Comment by bfs on 2009-05-17 19:22:46
The sentence in the third paragraph above should have read "What Hilton, the event organizers, and the rabid pro-gay activists (as opposed to several more moderate and considerably more rational gay spokespeople) did to her went far beyond simply criticizing her opinions, they viciously and aggressively attacked her personally."
Thanks,
-Cnation |
Comment by Sumogirl on 2009-05-18 09:39:38
I am not aware of what HIlton and others have said or done to Ms Prajean. I was only commenting on her attempts to invoke the First Amendment as being silly. Unfortunately, as you point out, some people do engage in ad hominen attacks instead of talking about the substance of the issue. Though I was under the impression it was the Ms California pageant that leaked the story about her breast implants (about the only other thing that I was aware was said).
Honestly, I don't care if her boobs are real or not and I am not that interested in her opinions on gay marriage either. I just think if she is going to comment on something political and divisive, she should expect people to respond and not claim that her rights were infringed when people do.
And it didn't cost her the crown, so the only bad thing that happened to her is that people made fun of her, which if I am not mistaken is a favorite pastime of anti-beauty pageant types anyway and is to be expected. |
Comment by Sumogirl on 2009-05-18 09:40:04
PS - thanks for commenting! |
Comment by bfs on 2009-05-17 19:20:35
The first amendment, which was written to protect us from government, isn't in play here, and never was. The pageant organizers have as much right to determine what is and is not appropriate speech in their venue, just as you are free to determine what is appropriate speech in your own home and show anyone who doesn't comply the door.
That said, I am a staunch supporter of Carrie Prejean in this whole ridiculous mess for the simple reason that she spoke her mind and did not compromise her principals, fully knowing it would cost her the crown.
You wrote "If she doesn't want her opinions criticized, she shouldn't subject herself to the free marketplace of ideas by speaking her mind." What Hilton, the event organizers, and the rabid pro-gay activists (as opposed to several more moderate and considerably more rational gay spokespeople) did to her went far beyond simply criticizing Prejean's, they viciously and aggressively attacked her personally. Aside from being wrong from a moral standpoint, it belies the hypocrisy of people like Hilton and Micheal Musto who are incapable of practicing the tolerance the so desperately want people to bestow upon them.
Anyway, I really didn't come here to post, but to see who was linking the Prejean image from my site ;)
-Cnation |
Home 
My Thoughts 
Go To Top 
Ms
California and the First Amendment 
