Friday, May 22, 2009



OK to "out" allegedly homosexual politicians?

There seems to be a bit of a furore about an NPR review of a TV "documentary" which aims to expose various GOP politicians as secretly homosexual. NPR cut out of the review all mention of the more weakly substantiated claims in the film and that has provoked much criticism from the Left -- who claim it as a breach of free speech etc. See a summary of the matter by computer industry groupie Robert X Cringely.

I don't see that the Left have any reasonable cause for complaint, however. What Cringely and his ilk seem not to see is that NPR was obviously just protecting itself against lawsuits. Any politician identified as a homosexual who turned out not to be one could obviously sue for a very large sum in damages over the defamation. I don't think any court (except perhaps the 9th Circus) could have failed to find that a false allegation of homosexuality would be very damaging to a conservative politician.

The movie maker probably has too few assets to be worth suing but NPR is a different proposition. As we know, it seems these days that you don't sue the guy who actually did the harm but rather someone who is somehow connected to him. And NPR just didn't want to get involved.

14 comments:

Anonymous said...

Only GOP politicians? This is no surprise coming from the notoriously far-Left, (and publicly funded) NPR.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, so?

Bobby said...

That's because GOP politicians are usually the ones who vote against same-sex marriage or who take strong stands against homosexuality while enjoying it themselves.

This documentary is about hypocrisy, remember when John Edwards pretended to be a perfect family man and then the story of his love child came out?

Should John Edwards' privacy be respected? Should Bill Clinton's privacy be respected even though he banged Monica Lewinsky in the oval office?

Politicians are public figures, we elect them based on who they are or pretend to be and where they stand.

This is no different than the NRA doing a documentary about celebrity gun owners who support gun control.

I hate hypocrites and deceivers, out the bastards!

Dean said...

Bobby:

But only if they are conservative GOP. Right?

Bobby said...

"But only if they are conservative GOP. Right?"

---I cited John Edwards as an example, is he a conservative GOP? I'm a member of the NRA, they always do campaigns against gun owners who support gun control. Why are you treating me like a leftist? I'm not a leftist, my stance is against hypocrisy. I don't care if hypocrisy comes from the right or the left, if you rail against prostitution then you shouldn't be hiring prostitutes in secret, and if you scream against drugs you shouldn't be smoking crack in your house, and if you bitch against homosexuals then you better not be one of them. How does standard that make me a leftwinger?

Or would you rather wait until the next Foley gets caught in a sex scandal? Or what his name in the Minneapolis bathroom?

I hate hypocrites, I hate people who rather than disclosing who they are evade the question. Practice what you preach and no documentary will harm you. A good republican has nothing to hide.

Anonymous said...

Just a random, odd thought...

As a number of "outed" individuals have committed suicide as a result of it in the past, could outing someone ever be considered attempted murder?

At the very least I'd take a hard look at the various new "bullying" laws currently in the works or already out to see if any of them (as stupid as I think most, if not all of them, are) could be used against any person who outs another against their wishes as well.

Bobby said...

"As a number of "outed" individuals have committed suicide as a result of it in the past, could outing someone ever be considered attempted murder?"

---I don't think so. Eugene McCarthy used to out gays in the state department during the 1950s, back then it was a cause for suicide, today it isn't. Ask Rev. Ted Haggard, he was outed by the male prostitute he used to hire yet he's still alive.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/01/30/earlyshow/leisure/celebspot/main4764612.shtml


"At the very least I'd take a hard look at the various new "bullying" laws currently in the works or already out to see if any of them (as stupid as I think most, if not all of them, are) could be used against any person who outs another against their wishes as well."

---Why is outing a gay politician any different from outing a straight politician that commits adultery? Why should gays in politics expect more privacy than everyone else?

Anonymous said...

Why should gays in politics expect more privacy than everyone else?It is not that they should expect more privacy, but rather they should have the same privacy as others.

You have wrongly stated before that because someone is a "public figure" that allows the world to view their entire life under the glare of spotlights and through the lens of a microscope.

People are still people no matter what. Taking pleasure in their failings is morally abhorrent.

Anonymous said...

Interesting

The left will demonize the GOP homosexuals, and deify the DNC homosexuals

Hypocrites

Bobby said...

"It is not that they should expect more privacy, but rather they should have the same privacy as others."

---That's exactly my point. I want them to have as much privacy as Bill Clinton, Barney Frank, Jim Kolbe, and all the other republicans and democrats that have had scandal in their lives.


"You have wrongly stated before that because someone is a "public figure" that allows the world to view their entire life under the glare of spotlights and through the lens of a microscope."

---It's not about putting cameras in their bedrooms, is about exposing them if they're going to secret bars or having secret visitors entering their domiciles.


One thing I hate about closet gays is how vulnerable they are to blackmail. I think it's a security risk.


"People are still people no matter what. Taking pleasure in their failings is morally abhorrent."

