I have been catching up on some reading, and therefore not following any argument I am not directly involved in closely. However, I think I have reviewed what happened to JLA enough to comment:
In the last year, I asked the Administrator to look into something,concerning the Evil V, spewing anti- semitic canards (like that Jews have a stranglehold on the media), and practically calling for the destruction of Israel. I was told that his rants were within the bounds of the terms of use, and therefore the Administration would do nothing. I protested genuine hate speech (such as his fulminations about how I was a Talmudic Zionist Jew who could be counted on to lie, and how the Talmud is full of anti- Christian material), and nothing happened. JLA made a caustic remark about peace demonstrators, impugning their manhood, indeed, but still, not directly commenting on any issue having to do with being gay, and unlikely to be followed up with further rants on the subject, and he was turned in for hate speech, and the Administrator imposed a heavy sentence. So lying about Jews in classical anti- semitic fashion is not hate speech, but a singular use of a term that gays themselves use about the more flamboyant members of their community is hate speech. OK, got it.
Then I find out that X is the public spirited individual who decided that jla had blown it. It is amazing how she suppressed her deep and abiding affection for jla to perform such a public service. I say that X and the Administration should have our kudos for being ever- vigilant against the possibility that one word used contemptuously should linger on the thread for about 12 hours or so, assuming an army of lurkers catching up......... |
