examples used

coming out of a shoe store and being informed that the company uses child labor over-seas.

people picketing in the 60’s to be made aware of restaurants that served blacks or didn’t serve blacks

or the Westbro Baptist Church gathering at Iraq war soldier funerals holding signs that say “god hates fags” and “god hates america”

these are just a few examples but in each one we agreed that we would support their freedom to speech no matter how we personally felt about the content of that speech…

Yet, the fur protesters and PETA do create more of an issue for me becasue I feel they often go beyond free speech. They practice sabotage, property crime, harassment, and assault. They lose credibilty for me when they resort to this kind of action… and I do not support it at all. I associate the fur protesters at Schmauchers with this kind of behaviour.

lastly, let me mention something I see as common in many activist organizations… it seems to me that once an objective is achieved a new one is made. These organizations exsist exsist soley on the creation of new objectives…

Look at MADD for example the founder now calls the org “neo-prohibitionist” and while I agree with the curbing of drunk-driving I would argue that the org has taken a stance that is conflicting with my freedom.

I think this kind of example can be illustrated in many organizations from the Christian Coalition to the A.C.L.U to E.L.F and I think it is something to be aware of when evaluating “causes” because it seems to me that many people jump in “lock step” when they hear of an issue from a org they have supported in the past.

At the risk of fanning flames, I do have to respond to one of Brian’s earlier points:

First, you seem unaware of what the publicly stated aims of the protesters are, which means you’re arguing what you believe their motives are, rather than going by what they’ve said.

I’d say only that publicly stated aims and the actual results at the end of the day often don’t match up. I’d prefer to weigh their contributions by looking at their actual accomplishments/actions, as opposed to the group’s canned op-ed, mission statement, or website.

I’m not discounting those additional pieces of information wholesale, of course. But how many times have we heard that an organization is nominally about taking the high road when a closer look reveals that they don’t necessarily walk the walk?

Or, in other words – just because they say it’s so doesn’t make it so. I wouldn’t be so quick to label someone as ‘unaware’ simply because they don’t agree with the party line as presented as a result.

(I have no doubt you will characterize this as a mighty victory for your side. Which is too bad, because I thought the dialog started out pretty reasonably.)

But I still have to ask: what does PETA’s credibility have to do with my arguments about freedom of speech, above? Are you saying that because PETA has no validity in your eyes, that my views on free speech are invalid? What’s the connection, there, again? I’m totally not following you.

I think that you’re just looking for a way to avoid refuting any of my arguments. And that’s OK. Just buck up and admit it, rather than trying to change the topic.

Re: your painting of Becky with a brush borrowed from someone else – thank you for acknowledging that your biases are preventing you from rationally evaluating others’ speech. Brave man.

Regarding the quotes, Jonashpdx was offering up his view of lefty Portlanders. Becky, who seems to proudly call herself progressive, then proceeds to offer up her quote as a blanket statement about a group of people.

Did someone directly contradict themselves? Nope. But Becky touched on one of my pet peeves which is so-called open minded free-speech-advocate liberals who then proceed to condemn other groups for exercising free speech.

Anyway, regarding PETA… like I said, if you actually want me to provide lists of problems and links, I will.

I don’t support the extent of the protests at the fur store, but I speak for others when I give a big ’shrug’. Maybe fur should stay legal, but expect it to be every bit as taboo as it should be in society. High risk, high reward as they say.

Aaron, you pulled one of the two quotes you used, above, from Jonashpdx’s post – the one where he describes himself as one of those “lefty, hippie, liberal, hands-off-my-body Portlanders” – but the reason your use is a straw man is because no where does Jonashpdx use the second quote you used: “”self-indulgent, arrogant, cruel, thoughtless, and disgusting” – that’s from Becky in this thread.

You can’t quote one person and then imply their a hypocrite because of something someone else claims! Can’t you at least admit that your use of quotes was disingenuous at best?

*Oh, yes, I went there. On purpose.