You’d think people who call themselves “human rights activists” would support free speech. When it comes to the modern LGBT activist community, you’d be wrong.
Meta, the parent company of Facebook and Instagram, just announced major policy shifts toward allowing more free expression on its platforms. In a move that’s being praised by nonpartisan free speech groups, Meta is changing its fact-checking system and scaling back its “hate speech” policies to allow for more open conversations about controversial issues such as trans issues and immigration.
LGBT activists are not happy.
For example, GLAAD CEO Sarah Kate Ellis claimed the changes “make Meta’s platforms unsafe places for users and advertisers alike.”
“Meta is giving the green light for people to target LGBTQ people, women, immigrants, and other marginalized groups with violence, vitriol, and dehumanizing narratives,” Ellis continued. “With these changes, Meta is continuing to normalize anti-LGBTQ hatred for profit — at the expense of its users and true freedom of expression.”
Here’s where it gets truly Orwellian. Ellis concluded, “Fact-checking and hate speech policies protect free speech.”
There are too many problems with this to count.
First, it’s a bizarre new strain of gaslighting to claim that hate speech policies, which dictate the removal of online speech that offends people, protect free speech. They, by definition, do the opposite of that. LGBT activists could still argue for hate speech policies and argue that protecting people from offense is more important than upholding freedom of expression. Still, they can’t just claim the sky is green and we’re bigots if we disagree — at least, not without being certifiably insane.
What’s more, gay and transgender people do not need “safe spaces” online. This is a fundamentally paternalistic and condescending view that suggests people within these categories are more fragile than everyone else and need protection. In reality, they’re typically just as resilient as anyone else, and there’s always the block button for their use if they want to stop seeing something that upsets them online.
Much more importantly, the ability to express controversial, upsetting, or minority viewpoints is something LGBT activists of all people should appreciate, not oppose.
Once upon a time, not too long ago, their ideas about acceptance and tolerance for gay people were radical, fringe, and deeply offensive to many people. Yet, because of America’s cultural and legal protections for free speech, their views were still able to be aired, and ultimately they won the day, eventually embraced by the majority of the public. Now these same activists are seeking to undermine that opportunity for others, evidently not noticing the deep contradiction in and short-sighted nature of their position.
CLICK HERE TO READ MORE FROM THE WASHINGTON EXAMINER
After all, groups such as GLAAD still today advocate extreme minority views, such as supporting the medical transition of gender-confused minors. While these activists might think their views are mainstream, because they largely operate in echo chambers, polling repeatedly suggests otherwise. So, whether they realize it or not, they’re undermining their own ability to advocate these minority views by supporting the censorship of ideas that some people find “hateful” and objectionable.
Earlier gay rights activism was truly progressive, bringing about much-needed change and increasing human freedom. This new strain of the LGBT movement is about many things. “Progress” is not one of them.
Brad Polumbo is an independent journalist and host of the Brad vs Everyone podcast.
This article was originally published at www.washingtonexaminer.com
