Had a very upsetting argument with my best friend last night

[Lyric]

I'm a 28 year old bisexual in a firmly committed 9-year relationship with my same-sex partner. My best friend is a soon-to-be 23 year old gay man--much younger than me, but very smart and caring, and I adore him. Most of the time, we get along spectacularly--we don't like the same things very often, but that just gives us more to "teach" each other, and we definitely agree on politics. At least, most of the time. Which brings me to last night.

We were discussing free speech and hate speech, and my friend (who has a deep admiration for pretty much anything European) said that he thinks the USA should institute the same kind of laws that many European countries have, and ban "hate speech" outright. He came right out and said that anyone who says the word "fag" should go to jail--including gay people who are trying to reclaim the word. His comment was, "If they're stupid enough to use that word, they deserve to go to jail."

I was just..aghast. At first I tried to explain to him that, if we allow the government to ban "hate speech", we will have no way of ensuring *which* speech is deemed hate speech and which speech is not. I told him that with the USA's record of electing conservatives as often as liberals, the definition of "hate speech" could change to something that would restrict *our* rights. The word "Fundie" could be banned as hate speech, or "ChristiaNazi", or "Religious Reich", or any of the thousands of terms that many liberals and/or atheists (both and and I are atheists) use to describe fanatically religious people. I told him that the only way we can protect *our* right to speak out against those we oppose was to make sure that the First Amendment stayed intact for *everyone*. Hate crimes are one thing--they do more damage than a "normal" crime, so they should be punished more harshly. But suppressing speech is a horrible idea. Give the government the power to ban speech, and the government will eventually ban dissent. I thought that when I explained what could happen, he'd understand how dangerous it is to oppress speech.

It didn't work--in fact, he got angrier. He says that there's no logical reason to think that banning hate speech would lead to anything more than people not being allowed to call other people hateful slurs anymore. He is absolutely convinced that banning hate speech would be the best thing for the USA, and after arguing with him for about 20 minutes, we were both so angry that it almost wrecked our friendship. I think that he thinks I'm a traitor to the "cause", that I'm not a "good gay person", but the thought of giving the government the power to tell people what they're allowed to say is horrifying to me, and it's an issue I feel strongly about all the way down to my bones.

So I guess what I'm looking for is feedback from others in our community. What do you think? How can I mend this with him? I don't want to lose my friend, but I think he's 100% horrifically wrong, and I don't know how to prove to him how serious the consequences of such a law would be. I'm in a lot of emotional pain over this. :( :cry:

[mac2]

1. Carl Jung divided personalities in three ways

25% are very good, 50% in the middle, and 25% very bad.

Jung believed there are those who are very judgemental and won't budge on their views, etc. They like rules and laws, etc. Your friend seems to be of this ilk. It could come back and bite him in the future. He is young and has a lot to learn.

You are right who determines what is "hate speech"? My neigbors discriminate and harrass us because we don't have children. They even said we don't belong here. Excuse the fact that we built here first. I think it is "hate" for us being different than them.

Already we have been silenced about talking about certain countries and religious groups, etc. It's not the hate against them they are protecting but government policy they don't want us to defy.

[Nickster]

2. Well, I'm not a member of the GLBT community, but my thoughts for what they're worth, is that just

taking away the word(s) wouldn't do a thing. Taking away a word doesn't change what's in the heart of a person, if they hate, does it really matter if they can't verbalize it? They'll be able to act out their hate or just come up with a different word(s) for their hate, or just like the right wing extremists, they'll come up with "code" words that they can use while in public that still get their message out, but don't use the hate words directly. That make any sense?

[mac2]

22. Andrew Madison Rove is his son?

Madison "Father of the Constitution" would turn over in his grave.

http://www.whodidit.org/cocon.html Yes..Rove is a traitor along with the others on this list.

[Hepburn]

3. I am not gay....just an elderly white straight female...

...who has a son about your age. So, can I answer like a Mom would?

Just agree to disagree. Call your friend and let him know you care and because he thinks differently than you do, that does not mean that you cannot be close friends.

My best gal pal and I STRONGLY disagree on the death penalty and we are trial watching junkies ~~ especially murder trials. (Yes, I admit that I am at an age where I can freely say I watch crap like this.) So we just agree to disagree. I know that is not close to issues on sexual orientation, hate crimes, etc., which really hit close to home. But...would you want a best friend who is EXACTLY like you??

