Well, TBP is really hitting the big time. We now have the American Taliban out there writing entire blog posts responding to our site in general. Several months ago, we found out that the illustrious godhatesfags.com linked us, but they only gave a one sentence, nonsensical response. This latest post is from Kenn Gividen, and it's a several paragraph, nonsensical response.
The long and short of it is that he doesn't like himself the gays all that much, doesn't like the idea of hate crimes legislation, and really doesn't like Bilerico (he's probably still mad that he isn't on our blogroll anymore). Kenn Gividen, you might remember, ran for governor of Indiana a while back and now runs a local libertarian blog. He says there:
The post you are reading at this moment could be deemed to cause mental anguish to the publishers of Bilerico.com and would, therefore, be illegal.
Well, it caused me some mental anguish, but I was more anguished as a writer than as a queer.
The post is ostensibly about the hate crimes bill going to the Senate right now and a response to this post by Bilerico contributor Pam Spaulding. Gividen is worried about it eroding free speech, even though the biggest free speech nuts in the country aren't worried about that, even though it only enhances sentencing on actions that are already deemed property or violent crimes, not blog posts, and even though his only examples of hate crimes legislation eroding free speech are from other countries with different legal histories and different laws. He writes:
The crucial phrase "bodily injury" can mean ANY DISCOMFORT including mental anguish.
It is undefined. Based on other federal statutes and regulations also using this term, it can mean ANY DISCOMFORT including mental anguish. Under the terms of the Act, a person may not cause bodily injury because of sexual orientation.
In other words, the post you are reading at this moment could be deemed to cause mental anguish to the publishers of Bilerico.com and would, therefore, be illegal.
I face all sorts of anguish all the time, often from homophobes who write in all caps, but that doesn't and won't make any of them illegal. The law won't make anything that wasn't a crime into a crime, it just changes sentencing standards.
But Kenn isn't really all that concerned with the bill. He starts out by writing:
First come the slurs...
Fundie follies, homobigoted, black pastor puppets.
Then comes the disinformation...
The presumption that the Kennedy-Smith hate crimes prevention amendment is a reasonable means of insuring free speech and civil rights.
(I does neither.)
The above can be found on the anti-liberty, pro-homosexual website, Bilerico.com. At issue is legislation now pending in the United States Senate that would erode free speech.
Yes, we are pretty pro-homosexual here. Sorry, Kenn, but we don't hate ourselves and we aren't going to just die or disappear like you want us to.
I do like how he set up his blog post as an FAQ, though. I think that move did well to dispel lingering rumors that there were any professional writers working at his site. Consider question 5:
5 - Does Bilerico.com champion free speech?
Earlier this Spring Bilerico was one of two blogs that banned this libertarian site from its blog role for telling the truth about serious health risks associated with the gay lifestyle.
While this is probably the heart of the issue, that we removed him from the blogroll because of his fantasies of mass gay death, I think that our stance on free speech is already pretty damn inclusive. We're a blog, and we don't have to represent every point of view, in fact there are some points of view that we won't ever represent here, but we do have a couple of contributors who are against the hate crimes bill and have had the opportunity to post their thoughts on this site.
But it really all comes down to Bil. Kenn says:
Has it occured to Bil that his anti-Christian remarks constitute hate speech?
Read Bil's rage in context here
Well, I can say lots of things about Bil and use lots of words to describe him, but "rage" isn't one of them. "Often tries to pawn work off on Alex, like this very blog post" would definitely describe him, but not "rage".