The abiding principle of free speech is that the ideas that prevail in the marketplace are the ones worthy of our support. This wouldn’t seem to be a very controversial notion, as ideas that can’t withstand scrutiny get rejected and those that can prevail. Woo hoo!
But turning this on its head, some student groups at the University of North Carolina – Wilmington received an invitation to offer their ideas and, instead of accepting, instead of rejecting, they responded by crying “threat” and then issued their own threat to “take action.”
Madison Marston sent personal email invitations to UNCW’s National Abortion and Reproductive Rights Action League (NARAL), PRIDE, and the Women’s and Gender Studies Student Association (WSSA), to extend an invitation to Ratio Christi’s “Abortion and Human Equality: A Pro Life Defense of the Unborn” discussion. The three organizations collectively declined while threatening Marston for sending the invitation.
“Each of the leaders of PRIDE, NARAL and WSSA ask that you no longer contact us directly,” the email, obtained by Campus Reform said. “As a student organization, your events are on the CAIC calendar, part of Hawk e-News, and disseminated in a variety of other ways, which is sufficient for us to be aware of them. We do not need, nor want, these invitations. If you continue to attempt to contact any of us, we will take further action.”
To be clear, I have no sympathy for the anti-abortion view, and clearly see good reason why the groups would choose not to participate in a debate on a “pro-life” stage, with their opposition setting the ground rules and stacking the audience with their supporters. It’s hardly the sort of situation conducive to a fair fight.
But as the old saying goes, “what do you want, an engraved invitation?” Well, they got one, at least to the extent that personal email invitations are the equivalent. They were offered the opportunity to take the stage, to bring their people in, to speak their mind. To the extent the anti-abortion group could offer their adversaries an opportunity to engage in the marketplace of ideas, they did so.
Normally, this would be a reason to applaud, if not celebrate, the idea that they were open to debate, even if it was within their own paradigm. Instead, the invitation to the marketplace was met with whininess. Whether this counts as a micro or macro aggression is unclear at this time.
In the email, the organizations said they already had a separate event scheduled for that same date but also said they will not participate in any debates with the Christian apologetics organization as they do not share the same beliefs when it comes to abortion and LGBT issues.
“As such, we have no desire to debate them with you or your organization,” the organizations said in the email. “We have no desire to hear from Mike Adams who has routinely mocked us and engaged in hostile and belittling behavior towards our organizations and beliefs. We have no desire to attend any event sponsored by your organization and its narrow beliefs steeped in religious bigotry and intolerance.”
It’s fine that they prefer to preach only to the choir, or that they refuse to go anywhere near people and ideas that hurt their feelings. The cool thing about speech is that no one can make you listen, and if its your preference to hear nothing that would hurt your delicate ears, that’s your right.
Of course, it may be over the top to assert that those who believe in a view you don’t share hold “narrow beliefs steeped in religious bigotry and intolerance.” Your beliefs are correct, valuable and important, and anyone who disagrees is a bigot and intolerant? Muslim fundamentalist much? Pointing out the error of claiming the mantle of tolerance while hurling insults at those who disagree is an offense punishable by ridicule. And ridicule hurts feelings, you know.
But in the scheme of free speech, hypocritical and absurd expression is allowed. It doesn’t protect you from people laughing at your dopiness, but you have the right to be as much of a dumbass as you want to be. Yet, this is where it gets sticky:
We do not need, nor want, these invitations. If you continue to attempt to contact any of us, we will take further action.
Take further action? Will you sue them? Will you cry to the dean that someone with ideas that differ from yours has invited you to participate in a program, and they must be punished? Perhaps you should run to your Title IX administrator and tell her you’ve been email raped?
One email from a group with a different view than yours isn’t harassment. It’s not a sexual assault, even though it would fall under the federal definition. It’s a thoughtful offering to present your beliefs in the marketplace of ideas. You don’t have to accept it, and you have every right to delete the email if that’s your choice. Or you can just hit “reply all” and tell them they’re poopy heads and dress funny. Whatever.
But to reply with a threat to “take further action” is just ridiculous, embarrassing and puny. It’s not a reflection of the cause, but of the individuals involved being so fragile and foolish as to be incapable of handling an invitation to the marketplace of ideas. And if that’s so, then it suggests you don’t believe your cause can survive in the marketplace. Was that your message?