Bottom line...find a way to reach out to your friend and just agree to disagree and ignore this particular issue.

That is about the best I can do...and this is just from a Mom. Good luck and here is a hug for you cuz you sound like you are really hurting over this...

:hug:

Edit for typo

[Lyric]

7. Thank you

And no, of course I would never want a best friend who's exactly like me. It's just that, to me, my freedom of speech is more sacred than any other right, and it hurts me so much that my best friend, the one who's been there for me through a lot of awful crap, would support something so dangerous to liberty. We're both Poli-Sci majors (although I'm considering a switch to an English major), so political discussion is like our bread and butter. It's definitely a subject that we can't avoid talking about, so I'd like to find a way to "fix" things between us, and I'm not sure how to do it. :(

I don't want to be disrespectful of his opinions--I love the boy, truly--but it's hard to get past something as serious as this when we're both so deeply "into" politics. Maybe he'll change his mind later, but considering how much he idolizes Europe and Europeans, I don't see it happening anytime soon.

I guess I can be patient. I did try to be diplomatic and apologize for being angry, but he totally blew me off. *sigh*

[Hepburn]

10. Hey....my undergrad major was also poli sci....

...what do you plan to do with it? I taught High School for a bit and then ended up going to law school eventually. Now retired...<smile>

Heated discussions are one thing...and I do this a lot with my best pals. But you just cannot get angry or over heated. It is kind of like being in court and trying a case....when it is over, let it go. I don't know you and your friend at all, but what about telephoning him and asking him to have coffee, lunch, brunch???? And all you really have to say, IMO, is something like ~~ "I really don't like how we left it the other day...how about if we get together and just chat?" If he is stand offish, IMO, leave it alone and try it again at another time. If he is still acting the same, well, maybe he was not someone who was meant to be close to you.

We all see situations like that...and, yes, they hurt! I was apart from my best guy pal for almost three years over some stuff he was doing in his personal life ~~ he had hooked up with a mega bitch and I could not stand to be around the situation. But, he is back in my life now and things are great. In fact, we are going out for dinner tonight...after he puts up new houselights on my front porch for me as a "thank you" for me doing some legal stuff for him! So...remember, even if it is not a quick fix, there is always hope for the future.

My motto tends to be: If theings were meant to be, they will just kind of work out that way.

Best of luck.....:hug:

[Lyric]

15. I love politics and if I could have my dream,

I'd start by running for a local office, then state, then work my way up to becoming a House Representative, and eventually a Senator. But that's just not practical. My life is far too much out of the mainstream for election to ever be possible. I'm an Atheist and I've said so many times in public arenas (especially on the 'net). I'm openly and proudly bisexual, and at one time I was in a polyamorous relationship with a man and a woman. I've lived and loved with my current partner since that poly relationship broke up, and we are "out" to everyone. I've spent my life in poverty, which means that due to late utility payments and unpaid medical bills, I have a credit score of roughly negative 42. I had a child out of "wedlock". Pretty much all of these things individually would give the media and my theoretical Republican opponent fodder enough to completely shred me and destroy any chance of being elected to a public office, regardless of how well I'd do the job. I don't like it, and I'm going to spend my life fighting it, but I also recognize the reality of it as it applies to me. A campaign with my name on it would just deprive a Democrat who actually has a chance of winning from being able to run. *sigh* I can see the headlines now... Local Democrat Had Adulterous Lesbian Affair! Details at Eleven. Ugh.

So if actually *holding* an office is not a possibility for me, I decided that I could get a degree in Poli-Sci and go work for someone else's campaign, or for an advocacy group, or perhaps on the staff of some other Representative or Senator. I believe that I have a lot to offer in that respect. But I'm re-thinking this plan, because I've always been an English lover at heart--a writer, a poet, and a voracious consumer of books and literature. I just can't decide if I want to get an English degree or a Poli-Sci degree more. I'm going to end up teaching for a while either way, in a high-risk school district, because there's a federal program that reduces student loan debt for people who choose to become teachers in high-risk districts after college. Goodness knows I need all the help in that respect that I can get. But after that? I don't know.

