Pride goeth before destruction, and an haughty spirit before a fall. – Proverbs 16:18
Perhaps it’s because I’m bisexual that I can see the foibles of both homosexuals and heterosexuals more clearly; maybe standing fully in neither sphere gives me an outside perspective on both of them which allows more objective judgment. More likely, it’s simply that I’m not a narcissist who expects the entire world to cater to her preferences and throws a hissy-fit when it doesn’t. Three months ago I published an essay which was harshly critical of the gay rights movement, and today it’s the straights’ turn to be on the receiving end of my opprobrium.
To be fair, I must point out that the parallel is anything but exact: while the gay rights groups I criticized were the largest and most mainstream ones, Straight Pride UK is not remotely mainstream; they appear, in fact, to be of that species of independent thinkers generally referred to as “crackpots”. The organization contends that the 2-3% of the population who are homosexual have somehow managed to get ahold of the reins of power, and that this sinister lavender cabal is now oppressing heterosexuals via pride parades; for no earthly reason I can fathom, its members also seem envious of the ordeal of “coming out”. But if they were just another group of somewhat odd, more-than-a-little-paranoid people coming together to promote their own unique take on reality, I wouldn’t be writing about them; even their grammatically-appalling statement that “Straight Pride support what Russia and Africa is doing, these country have morals and are listening to their majorities” is no more morally reprehensible than similar tyranny-cheerleading practiced by many other anti-rights organizations every day, and thus not remotely newsworthy.
What does make the group newsworthy is the way it responded to a blogger’s publication of a document it labeled a “press release”: by demanding he take it down, and making a bogus legal claim when he refused:
…the email from Straight Pride UK’s press officer, Nick Steiner [said]: “It has been brought to my attention that you have published the email that I sent you to, you did not state this in your email request, nor you did have consent to do this. I therefore request that you take down the article that you have placed on your blog. You have 7 days in which to do this, failing this I shall submit a DMCA to WordPress to have it removed.” I laughed this off, and responded to the email arguing their case was absurd…I assumed this would all be swept under the carpet…[but] I was wrong – within a few days WordPress caved to them without question, removing my article and telling me if I tried to publish it again I’d be suspended…
The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is an American law which requires US-based websites (like WordPress) to comply with demands (“DMCA takedown notices”) from copyright holders to remove copyrighted material posted by others; it’s the reason for the ubiquitous “This video has been removed” notices on YouTube. Even though Straight Pride and the blogger, Oliver Hotham, both reside in the UK, a huge fraction of internet companies (including blog-hosting sites) reside in the US; DMCA notices are thus an all-too-common means of censoring others because although the takedowns can be appealed, it takes time, effort and submitting to some onerous conditions. Since Hotham is a student he lacked the resources to pursue this; it would probably have ended there had Steiner, flushed with his sleazy victory, not pushed the issue by demanding Hotham remove all references to Straight Pride UK from his blog and refrain from ever writing about them again. Hotham responded as any self-respecting blogger would: by blogging about it (the post is quoted above). And what happened next?
This is not having the impact that Straight Pride UK might have hoped for. Instead, they are encountering the Streisand Effect in an immediate and catastrophic way. Many bloggers are reprinting Oliver’s post; Oliver has given his permission to do so. Straight Pride UK [reacted with a tweet reading, “Police now dealing with this encouragement of harassment. Any further re-posts, profiles will be printed & provided to them.”] In fact, they are reacting in a manner that shows that they don’t merely hold the completely ridiculous position that their “press release” is protected — they also think that they have a right to be free of criticism about their censorious twatwafflery…
The full text of Hotham’s original post is available at Popehat; as a bonus, you’ll also find the full text of Straight Pride UK’s Facebook-posted response to the controversy, which clearly displays the organization’s collective cluelessness for all the world to see. Incidentally, the lawyers who blog at Popehat (especially Kenneth White, author of that post) are great defenders of free speech and foes of censorship in all of its ugly forms; regular readers know I refer to them often, and may recall last month’s “The Free Speech Mafia“, wherein I (briefly) explained how Ken rescued me by repelling a thuggish attempt at censorship not entirely dissimilar from the one described above.