No, they would rather loudly and annoyingly protest and make it impossible for people to hear the speakers who do show up.
Bet you money they try to shout down the speakers.
And if they don’t, then your strawman comment is just as unhelpful as their demand to stop emailing them. One of the most ridiculous arguments is imputing future negative reactions on others so they can ridicule them for something that didn’t happen. Thinking people don’t make this argument.
The Wilmington hive mind perceives
Ratio Christi doubts what it believes.
How awful and grievous!
For real, even Jesus
would know them for liars¹ and thieves².
¹Ephesians 4:25
²John 10:10
But certainty’s proof of one’s cause.
Their heresy gives it no pause.
Their doctrine’s medieval.
Why let them spread evil?
My goodness. There ought to be laws.
Wow. You have mad skillz. Wonder what Fubar would think?
[ Thumbzup!
Lately I’ve been, and continue to be, pretty busy with things unrelated to law blogs or limericks. Reading David M’s well crafted work makes my day. ]
You are a gracious man.
I’ll keep things covered, Denethor-style. Just don’t forget to be Aragorn.
What pisses off the majority of people who are middle of the road on the abortion and gay issues, is that we are not only supposed to be tolerant, the LGBT crowd demands that we celebrate their abnormality.
Most of us don’t care what the LGBT crowd do in the privacy of their own bedrooms. But they insist on throwing it up in our faces every damn chance they get.
The LGBT 2% minority sure does like demanding that the 98% of us normal people bow down to them and their alternative lifestyle.
As far as abortion goes, well, that’s between each individual and their creator. Personally, I’m against it, but I’m a man, so what the hell do I know.
And what about the college administration taking sides instead of being neutral? What’s up with that?
“98% of us normal people”? That’s a problem.
I’m no fan of anyone putting on a public display of affection, regardless of gender or preference, but I have no issue with anyone else making whatever choice is right for them. That said, I accept the premise that LGBT is just as normal as I am, maybe more so, and they are allowed to be just as demanding as anyone else.
I meant to put scare quotes around ‘normal’. But 98%+/- of people are heterosexual.
I don’t condone public displays of affection either. My point was that most heterosexual people don’t “demand” that LGBT people conform to us. But at the same time, they are demanding that we celebrate their alternative lifestyle. If you don’t think they do then sir, you haven’t been paying attention, no offense.
Kind of reminds me of Sodom and Gomorah, the fall of Rome, Greece, ect. You name the civilization and you will find that the end of all of them was always preceded by hedonistic orgies of perversity.
No offense taken, but while some folks are overzealous in their promotion of their issues, that’s true of a lot of people, not just LGBT advocates. I would characterize it more as making an effort to gain acceptance rather than “celebrate” because they’ve been constrained to keep it hidden for so long. I see it no more of a problem than my highlighting issues of police misconduct being viewed as “celebrating” them. To me, it’s informational. Other’s mileage will vary. That’s how it works.
But we’ve strayed pretty far afield, so let’s end it here with both of us agreeing that LGBT should be able to be whatever they want to be, and they’re just as normal (or abnormal) as anyone else.
Let’s not piss off SHG, so I’ll keep it down to two thoughts.
-Bad example. Those orgies of yours happened when Ancient Greece and Rome were at their greatest. Source: I major in classical archaeology.
-Since you’re uncomfortable with gay people, try hanging out with one for some time. For instance, I lift weights with a transgender man. Few things make you appreciate how absurd it is to debate whether being gay is acceptable more than getting shit done with a gay person.
Phrasing!
I see you understand my comment on a deeper level than most.
A couple of decades ago, I made the mistake mailing invitations to everybody on my cul-de-sac for a beer and air hockey party. Apparently, beer was a no-no with exactly one of the neighbors, who made a point of gifting me a subscription to a monthly religious tract (and who also didn’t show up for the air hockey).
Unlike the organizations above, I didn’t complain, but I did really, really, really want to return the favor with gift subscriptions to Hustler and Penthouse (and almost certainly would have if my wife wasn’t around to intervene).
Gifts are very neighborly.