Gay people were heavily censored in the early 90s outside of cities like San Francisco and West Hollywood. It wasn't until Will and Grace premiered in 1998 that the needle began moving toward acceptance.
Acceptance of an idea is not at all the same thing as the ability to express an idea.
Free speech protects the expression of ideas, no matter how disagreeable or vile some demographics may find them. And LGBT ideology was certainly viewed as vile by the majority of the population for many decades and would have been completely stomped out from discourse if not for free speech protections. Want to see what would have happened to the LGBT community without strong free speech protection? Look no further than Russia.
The necessary cost of free speech is allowing speech one disagrees with. People who enjoy the benefits of free speech but fail to understand this core tenet boggle my mind.
According to Wikipedia [1], comedy TV shows with LGBT characters by decade (which is probably a good proxy). Ellen's "coming out" episode was in 1997.
70s: 12
80s: 11
90s: 28
00s: 45
Willing to wager the trend is similar to movies.
We had (just the ones I can recall off-hand, but had to lookup years):
Paris is Burning ('90)
My Own Private Idaho ('91)
Fried Green Tomatoes ('91)
Philadelphia ('93)
To Wong Foo, Thanks for Everything! Julie Newmar ('95)
Jeffrey ('95)
Birdcage ('96)
Bound ('96)
In & Out ('97)
Boys Don't Cry ('99)
Of course, most of these role were filled by cis people.
As of 2015, same-sex marriage is legal across all 50 states (no idea about territories). Progress can sometimes can incredibly ugly, and I wish it wasn't, but a win is a win.
Which was entirely reasonable. ...because the point of the military isn't to discuss your gender alignment.
The unfairness of it became obvious when every other enlisted man would talk about their latest sex partner and the gay person had to just stand awkwardly silent.
...but the policy itself was rooted in a reasonable desire for soldiers to focus on soldiering.
I'd love to see the list of all the other mundane things you weren't allowed to talk about because they distracted from soldiering. It only seems reasonable if you only consider it in an idealized vacuum.
> The same free speech that is protecting racists today is the same one that prevented Gay people from being censored in the 90s for their "deviant" behavior.
You mean the guys I went to college with that went into a bar together and got beat up for it?
You would prefer that, after being beaten up, they were also arrested and convicted of spreading "gay propaganda"?
You are intentionally conflating homophobic violence with 1st amendment protections, to make it seem like they didn't have the latter. Please debate more honestly in the future.
Traditionally free speech was a 1st amendment issue. In recent years, the term has been used more broadly to mean there should be no consequences of any kind for any form of speech. Consider the examples in the article:
> Universities have faced demands to rescind admissions offers for incoming students and discipline professors over disparaging remarks (such as those of a Cornell professor who faulted a protester injured by police officers in Buffalo, N.Y., for not getting out of the way).
This has nothing to do with the 1st amendment. It appears the concern of the author is that people have encouraged universities to take action.
> A controversial (and, some said, fascistic) New York Times op-ed piece by Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.) fed a clamor that cost two top editors their jobs.
In this case, readers cancelled their subscriptions because the editors approved a piece that contained misleading information and lies. The editors (not the guy that wrote it) were fired.
> Philadelphia Inquirer Executive Editor Stan Wischnowski resigned under pressure — apparently for many reasons, but the proximate cause was an egregious three-word headline equating looted buildings to lost lives.
In this case, it's a free speech issue for a private business to fire someone for incompetence.
I do wish we'd return to the narrower interpretation as being a 1st amendment issue, but that's not the reality now, and it's not what the article was talking about. Free speech today refers to any negative consequences for expressing your views. I can't think of any recent cases where free speech came up and the 1st amendment was relevant.
I don't understand what the distinction between free speech and the 1st amendment has to do with your point (which I don't think you've explicitly stated, so I'm left guessing). Both state and non-state suppression of gay advocacy would/did impede gay advocacy, just as it today impedes racist ideas, so despite the tone of your post, you don't actually disagree with that? More importantly
> Traditionally free speech was a 1st amendment issue. [..] I do wish we'd return to the narrower interpretation as being a 1st amendment issue
I strongly disagree. The 1st amendment shields speech from state suppression, but that is not remotely the only threat to free speech - as your example of the guys that got beaten up shows. While the line where people's reactions to speech can be labeled "against free speech" is very blurry, claiming it's only a free speech issue if the government is involved is absurd. I'm sure if Visa and MasterCard refused to do business with anyone that voiced pro-LGBT views, or if social media giants censored those views, you'd agree their ability to speak freely was being limited - the definition of a "free speech" issue.
While mostly true, I think there is a social contract of modern democracies to let people have their opinion, even if it is bigoted and wrong. Don't you think consequences have increased significantly?
Associating an employer with the opinion of employees if prejudice itself for example. Not wanting to drive that point of course. Should I be more offensive with my indictments?