(This column previously appeared in Cliterati on August 18th; it has been slightly modified for time references and to fit the format of this blog)
I must admit I’m a little disappointed.
When you said “today it’s the straights’ turn to be on the receiving end of my opprobrium” I thought I had a fight on my hands.
As it turns out you were kicking around such a fringe group I can’t even find anything in their position to defend. In fact it’s hard to find anything coherent in their position at all. Except the ‘lavender cabal’ stuff of course. But we all know what the queers are doing to the soil – the same thing the communists were trying to do to our precious bodily fluids! So there’s nothing to argue over there either.
As a longtime “fag hag” and a gay equality campaigner from back in my elementary school days (seriously), I think the LGBT movement has experienced a collective outbreak of the narcissism you mention. It is just unfathomable for anyone to disagree with them for any legitimate reason. I’ve been getting into rather fierce arguments about it and been called a “homophobe” for my opinions.
Which is ridiculous. Any way you choose to define it, I am very much a homo-phile.
But yeah, those Straight Pride dumbasses…. “That press release… I didn’t mean that it should be, you know, RELEASED to the PRESS!”
Snigger.
Yes, I’ve also been called “homophobic” for opposing some of the schemes of “Big Gay” or pointing out that they’ve thrown sex workers under the bus even though it was gay sex workers who STARTED the gay rights movement. That’s especially funny because, as i said above, I’m bi.
In the early 80s that alone would have been enough to get you condemned by mainstream gay rights activists in Sydney.
It’s changed a lot since then, but I believe there’s still some hold-outs who would insist either that you’re a narcissistic hetero who just wants attention from women as well or a traitorous lesbian who has sold out the sisterhood by screwing men. I’m told LGBT activists in the UK are still pretty bad that way.
Yeah, I still do hear that sort of thing from time to time, and I think it’s even stupider than the sort of nonsense straights come out with because the gay crowd should know better.
I think that there are some virulently anti-homosexual folks who are themselves bisexual. Listen to them: if we don’t repress the hell out of homosexuality, everybody will be doing it! And besides, you can just do the opposite sex as easily.
Well, maybe for them that’s true. Maybe they can go either way, and the only thing which keeps them from occasionally going that other way is the fear of hellfire, social stigma, and legal sanction.
“Never explain, never complain.”
Interestingly, WordPress is looking at how DMCA can be mis-used.
Is it just me? Or … do others just NOT LIKE any of this “pride” shit?
On either side really. I have a message to all of them … “Fuck Off!”
You straight guys that want me to condemn homosexual marriage … I won’t do it because people should be able to do what they wish … Fuck Off!
You gay guys that want me to call your “unions” a “marriage” … hey if you want to – knock yourself out – but since the beginning of humankind – “marriage” means “man and woman” … just like the color “blue” means the color “blue” … so I’ll call it what I want and you can Fuck Off!
You guys who keep calling my house asking for funding to “save gays” from the homosexual lifestyle … I don’t really care, they can do what they want as long as they don’t bother me! So Fuck Off!
You “trans-genders” who insist you’re NOT also “homosexual” … well science says otherwise so … believe what you wish and I’ll believe what I wish … Fuck Off!
I’m surprised Maggie hasn’t already popped up with some of the many cases in history where marriage did not mean a man and a woman. Thebes is the first that pops into my head.
To the extent “marriage” has an objective meaning, it is uniting to become a family. That’s something I think should be encouraged whatever the numbers, genders, or polarities involved.
Maybe the first time I’ve agreed with you on something, jdgalt.
But I’d add the qualifier that I don’t think churches and other community based groups should be arm-twisted into performing – or even recognising – marriages they don’t agree with.
If people don’t like the club rules they should go and form their own club.
And here I am agreeing with both of you… at the same time! YIKES!!
As for churches being able to step out of it, that’s the way it is here in the US at least. Suppose Tracy and I wanted to get married, and the preacher we go to says, “I don’t want to do this because God doesn’t approve of mixing the races. He put them on different continents for a reason you know.” Well, he doesn’t have to marry us, and Tracy and I can’t sue him over it. He’s a church, and he doesn’t have to marry us. A judge can’t pull that, because he doesn’t represent a church or a God or a Force or whatever.