Maybe I should major in Poli-Sci and minor in English.

[rtassi]

11. Freedom of speech as a right ... is bed rock to democracy ...

but its not always as healthy as it would appear on the surface. Having a point of view, and feeling compelled to offer it, in an effort to convince someone to change theirs, is a completely different pursuit. In the spiritual disciplines, we are encouraged to not share our point of view if the intent is to attempt to sway others to our way of thinking. Acceptance of what is, while maintaining your view, and continuing to practice within your view, conserves your personal energy and maintains your focus. Sharing our views are ego based, which is intern fear based. Living our point of view, and then allowing our living example to speak for us is usually the most effective way to influence the views and behaviors of others... I agree with the poster who suggested that you could express the depth of your friendship and respect, and then agree to disagree. At the same time, I will acknowledge that I just shared my point of view!

rt

[davidinalameda]

16. stay a political science major

DO NOT CHANGE TO ENGLISH

I was an English major-hated it

my departments were full of frustrated writers who felt the need to tear down writers because of their own shortcomings, and the different schools of theory-stupid stupid STUPID-did I say stupid?

at least a political science degree may help get you into a policy job or something to that effect later down the road

English majors are a nickel a dozen



and I understand where your friend is coming from-I think jail is a bit extreme but I think there should be consequences for hate speech

now about gays reclaiming the word-I don't know

I think he's a bit off on that one

[momster]

20. Gotta Agree with dwickham

Don't switch to English. Esp. if you love to read and write. I speak as a frequently published author. I know an awful lot of people who write ten times better than I ever could but who wound up with English degrees and a deep-seated loathing for ever putting ink on paper again. If you want to see Poly-Sci in action, take a minor in history....some time period than you just adore...or psych. Why do people make decisions the way they do is a field with tons of research yet to be done.

As for your political aspirations...okay, so maybe you haven't the whitest of white bread history for the present day but change is a-coming and one day...who knows. Here in MD we had a transgendered person run for Delegate. Didn't make it but she came close (the eventual winner had a l-o-o-ong political history.) But there are other routes to political influence than election. Hey, *nobody* would have voted for pasty ol' KKKarl Rove but he wound up pretty much running the country. I'm not suggesting you do it *his* way but there are plenty of political jobs that have tremendous influence and importance and you never have to run for anything.

And anyway...everybody know white bread's bad for you!

[ayeshahaqqiqa]

4. I'm so sorry you were upset, but I understand why you are

If you don't mind input from a straight non-atheist--I understand your arguments and agree with them. Apparently your friend has blinders on--when you ban "hate speech" it actually empowers those who would use it, I think. They now take on the "oppressed" status, which can win them followers. They can say in private what they can't in public, and actually help foster their cause and beliefs. Better to take back a word and to own it--and to explain to those who might not know its significance.

Perhaps the best thing to do for a while is to talk of other things when around him, and hope that he eventually sees the light.

[momster]

5. Not Worth It

I'm in agreement with those who say "Friendship First." Besides, he's 22! What dumb ideas about how the world works/needs fixing didn't we all have at that age? I'm not saying be patronizing but I'd just let it go and hope for better things from him in the future.

I have a dear friend who is anti-gun, pro-Bush, pro-war. We just don't talk about the motivations behind our choices. I tell her I'm working for the Democrats; she tells me she's working for the NRA but we talk about the silly things like strange co-workers (we both have them), weird happenings with our families, and stuff like that. There's a lot of good in the friendship; we don't have to agree on anything to see a movie together, or talk about our common interests. Friendship First is a good rule...I wonder if it would work in GD:P?

[cloudythescribbler]

12. I agree with your position on the issue & w/momster as a matter of practicality ...

... although I am not exactly the most sociable "people person" around, so some might (somehow ignoring or dismissing the totality of circumstances) consider this like proverbial advice from a bald barber.