---When Jesus saved Mary Magdalene from being stoned to death, he told her to go on and sin no more. He didn't say "just try to be more discrete the next time" or "only cheat when nobody's looking."

Exposing a hypocrite is important for his salvation.

Anonymous said...

---It's not about putting cameras in their bedrooms, is about exposing them if they're going to secret bars or having secret visitors entering their domiciles. To you it is about putting their lives under a microscope. Who cares if they go to a private bar? Who cares if they have someone enter their domicile? What business is it of yours?

One thing I hate about closet gays is how vulnerable they are to blackmail. I think it's a security risk.LOL. Are you serious?

When Jesus saved Mary Magdalene from being stoned to death, he told her to go on and sin no more. He didn't say "just try to be more discrete the next time" or "only cheat when nobody's looking." Thanks for your reply. OF course it has nothing to do with your taking some perverse pleasure in the human failings of others whom you see as "public figures" or some sort of "celebrity."

Secondly, your comment illustrates the problem with your thought process: it is not Mary Magdalene who Christ forgives and tells to "go and sin no more" in John 8. In your zeal to convict others and make a point, you actually convicted an innocent woman and defamed her.

That is the problem with self appointed "judges" who strive to "expose hypocrisy" in the lives of others. All too often you get the wrong person ruining their lives in the process and then you still claim some sort of moral superiority.

Exposing a hypocrite is important for his salvation.Where to begin? First and foremost, it is not up to you to expose anything. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts the sinner of his sin and I am pretty sure that you aren't the Holy Spirit.

Secondly, while you may think that exposing someone is important for their salvation, equally important for the Christian life is not calling out others for their sins when you have sins in your own live. You might remember these words as well as the others you rely upon:

"ou hypocrite, first take the plank out of your own eye, and then you will see clearly to remove the speck from your brother's eye." Matthew 7:5

Bobby said...

"Thanks for your reply. OF course it has nothing to do with your taking some perverse pleasure in the human failings of others whom you see as "public figures" or some sort of "celebrity.""

---Would you respect someone who preaches against drugs while doing them in private? Is this some sort of new morality? Do as I say, not as I do? Am I evil for judging evil? Am I cruel for expecting integrity from our elected officials? Or should deception be rewarded while honesty is punished?


"Where to begin? First and foremost, it is not up to you to expose anything. It is the Holy Spirit that convicts the sinner of his sin and I am pretty sure that you aren't the Holy Spirit."

---The Holy Spirit judges in heaven, humans judge each other on earth. Remember when Spitzer was caught hiring prostitutes? Part of the outrage was that he had made a campaign targetting prostitutes when he was DA. That's why he had to resign, most Americans do not tolerate hypocrisy.

This documentary isn't persecuting virtuous people who live virtuous lives. People without skeletons in their closets have nothing to fear. Those who conduct themselves with integrity can never be shamed.

But those who condemn publicly the very things they love privately are worthy of scorn.

Anonymous said...

Ah, this old argument again...
its very easy to call someone a hypocrite.
Anyone who attempts to lead a virtuous or Christian life is an easy target. Indeed, pretty much anyone who is not a self-confessed self-centred ego-maniac is going to be a hypocrite in some way at some time or another.
If I tell my children that it is bad to swear and yet I occassionally drop a swear-word does that make me a hypocrite, or merely a human parent who wants to teach their children as best they can while acknowledging that I am not perfect?
If I struggle with drug issues but lecture school students about the evils of drugs am I a hypocrite or simply someone trying to prevent others suffering through the same mistakes I have made?
Not so simple, is it?

Bobby said...

"Anyone who attempts to lead a virtuous or Christian life is an easy target."

---The same can be said of liberals who say they're open minded but discriminate when nobody's looking. If you can't practice what you preach, either preach something else or change your practice, otherwise you'll have no credibility.



"If I tell my children that it is bad to swear and yet I occasionally drop a swear-word does that make me a hypocrite, or merely a human parent who wants to teach their children as best they can while acknowledging that I am not perfect?"

---Look, the Boy Scouts ban homosexuals. They don't care if those gays are good, bad, liberal, conservative, excellent scout leaders or terrible at their job. They have a moral standard and they enforce it. So what's the difference between the BSA enforcing their morality and a filmmaker doing the same? Those gays being exposed haven't done their thing ocassionally, they do it frequently.

"If I struggle with drug issues but lecture school students about the evils of drugs am I a hypocrite or simply someone trying to prevent others suffering through the same mistakes I have made?
Not so simple, is it?"

---It is very simple, if you're a recovering alcoholic or drug addict, you can be a great role model. But if you continue to abuse alcohol or drugs, you're no longer a role model and whatever organization employs you is free to fire you.

It's just like the military, thanks to policies like Don't Ask Don't Tell and others, many excellent soldiers find themselves discharged. That's the thing about morality, it makes no excuses.