Your insistent pretence that there is some doubt or disagreement about the content and import of the flyer ordered removed by the City of Oakland appeared, at first, bizarre. Continuing that pretence, as you do in your most recent comment, after we’ve had a couple of go-rounds on that issue, is simply risible.

In my previous comment, I wrote:

“Do you agree that “homophobic” and “promot[ing] sexual orientation based harassment” are usefully summarised as “hate speech”?”

No.

If we don’t agree on a concept of hate speech, then this entire thread has been pointless.

You did not disagree, yet you seem to think we should soldier on regardless. That, too, seems bizarre.

To reiterate, there is no useful purpose that can be served if we do not agree on the significance of the terms we purport to discuss, or at least appreciate the serviceability of each other’s understandings. I don’t know about you, but I have better things to do than prolong an acrimonious and now obviously pointless debate.

On that happy note, comments are closed.

Where, exactly, did the City “agree that an allegation or actual instance of hate speech is involved”? Document this claim.

“Also, I’d bet the vast majority of Americans (and Canadians) would agree that statements that are “homophobic” and “promote sexual orientation based harassment” do indeed constitute hate speech.”

We already know that your opinions are based on lies, like the one the PFLC suckered you with. Why should this one be any more credible than anything else you’ve claimed?

“There’s this, from the Ninth Circuit Court judgment (p. 10 of the pdf document)…”

Nothing in the excerpt you quote describes the flyers as containing “censorable hate speech”. Nor does it mention the phrases “defence of marriage” or “natural family”. Stop lying.

“Be that as it may, it is now abundantly clear that your use of “blatant” is, as a matter of dictionary definition, incorrect.”

Shorter Gilbreath: “WAAAAAH! Mommeeeee! He’s not using the words the way I want him to!”

The PFLC claims that the Court decided this issue on certain grounds. If one takes the time to read the ruling, one easily sees that the Court did no such thing. How much more blatant does a lie told by someone on your side of the issue have to be before you will class it as “blatant”, mumbles?

I’m not asking you to defend anything anybody invented. It’s just a question. You’ve asked me questions, I’ve responded to at least a few of ‘em. Now I’m asking you a couple of questions. That’s all.

“Do you agree that “homophobic” and “promot[ing] sexual orientation based harassment” are usefully summarised as “hate speech”?”

No.

If we don’t agree on a concept of hate speech, then this entire thread has been pointless. Both plaintiff and defendant agree that an allegation or actual instance of hate speech is involved (as you asked me to document, and as I did in my previous comment), but now you say you don’t agree with either of them. You would appear to lack common ground with either party to this lawsuit and, without that, how can you understand the conflict between the two?

Also, I’d bet the vast majority of Americans (and Canadians) would agree that statements that are “homophobic” and “promote sexual orientation based harassment” do indeed constitute hate speech. Your disagreement places you in a small minority, I think. (But that’s an empirical question, so I stand to be corrected if there is information to the contrary.)

“See above.”

Evasion noted.

LOL. I assure you no evasion was intended, I was merely referring to the blockquote above. Since you want it spelled out, however, I am happy to oblige:

Show me. Where in any court document does the City label “defence of marriage and the natural family” as “censorable hate speech”?

There’s this, from the Ninth Circuit Court judgment (p. 10 of the pdf document):

Hicks transmitted a copy of AI 71 to all CEDA employees accompanied by a memorandum that described “recent[] * * * incidents” where “flyers were placed in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature and were determined to promote sexual orientation based harassment,” and noted that violation of AI 71 could result in “discipline up to and including termination.”

In response to your demand: Show me. Where in any court document do either the plaintiff or defendant state that the issue is “hate speech”?, I cited the plaintiff’s attorney’s notice of appeal. You did not reject that, so I take it I have answered your question.

I criticised your use of the adjective “blatant”, but also pointed out: I’m not saying that indicates anything about the veracity of our positions . . .

Yet you came back with: That doesn’t magically make the lie into the truth.

Now who’s not reading what the other has actually written?

Be that as it may, it is now abundantly clear that your use of “blatant” is, as a matter of dictionary definition, incorrect.

The claims made by the Pro-Family Law Center — the claims that you are here promoting — are blatant lies.