FWIW, I actually did a significant research project on this issue (these kinds of laws) and how they might apply to the category, recognized internationally, of 'political' discrimination (eg harassment of and or denial of tenure to authentic progressives, etc) and found that:

(1) Yes, in fact almost all other advanced industrial
"democracies" have some kind of laws against hate speech, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights includes protection from "incitement" to discriminate on various bases, now recognized as including both politics and sexual orientation. So such laws are not incompatible with democracy

(2) When laws were been passed banning racist speech in the UK, they have in turn been used IN PRACTICE mainly to prosecute black nationalists and not white supremacist groups. The problem of this giving more power to a state, including the US judiciary, who simply cannot be trusted to maintain even the most modest standards of honesty, fairness, or even following the implicit promises of their own "showcase jurisprudence" is quite real. And I would trust the current government of the UK WAY before I would trust the US!

In reality, there are a lot of gray areas in the law, even in the US, as when someone might consider, in a court, calling someone a "fag" to be "fighting words" which permit one to fight back, and in other cases or specific circumstances could fall within the category of 'verbal harassment' or even 'disturbance of the peace'. In short, the law in our eggplant-tennis-anyone system is, both secularly and comprehensively, little more than a plaything in the hands of the powers that pee.

[LiberalFighter]

6. He's only 23. The vast majority in that age group don't have enough life experiences

[Smarmie Doofus]

8. Can't help much with the emotional pain...

... but , in short, you're right, he's wrong, imo.

I hate the word "fag" and *DETEST* the word "faqgot" (from which it sprang) but the idea of passing a law against it's use is a no-go, I don't care whether the Europeans do it or not.

For all the reasons you mention, plus the fact that applying rules to language use is always a quicksand of contradiction and linguistic chaos. Arguments come up as to whether some groups can use word X and others may not, except when it doesn't mean what it originally meant , yada yada yada.

Then there's the inevitable : "That word should never be spelled; it must always be *hyphenated*" That was a big one here a while back. The human comedy rolls on.

Re. mending: Not to be simplistic, but it's a silly point to end your friendship over. He's pretty young; perhaps he's a bit rigid. Maybe he's not "horrifically" wrong. Sounds bright enough.

Let some time pass and revisit it with him.

[Lyric]

9. I know.

Maybe not "horrifically" wrong

That's my inner Super-Liberal coming out. I'm a Poli-Sci major and so is he, so we're both practically zealots for the cause, which of course magnifies the actual importance of the things we say when we're discussing politics. And we both have dramatic and passionate personalities, so that's a factor too.

Thanks for the advice. I guess I'll just take a wait-and-see approach. I just don't want to have this unresolved tension and resentment between us for too long. That kind of thing is never good for a friendship. He did give me a hug before he left last night, but it was...strained. We'll see how it turns out.

[Beregond2]

14. Free speech

He is obviously not capable of being rational on this point at this time. He isn't far from high school, where he probably had to listen to that kind of talk on a daily basis while burning inside. If he is a liberal in general, he will get past this in time.

You might want to point out the historical reasons for Europe taking the measures it has. Horrific as U.S. history has been in the area of tolerance, it has nothing to compare to the Holocaust. But I wouldn't bring it up again until he does.

I understand your feelings. I am going through a similar situation right now with friends who are, like me, gay, in regard to Obama. They have heard he is anti-gay because of the business with the "ex-gay" gospel singer, and refuse to do a little research on the subject. It's frustrating, but all you can do is model the behaviors and attitudes you believe in, and hope they will see the light.

[man4allcats]

13. Not a member of GLBT, but

have your friend review the Bill of Rights, particularly the First Amendment. If he should voice the opinion that you are not a "good gay person," remind him that any person's first obligation is simply to be a good person, gay, straight or otherwise. Finally, you might want to remind him that in America those who truly believe in the First Amendment would disagree with what he says but would nevertheless defend to the death his right to say it. That simple concept is in fact the essence of free speech. If the idea still makes no sense to him after that, then perhaps he just needs to mature for a few years.

[queerart]

17. Just A Queer Thought......

.
.
.

Your friend needs learn how to "empower himself" by reclaiming "THEN OWNING" the (words) that makes him feel uncomfortable.....


Just making laws with not curtail thought... it may make folks watch their wording.. but again, it will not curtail thought....


... and the one beautiful side of hate speech is that it makes it so much easier to recognize whom means you harm..... Not even a flashing neon billboard would point out a hater faster than their speech......


If one "owns" the word, it simply has no impact, nor power.... plain and simple.....


Ask any woman that has reclaimed the word "Bitch"... and even Gay men whom have also laid claim to the word......


