RHONDA: American Fag

by Rhonda Linseman-Saunders

I know it isn’t black and white and that the moron who holds the signs with variations on “God Hates Fags and America” all over town has a right to free speech. In his infinite creativity, he held an orange and black “Fag Fest” sign to greet Fantasy Fest visitors over Halloween weekend. I can’t help but feel sorry for him, you know? I really can’t help but think of him as somebody’s lost, sad little boy with nobody to love him.

But hate speech, as I understand it, is not protected by the First Amendment. I suppose the problem is the gray sludge between free speech and hate speech. It’s hard to determine with certainty that some speech is intended to foster hatred based on religion, gender, race, sexual orientation, or “other improper classification.” It seems obvious the guy is full of hate, but we just can’t go accusing people of things we haven’t figured out how to measure fairly. I hate that immeasurably.

I’m neither a law scholar nor a psychologist, and I certainly don’t want to promote stepping on freedoms, even when I disagree whole-heartedly with something. But I’m pretty sure I’m equally free to spout off. That’s one reason I didn’t like the city’s reaction to that religious fundamentalist group— whoever they were (I don’t even care enough to Google it)— that came to town to protest homosexuality at the high school. I don’t like being told by collective “city and civic leaders” what my reaction ought to be. And, for that reason alone, I was glad US1 Radio gave airtime to their leading idiot, what’s-his-name.

Speaking of nameless idiots, most people really do a good job of completely ignoring ours, the local God Hates Fags guy. I recall him getting to my husband— a veteran— only once, by standing on the American flag in front of the courthouse. That seems at least a little more measurably against the law, but somehow flag defamation bothers me less than “fag” defamation. See? It’s all so subjective.

My guess, though, is that our American fag-hater is hoping for the most extreme opposite of being ignored. He doesn’t just want to be noticed— he wants to be a martyr for his cause. Just my opinion. Sometimes complete failures who are also attention whores do some really strange things (the balloon boy’s dad comes to mind). Again, I’m just guessing here.

It is ironic that the sign guy hates America so much when he seemingly spends every waking moment testing his American freedoms. He is a good American. A real live ultra-American freedom-flexing champion.

And I’m guessing our local American hate monger doesn’t actually hate “fags” at all, either. Quite the contrary— he probably loves them very much— almost as much as he loves his American freedoms— and hates himself for it. I can only imagine he believes deep down that he’s the biggest fag of all, and despises himself so much that he’s hoping somebody will get out of their car and beat the wicked soul out of him, once and for all, before he acts on his natural impulses. How unnecessarily excruciating. And how sad to suffer in such a manner when, regarding homosexuality, he lives in one of the most enlightened communities in the country.

I have to wonder if he’s such a complete and miserable coward that he’d rather be dead, but doesn’t have the gonads to do it himself. Maybe he’s like one of those people who commit suicide by cop— flailing a weapon around, hoping to be gunned down because they can’t finish themselves off.

I could be wrong. Maybe the American fag sign guy is just some run-of-the-mill nut and not a misguided, self-loathing homosexual. And in that case, can’t he be detained or hospitalized for his own protection? I mean, if he’s not merely a moron, but an actual psycho, isn’t there some protective measure that can be taken to save him from the inevitable? I know we can’t go around Baker Acting everybody holding a sign, but doesn’t society have some obligation to protect that guy from himself? I don’t know. I’m asking.

It’s just a matter of time, if you ask me. And it’ll be a terrible, avoidable shame because it will waste both his life and that of whoever grants him his apparent wish.

Rhonda@kwtn.com

Go Back Where You Were

Comments

[DNevens]

The PD should probably pick him up and make him go in for an evaluation. My guess is he probably needs to be institutionalized.

[POPEYE]

when I Go by him it just gives me the oppurtunity to yell loudly GOD is no hater.It seems to bring a few smiles to some people and thats a good thing.Quit Hatin

[Joey Marathon]

It is free speech. Even hate speech is pretty much covered. He is not physically harming anyone. And for better or worse he adds to the color of Key West. interesting fact is that over 90% of America is against Gay Marriage. I wonder if they also have the same feelings as he does. Everyone should be treated equally under the law. Even Mr. Sign Man. President Obama also seems to be anti gay. He promised so much but has yet to deliver. Remember Obama is a Muslim/black revolution theology, Socialist, and a Heterosexual. These three traits have not been kind to gays and lesbians. Time to rethink why Obama was supported so strongly by Gay America? A waisted vote???