A perfect example of the “BECAUSE! I! SAY! SO!” school of “reasoning” so beloved of the fringe right

Excuse me, but I made none of the claims you attributed to me. Why, exactly, should I try to defend an argument you invented and stuck in my mouth?

“Do you agree that ‚Äúhomophobic‚Äù and ‚Äúpromot[ing] sexual orientation based harassment‚Äù are usefully summarised as ‚Äúhate speech‚Äù?”

No. And the original claim wasn’t that anything could be “usefully summarised as “hate speech”". The original claim was that “The infamous Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the City of Oakland could prevent employees from posting notices referring to “marriage” and “natural family” on the grounds that those terms constitute hate speech” (emphasis mine). The ruling wasn’t issued on those grounds. The claim is a blatant lie.

“See above.”

Evasion noted. Still waiting for a citation of the point in any court document where the City labels “defence of marriage and the natural family” as “censorable hate speech”.

“”Blatant” means “glaringly obvious”, but I‚Äôve searched the internet and few seem to see the glare. Besides yours, I‚Äôve found only one reference to “blatant lie” in this context, and it‚Äôs by your friend Ed Brayton. I‚Äôve seen several that take the view I‚Äôve presented, including a major daily American newspaper. (“Major” defined as “large circulation”.)”

You’ve found several other folks who have been deceived by the blatant lie that you and the Pro-Family Law Center are promoting. That doesn’t magically make the lie into the truth. It simply shows that a lot of people can be fooled when a lie is repeatedly loudly enough and long enough.

Read the ruling. Nowhere does the court state that any words or phrases are “banned”. Nowhere does the court state that the ruling is based on the grounds that any words or phrases “constitute hate speech”. The claims made by the Pro-Family Law Center — the claims that you are here promoting — are blatant lies.

Then why did the City of Oakland order the flyer removed? Why did the GNEA sue the City?

Show me. Where in any court document do either the plaintiff or defendant state that the issue is “hate speech”?

Well, there’s the Pro-Family Law Center’s notice of appeal to the Supreme Court, filed on behalf of the plaintiff, where this is found on the second page of the pdf document:

Is it a prior restraint for a municipal employer to declare, as a matter of policy, the terms “natural family,” “marriage” and/or “family values” to be hate-speech per se’?

There’s this, from the Ninth Circuit Court judgment (p. 10 of the pdf document):

Hicks transmitted a copy of AI 71 to all CEDA employees accompanied by a memorandum that described “recent[] * * * incidents” where “flyers were placed in public view which contained statements of a homophobic nature and were determined to promote sexual orientation based harassment,” and noted that violation of AI 71 could result in “discipline up to and including termination.”

Do you agree that “homophobic” and “promot[ing] sexual orientation based harassment” are usefully summarised as “hate speech”?

Show me. Where in any court document does the City label “defence of marriage and the natural family” as “censorable hate speech”?

See above.

On a related matter, I think there’s a problem with using the adjective “blatant” to describe the “lie” you allege, and which I dispute. “Blatant” means “glaringly obvious”, but I’ve searched the internet and few seem to see the glare. Besides yours, I’ve found only one reference to “blatant lie” in this context, and it’s by your friend Ed Brayton. I’ve seen several that take the view I’ve presented, including a major daily American newspaper. (“Major” defined as “large circulation”.)

I’m not saying that indicates anything about the veracity of our positions, only about the claim that your view is “glaringly obvious”. Unless one’s definition of “blatant” is “glaringly obvious to those who agree with me”, or some such.

What I said is not “rhetoric”. It is a statement of fact. The claim that the court ‚Äúconcluded that the terms ‚Äúmarriage,‚Äù ‚Äúnatural family,‚Äù and ‚Äúfamily values‚Äù could be censored in a municipal workplace as hate-speech‚Äù is blatant lie.

You won’t discuss that lie. No surprise there.

Gotta love that take-no-prisoners rhetoric.

So, if I understand your view correctly, that the City of Oakland removed the material at issue after receiving complaints from offended homosexual employees and that the City denounced said material as ”homophobic” and promoting workplace harassment are merely coincidental and/or irrelevant to the order to remove. The material was ordered removed because some petty bureaucrat(s) got up on the wrong side of the bed one morning.

