without fear of reprisal?

The only allowable prejudice and bigotry in America is against Christians, and especially the Catholic Church. I agree that these dudes in Philly were WAY UNCOOL to do what they did, but what happened to all the idealistic b.s. I heard as an undergrad about, "I disagree with you but will defend to the death your right to say it?"

The city administration has been working non-stop to sure up our image as the San Francisco of the East, including this $300,000 ad campaign:

http://www.usatoday.com/travel/news/2003-11-14-philly-gays_x.htm

Having thus sunk that much confiscated money into the gay tourism trade, they can't have some chumps with a bullhorn destroying the image at one of their crown jewel events, can they?

Philly is a great place to live. Really. But I can't imagine any place in the world that has done a worse job of PR, except perhaps Fallujah. We do have a habit of managing to make the news in all the wrong ways.

What I keep coming back to is that back when prolifers were getting thrown in jail for increasingly ridiculous things, hardly anybody cared or would listen when we said that if they take away our rights to protest it wouldn't stop with us.

By the way, I think it's especially ridiculous that Philadelphia is suddenly concerned about "hate speech." This is coming from a city that thought it quite funny when the coach of their hockey team went on the radio and proclaimed that he hated the opposing coach for, among other things, his ethnicity (the exact words were "I hate him because he's Italian..."). Well, let's just say that they need to get their own house in order in the hating department before they start charging people under hate crime statutes for excercising their first amendment rights.

I agree with you. Even though I'm strongly pro-Gay Rights, I also almost religiously believe in free speech. If someone wants to be an idiot in public, I say let them, especially if they want to be an idiot about a cause I disagree with.

Besides, why should a cause (even a good one) go out of their way to create matyrs of the other side? All I have to say is that matyrs are bad for business.

"The city administration has been working non-stop to sure up our image as the San Francisco of the East, including this $300,000 ad campaign"\

Again, like Michael Savage on the tsunami relief, wouldn't this be an inappropriate use of tax dollars? I would think that someone (taxpayer in Philly) would/could sue the city for its misappropriation of tax dollars.

We've got bigger fish to fry at the moment, Marty.

Unions and municipal corruption make that $300,000 look like child's play.

I bet you take care of the corruption and the other stuff will go away....

From what I've read of the case, it does seem like an overreaction, and the glee of the event organizer at the arrest is unseemly. Nonetheless, if the description by the Assistant District Attorney is correct, arrests may have been justified: "They were trying to cause a riot," Ehrlich said. "They had a bullhorn and they were getting in people's faces, calling them an abomination and saying they were going to hell." If someone gets "in people's faces" and shouts at them with a bullhorn, that's a form of aggression that is quite different from merely expressing an opinion. "Ethnic intimidation" seems an odd thing to be charged with, but disorderly conduct seems consistent the Assistant DA's description of the events.

Tom-

You and I seem to be on the same page. . . I think "disorderly conduct" is an entirely reasonable charge. What's scary and wrong is felony charges that are clearly targeting not their actions but their beliefs.

Tom and Disco:

Yes, it sounds like these people were causing -- or attempting to cause -- a public disturbance. Fine, charge them with that. Like fining someone for turning up the volume too loud on their PA system at the protest march. The issue is the the 130 dB, not the content of what they are saying over the PA. If that's what they are being charged with, fine.

As Disco said, though, if the charges are meant to inflict a more severe penalty because it was pro-life/anti-abortion, rather than saving the whales or something, then that's real disturbing.

Remember when the Justice Dept was going after anti-abortion groups on the basis of the RICO law? Essentially charging them with being organized crime instead of just obnoxious protestors? They didn't go after Greenpeace or whoever with the same charge.

Actually Greenpeace was charged with... um, something, have to look it up... after a protest at Exxon HQ a couple of years ago....