[Sally O'Boyle]

Thank God all speech is protected by the First Amendment. Makes it really easy to identify the haters among us. The scary thing about the Hate Crime bill that just passed is that now the government gets to decide what is hate. (Read the bill, it comes within a hair of making hate thought prosecutable.) And who do we collectively love to bash more than anything else? Our government.

Joey, where do you get the 90% of America is against gay marriage? Just curious.

[Rhonda Saunders]

Interesting. And so slippery. I've gotten lots of feedback about the American Fag. Maybe I should plan a follow up in a forthcoming column to share some of it. I was asking questions and got a wide range of answers (some complete misinterpretations of what I thought I said). The one thing that was consistent throughout most of the feedback was everybody thinks they have it right. I still don't see it as quite so cut and dry. Still seems muddy.

Sally, the hate crime bill does creep me out, based solely on what you've said here.

[DNevens]

Sally, all speech is not protected by the First Amendment. Hate speech being one of them.

See Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire

Joey, note above and also please provide a source to your 90% claim. Thanks.

Also, Obama is not a Muslim, 'revolution theologian,' is only half black, and is not a Socialist.

One last thing, it would be "wasted," not "waisted" unless of course the vote came from your waist ;)

[Sally O'Boyle]

Thank you for pointing out the Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire socialist decision, introducing the "two-tier theory" of the First Amendment. If I call someone a racist in public, I've broken a law because "any benefit that may be derived from [such an utterance] is clearly outweighed by the social interest in order and morality." I wonder if calling the decision "socialist" can get me in trouble?

[Joey]

I may be overestimating or underestimating I have read numerous poll reports and they rated African American voter as 98%, hispanic voter over 90% and well conservative to middle white americans 70-75% against it. I was very surprised that these figures were so high. I know many people who are for it or for domestic partnerships. Who really knows. The recent voters have voted against it in every state so far. I think it is dangerous to try and force it upon American voters at this time thorugh the courts. The backlash could be catastropic. I also believe that Gay America have been duped by this so called socialistic leaning president. I know many eastern europeans that said the socialists were brutal to the Eastern European Gays! The Nazis well we know what happen there. In the Muslim world whew a scairy thought!

[Joey]

DNevens Sorry about the misspelling "wasted". Where do you get your sources on "Also, Obama is not a Muslim, 'revolution theologian,' is only half black, and is not a Socialist." I think you are one of the ones that have been duped! He refers to his Muslim upbringing with great affection, he bowed to the king of Arabia, he has turned his back on Israel, his economic policies are strictly socialist. I suggest you read about socialist economic political philosophy. My Patner and I own a business and we are for free trade and capitalism and for LIBERTY! Sorry I am passionate about this! We go to a nice diverse Christian church as well.

[DNevens]

You know something that really gets me? People who run around like Chicken Little screaming "you're a socialist!" or "this is socialism!" When really it's none of the above.

I hate to pick on you, Sally, but socialism does NOT equate lack of free speech. Fascism on the other hand, does. Communism is really in between. So please, if you're going to criticize something, please use the correct term.

The US is VERY socialist already. If you look at roads, sidewalks, Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, public schools, street lights, stop signs, bridges, tunnels, most airport, cruise terminals, water quality control, sewer systems, and a slew of other things, are all socialism.

As for calling somebody a racist in public, that would not fall under hate speech.

Joey, I still am looking for a link to those statistics, as well as the 'backlash' in states where gay marriage is recognized.

As I just was telling Sally, socialist are not brutal, fascist are. Nazi's were fascists.

My source on Obama was his own website. You can say what you will but if I'm going to believe something about anyone, I would start with what they say themselves. Just as you're saying you're for "free trade and capitalism and LIBERTY" I believe you. Who would know you better than yourself?