As for the Good News Employee Association, they decided to sue not because their material was ordered removed, nor because they were reminded that they could be fired for posting such homophobic and harassing material—while remaining convinced that their flyer was neither. No, that is all merely coincidental and/or irrelevant to the decision to sue. They launched their action because their members got up on the wrong side of the bed one morning.

I had heard that American bosses are arbitrary power-trippers and that ordinary American citizens are capricious litigators but, as a friend of our neighbour to the south (and, from where I sit, west), I had always refused to believe such terrible accusations. But apparently it‚Äôs true—with take-no-prisoners rhetoric to boot.

No, your perspective — which parrots that of the Pro-Family Law Center — is based upon a lie: that the court “concluded that the terms “marriage,” “natural family,” and “family values” could be censored in a municipal workplace as hate-speech”. No such conclusion was reached by the court. You will search the ruling in vain for that conclusion — but it seems that doesn’t stop you from helping to spread the lie.

“So, the circumstances in which the case arose show that both plaintiff and defendant understood the issue to be hate speech.”

Show me. Where in any court document do either the plaintiff or defendant state that the issue is “hate speech”?

“Specifically, the City labeled defence of marriage and the natural family as censorable hate speech…”

Show me. Where in any court document does the City label “defence of marriage and the natural family” as “censorable hate speech”?

“The Ninth Circuit found for the City and against the employees who brought suit. Although the court carefully avoided the crux of the issue, the decision has the practical effect of vindicating the view that defence of marriage and the natural family constitutes hate speech.”

Which party to this case expressed that view? Show me.

You are entitled to your own opinions. You are not entitled to your own facts. Without the facts to support the opinions, said opinions are based solely on fantasy. Show me that you aren’t fantasizing. Produce the facts.

“The reason for avoiding that issue is, as you pointed out, that California has no hate speech law.”

No. Nothing was “avoided”. The case simply wasn’t about hate speech.

“To find as the court did on those grounds would be an obvious instance of judicial legislation. Good reason for the court not to go there. But, again, that is the practical effect of the decision.

“To summarise, a narrowly legalistic perspective of the decision finds no suggestion that hate speech is an issue here; but, I would argue, a perspective which takes into account the circumstances which brought the case to court and the social context of the decision sees hate speech ramifications. Both perspectives are, in their own terms, defensible.”

False. The claim that the court “concluded that the terms “marriage,” “natural family,” and “family values” could be censored in a municipal workplace as hate-speech” isn’t defensible, because it’s a blatant lie.

Do you often find yourself defending blatant lies?

The City of Oakland ordered the material at issue in this case removed because it ‚Äúcontained statements of a homophobic nature‚Äù and promoted ‚Äúsexual orientation-based harassment.” Homophobic speech is generally understood as a type of hate speech; certainly, it is so understood by the homosexual activists who complained to the City about it. Likewise, harassment-promoting materials.

So, the circumstances in which the case arose show that both plaintiff and defendant understood the issue to be hate speech. Specifically, the City labeled defence of marriage and the natural family as censorable hate speech, and plaintiff objected to that characterisation. That is why this case went to court in the first place.

The Ninth Circuit found for the City and against the employees who brought suit. Although the court carefully avoided the crux of the issue, the decision has the practical effect of vindicating the view that defence of marriage and the natural family constitutes hate speech.

The reason for avoiding that issue is, as you pointed out, that California has no hate speech law. To find as the court did on those grounds would be an obvious instance of judicial legislation. Good reason for the court not to go there.

But, again, that is the practical effect of the decision.

And that is why I’d be willing to bet my house that SCOTUS will, once again, reverse an egregious Ninth Circuit decision. (Fortunately, perhaps, the wife would not permit me to be so foolish as to bet our major asset on the outcome of a court case.)

To summarise, a narrowly legalistic perspective of the decision finds no suggestion that hate speech is an issue here; but, I would argue, a perspective which takes into account the circumstances which brought the case to court and the social context of the decision sees hate speech ramifications. Both perspectives are, in their own terms, defensible. Another reason to await the word from SCOTUS.

You might want to think about being a bit more careful when you reproduce these press releases verbatim, without investigating whether the statements they make are misleading. Doing less is a disservice to your readers.