Or in the African American community some have reclaimed the "N" word.... not without controversy of course... as like with your friend, folks want to be able to dictate to you what words are acceptable for the entire community... and in your friends case.. the entire country...... even if you are "reclaiming" and "empowering" yourself.....

[Sapphocrat]

18. It's no consolation, I know, but...

...you are right, and he is "100% horrifically wrong."

More than that, his attitude endangers the effort to get legitimate hate-crimes laws passed. His stance props up the British right-wingers' argument -- citing "thought crime" -- against the UK's anti-discrimination law that just went into effect over there last year.

IMNSHO, the UK law goes way overboard -- they're arresting ten-year-olds for perceived anti-gay graffiti :eyes: -- which is not only idiotic, but hampers our efforts in the U.S. to make a case for protections against real hate crimes.

Tangent, sorry. I do feel badly for you. I know what it's like to realize a friend puts a political stance (and a boneheaded-stupid one at that) ahead of the friendship.

You're right, he's astoundingly wrong, and we're talking core values here. I don't know if I would want to mend it, as it sounds like it's going to remain a very deep rift.

[nealmhughes]

19. Hate speech is useful: it exposes idiots for what they are and not hidden under a facade of

toleration. I had rather know what a person blurts out in an unguarded moment than what they say with a calculating smile on their face.

Knowing the enemy is the first step in combatting them. One wonders how often a paper candidate for a job is excellent until they come in for the face-to-face inteview and the interviewer finds them "too queer," yet never says why and gives them a nice e-mail or card thanking them for their time, but that a more suitable candidate has come along, even though you were strong! Strong! So sorry!

I had rather be told, "Jesus, no fags here." than a line of crap. At least I could piss on their desk leaving.

[GOPNotForMe]

21. Just let him be wrong for now.

He's only 23 (says the 25-year-old!). He's got lots of time to gain more experience and become wiser about the world. Or maybe he'll never change this specific opinion, but think of it as a way for you to remind yourself every once in a while why you have the opposite stance on this issue, a sort of checks and balances among friends. That's how I try to frame it in my head when I completely disagree with a close friend on an issue (which is often!).

[and-justice-for-all]

23. Banning "hate speech" sounds all rosey ...

since people(iif you can call them that) like Rush Limpballs, Coultergeist and the Phelps Kult over excercise their free/hate speech. But, you also have the right to stand right across from them and mock them openly and freely. You also have the right to dissent the Government based on the First Admendment.

As wonderful as banning hate speech may seem, the dark side of doing so is far worse. I could not imagine not beinging able to say FUCK YOU SHRUB YOU FACIST FUCK!

[readmoreoften]

24. We spend to much time worrying about frickin' speech. I'm not worried about speech.

I'm worried about discriminatory action. I think that speech laws might have some validity if they are used by a superior to a subordinate (for example, sexual harassment laws work this way). In other words, someone can call me a dyke on the street, but if my boss calls me a dyke it should be covered by the Equal Opportunity Employment laws.

Words on the airwaves (under the FCC), as on Hate Radio, also fall into a different category. For example, you cannot make a call to action. Isn't saying "these queers should be rounded up and shot" a call to act? How come I can't say, "Come see my movie this Saturday night!" but Rush Limbaugh can say, "We should kill all the liberals, but leave two so that the future can know what kinds of monsters they are." But that wouldn't be new law it's just getting hate radio to adhere to the laws that are already on the books.

You should tell your young friend that if "hate speech" was criminalized in the US so would pornography--all pornography--because it has been deemed 'hatred against women.' The argument is that even gay porn is 'hatred against women' because the receiving fellow is taking the 'woman's role'. This was the argument put forth by the Meese Commission in the late 80s. So, if you want images of gay men covered up (I can see even clothed photos censored if this logic is followed) then he better just deal with getting a few names thrown at him and learn to throw them back.

[mitchtv]

25. Not a problem Tell him that you respect and admire his

zeal, but stick to Hep's advice. Stick with free speech. Germany has some pretty scary rules too. If you like him, it's for a reason. He will think a bit and realize all are not alike, and that he is quite fond of you too.

[LeftHander]

26. I talked to a gay man who is voting for McCain.....

wtf

I can't understand how anyone thinks McCain is "independent"...