As for the bowing to the King of Arabia,
http://littlegreenfootballs.com/article/33289_Bush_Bowed_Too

[Sally O'Boyle]

Ok, we're splitting hairs here. Banning any type of speech is indeed the road to fascism. Seems we are on it, eh?

Socialism and communism differ only in degree. Likewise, communism and fascism are two sides of the same coin, the only difference is whose name is on the title.

Justice Murphy's said, "These include the lewd and obscene, the profane, the libelous, and the insulting or "fighting" words those which by their very utterance inflict injury or tend to incite an immediate breach of the peace." Seems to me that would include calling someone fatty in public.

The whole notion of a two tier theory when it comes to free speech is ridiculous. The Bill of Rights determines rights, not privileges. The Founders debated even including them out of fear of just such an outrage as to "define" what that right includes. They made it pretty clear, if you ask me.

Yes, the U.S. is very socialist. Our representatives have been busy trampling the Constitution while we slept for years and years and years. I hope we aren't waking up too late to reverse the trend.

Nice chatting with you!

[DNevens]

I don't think we're splitting hairs at all.

Socialism functions with, can and does embrace capitalism. Communism does not. I would say that's a rather large degree!

Calling someone a fatty could very well be a statement of fact. It certainly doesn't incite an immediate breach of peace, IMO.

Also, I'm not sure on your definition of 'two tier.' The legislation passed makes it a federal crime to assault someone on sexual orientation or their gender orientation. I really don't understand the whole thought behind 'they'll monitor your thoughts!'

Do people not deserve the protection of their government?

I don't see socialism as trampling the Constitution at all. As a matter of fact, there's nothing in the Constitution that bars socialism. And if we take it a step further, the founding fathers had the ideas of socialism before it ever became known as socialism. The capitals of Colonial times didn't have private owners, nor did the courthouses!

A civilized society needs some socialism. If we go to pure capitalism it would lead to the end of our nation? Why? Income gap. The rich would grow richer and richer, while the poor would grow poorer.

If the poor have nobody to care for them, yet see the rich dining on lobsters and steak, animalist instincts take over. There will be civil chaos. As long as the poor retain some forms of civilized society, the delicate balance between the rich and the poor will remain. When I say delicate, I mean as a society we're usually one step above riots breaking out.

There was a very good taste of it this past year with TARP. I'm sure you saw people enraged that banks would receive billions of dollars to stay in business. People were (and still are) screaming from the rafters. Now imagine if the majority of these people were hungry, had no shelter and had sick family members. Imagine the chaos. As old Marie can attest to, when the income gap grows and grows, the last thing you want is to tell somebody to eat cake ;)

Enough with my rambling, in a nutshell the government must provide socialist services to maintain a civilized society.

You too!

[Sally O'Boyle]

You and I are worlds apart on this topic. Socialism is a parasite on the back of capitalism, feeding off the productive to keep the grasshoppers in caviar.

The Founders wrote the Constitution to protect the the rights of the individual. The Founders were libertarians, not socialists.

When capitalism is allowed to work unfettered by government intervention, the gap between rich and poor, in fact, is smaller. A productive society provides jobs and products that people want. Everyone benefits. As long as a person doesn't hurt another person, they should be allowed to earn and be as productive as they can be without limits. Then they can provide jobs, etc... the trickle down is a thing of beauty.

As the government interferes with the market, as the U.S. gov has done in a bigger and bigger way since the Federal Reserve was created in 1913, that gap grows. As our country goes more socialist, you will see a bigger gap, not a smaller one. We'll all be poor together while the CEOs that TARP saved and the representatives that voted for it will live in the style to which they've become accustomed.

If the too big to fails had been allowed to fail, we would have had a crash, it would be over now and we'd be on our way back up. As it is, we will have a long slow slide to a merciless bottom. The recession is not over, this is a dead cat bounce. TARP is a dismal failure. This is the stuff revolution is made of.

If you wiki the supreme court case, you'll see mention of the two tier theory. Pretty important stuff, completely against the Founder's intent. If you ask me.

[DNevens]

Sally, we just saw 8 years of 'trickle down.' I find it hard to believe anyone still thinks it works.

Humans are naturally greedy. Without regulation that greed takes over and the people at the top basically say "to hell with everyone else, I've got what I need!" Trickle down does not work, nor will it ever. Why? Greed.

I'm going to gather you weren't alive during the depression. The depression was a time of immense bank failure. As I'm sure you're aware, it took years upon years for the economy to come back.

If you really think allowing the banks to fail would have been as simple as snapping your fingers and we would be back on the up and up, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you.

Small business especially relies on credit. It's immensely hard to get credit now, no matter if the biggest banks in the world were allowed to fail.

Key West is a great example of small business that needs credit. Look how slow tourism is during the middle and end of the summer. Many stores, guesthouses, etc. don't make enough to cover expenses during this time. They rely on a line of credit to meet payroll, etc. until season starts again. If these businesses couldn't get credit, they couldn't make payroll, their workers would have no income. If their workers have no income, they can't pay rent, they can't buy food, they can't spend.

Credit is a cycle. If any part of the cycle isn't functioning, things go sour very quickly.

TARP is by no means a failure. The US government has made (and will continue as other institutions pay back their loans) money off TARP.

The problem is people don't understand basic economics and then scream from the rafters because talking heads are shouting headlines to sell news.

Look at Sarah Palin and her death panels. My neighbor across the street is an elderly lady. As I was helping her one day we got to talking about health care. She told me she was scared Obama was gong to kill her. Seriously. She had no idea Medicare was government health care and she already had it. These lies are what scare people and warp their views. I wish people would take a few hours to do research, but unfortunately it's easier to read those chain e-mails you get and then scream like Chicken Little that the sky is falling.

We are worlds apart on this. Socialism is by no means a parasite on capitalism. Socialism in most cases embraces capitalism.

[Sally O'Boyle]

===========
Re. "...we just saw 8 years of 'trickle down.' I find it hard to believe anyone still thinks it works."

The economy we are experiencing now is a result of almost 100 years of a corrupt central bank managing the money supply.

===========
Re. "Humans are naturally greedy."

I disagree. I think many people believe this because of government propaganda. Want proof? Look around you, at the people you know. How many do you believe are greedy? How many do you think would turn their backs on anyone in time of need? Be specific: make a list of names. Then ask your friends the same question. What you will find is that almost no one is greedy. Certainly not to the point of harming another human being.

The dangerous greed is at the corporate level and in politicians who wield the power.

===========
Re. the depression. Every depression we've had was the result of a central bank and failed monetary policy. Our most prosperous years were those with little government interference in the market.

===========
Re. "If you really think allowing the banks to fail would have been as simple as snapping your fingers and we would be back on the up and up, I've got a bridge in Brooklyn to sell you."

Yes, it would have been that simple. Every depression the world has seen was prolonged by government fixes. We can go back and forth over this all day because the future is unknowable. I'll betcha five bucks this ain't over by a long shot.

===========
Re. "Small business especially relies on credit."

More propaganda. All business relies on sound business practices, credit or no. Any business that borrows more than it can pay back deserves to fail.

My husband and I have been small business owners in Key West and other places. We saved and budgeted for slow times. Slow times are no surprise: you plan ahead. If a business isn't making enough money to cover the slow times, it's the wrong business.

===========
Re. "TARP is by no means a failure. The US government has made (and will continue as other institutions pay back their loans) money off TARP."

What is your source for this?

===========
Re. basic economics and the understanding thereof.

There are many schools on economics, all with their Nobel Prize winners to parade about for credibility. To which do you subscribe? I'm an Austrian/Von Mises subscriber.

===========
Re. Medicare. It's broke and the sky is falling in on this one. Don't take my word for it, do some research.

I live in a country with free market health care and government run health care. The free market is cheap and excellent: no government interference in this market.

The public option is affordable but care is rationed, and there are long waits. I can give many personal examples. If you have cancer in this country or gall stones, you better hope you can afford private care.

===========
Re. "Socialism in most cases embraces capitalism."

I've never heard anyone say this before ever. Can you defend this? I'm interested to hear how you got to this conclusion.

[DNevens]

===========
The economy we are experiencing now is a result of almost 100 years of a corrupt central bank managing the money supply.
*****************

Not true. Most of the time there is any deregulation, problems occur. The central bank is not a corrupt institute. If you want to take anger out on problems in the money supply, bring it to Nixon's final blow of abolishing the gold standard.

===========
I disagree. I think many people believe this because of government propaganda. Want proof? Look around you, at the people you know. How many do you believe are greedy? How many do you think would turn their backs on anyone in time of need? Be specific: make a list of names. Then ask your friends the same question. What you will find is that almost no one is greedy. Certainly not to the point of harming another human being.

The dangerous greed is at the corporate level and in politicians who wield the power.
*****************

http://www.workers.org/2006/us/greedy-0223/
Little more on the study: http://www-psych.stanford.edu/~span/Press/bk0206press.html

Maybe you're lucky but I can name quite a few in my extended family that are greedy. Also, note above links about a Stanford study on greed.

===========
Re. the depression. Every depression we've had was the result of a central bank and failed monetary policy. Our most prosperous years were those with little government interference in the market.
*****************

Not so. Recessions and depressions are cyclical; however, certain things can be done to prolong them. Without government stimulus, things take far longer to get better. The government must provide create demand to make up for the lack of demand. Ever heard the phrase "it takes money to make money?" Apply it and you'll see what happens. If Bob is a construction worker and gets laid off he cannot spend. If he cannot spend, he cannot contribute to make the economy better. Bob isn't out there going out to eat, buying new clothes, etc. So what happens? Restaurants are empty, stores are empty. What happens to those workers? Waiters get laid off as do retail clerks. Since they're not making any money, they can't spend, either. Since they have little money they're certainly not investing. Less demand for brokers. The cycle continues.

If the government can provide stimulus funding to complete needed projects, it helps whether the storm. Stimulus money flows in for new roads. Bob gets a job paving. Not only can Bob now go back out and spend, but it also helps companies like in this case, asphalt companies.

Everything is a cycle.

===========
Yes, it would have been that simple. Every depression the world has seen was prolonged by government fixes. We can go back and forth over this all day because the future is unknowable. I'll betcha five bucks this ain't over by a long shot.
*****************

See above. This is completely false.

===========
More propaganda. All business relies on sound business practices, credit or no. Any business that borrows more than it can pay back deserves to fail.

My husband and I have been small business owners in Key West and other places. We saved and budgeted for slow times. Slow times are no surprise: you plan ahead. If a business isn't making enough money to cover the slow times, it's the wrong business.
*****************
If I may ask, how did you fund the starting of your business? Was it all cash? How did you get the cash? Saving? When we look at the short run we can't say 'every business that doesn't have enough money to survive should fail.' Credit is necessary.

POP QUIZ! If you had a business that had average total costs of $10,000 per month and average variable costs at $6,000 per month. They sell widgets priced at $500 a piece and the current demand is 14 widgets per month. Should they remain in business or is this the wrong business that should go out of business?

===========
Re. "TARP is by no means a failure. The US government has made (and will continue as other institutions pay back their loans) money off TARP."

What is your source for this?
*****************
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/economy/31taxpayer.html

===========
Re. Medicare. It's broke and the sky is falling in on this one. Don't take my word for it, do some research.

I live in a country with free market health care and government run health care. The free market is cheap and excellent: no government interference in this market.

The public option is affordable but care is rationed, and there are long waits. I can give many personal examples. If you have cancer in this country or gall stones, you better hope you can afford private care.
*****************

I'm glad your free market is cheap and excellent. Ours isn't. Our health insurance industry, as it stands today, has little regulation. I can go back to greed, but I have a feeling we're all kind of over that now ;)

We have no public option. We cannot get even rationed care without insurance. If you have cancer and you can't afford your treatment or hospital stays they tell you it's time for HTD... that stands for home to die.

===========
Re. "Socialism in most cases embraces capitalism."

I've never heard anyone say this before ever. Can you defend this? I'm interested to hear how you got to this conclusion.
*****************

It's what we call a mixed economy. The US, France, Japan, Britain, and many others.

Some more information: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mixed_economy

----------------------------

We need a message board here... this is getting to be a lot of text in this little box!! LOL!