11/29/12
Ken Reid Is A Flaming Asshole
By Loudoun Insider
I haven’t had much to say lately – sick to death of the sorry state of Loudoun and its horrendous politics. Made all the worse by flaming assholes like Ken Reid.
On to Matthew 6:2-4
Liz’s chocolates are fabulous.
Thanks, AEG! I’m blushing!
Ah, Eric, I’m bragging about the chocolate, not the alms
Not you, Liz. More about the whole “who gives more” discussion. I am sure your chocolate is decadent, however.
Sinfully so. Which cracks me right the heck up.
Here comes the zing!
They probably lead to dancing. And you know what that leads to.
Kevin Bacon?
No, silly. Drinking beer.
Returning to the topic of Ken Reid and his precious religious display, members of the Courthouse Grounds and Facilities Committee have boasted that their legal position is supported by “preeminent constitutional lawyer” Mike Farris.
Over the weekend, Mike Farris issued a threat to the LGBT student/alumni group at Patrick Henry College, demanding that they take down their Facebook page because it violates the “copyright” of the name Patrick Henry College, adding “in this [sic] process of this matter we can seek discovery from Facebook to learn your identity and seek damages from you as permitted by law.”
Yesterday, “after further consultation,” Farris quickly withdrew his threat. Perhaps the CGFC and board would be better served by seeking legal advice elsewhere.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/12/patrick-henry-gay-queer-farris.html
Sounds to me like Mr. Farris had better hope knows more about the Constitution than he apparently does about copyright and trademark law. Even if you assume he was actually talking about PHC’s trademark and not copyright, there is ample precedent for critics being able to identify the location of their criticism, whether on the internet or in print, such as “The Anti-New York TImes”.
So infringed of his liberty, perhaps he should now choose death.
There are gay students at Patrick Henry? Isn’t that like Obama joining the National Socialist White People’s Party?
I applaud them for their chutzpah.
TCJ, keep in mind that the students at PHC don’t necessarily get to choose where they go to college. Many of them were raised in extremely controlling family environments, and – if they are allowed to go to college at all – enrolling at PHC is their first and only opportunity for exposure to the rest of the world. Even as restrictive as PHC is, that’s true of several of the students I’ve spoken to.
David, you mean “we will now change the subject to gay rights via six degress of Kevin Bacon by way of Ken Reid’s terrorist remark–>Courthouse Grounds Committee –> their attorney Mike Farris–>the college he founded PHC–>the pseudonymously-authored gay blog named queerphc…”?
What on earth does the blog you mentor and for whom you vouch have to do with Ken Reid calling Wingrove’s group terrorists?
Have you been mixing beer, dancing and chocolate?
This is worthy of a new post…
This comment on the referenced article pretty much says it all:
“Students at the college can’t see the blog because the school blocks access to that web address on campus. That’s crazy. Ya know who else does that? Communist China.’
New bumpersticker:
“Free PHC!”
Yes, but it’s not safe anyway. You have no idea the lengths to which the PHC overseers go to find out who among the students might be gay or (even slightly) gay-affirming. It’s an obsession.
This is from QueerPHC’s FAQ page:
Question: Is it safe to access this blog from the PHC campus?
Answer: Most likely not. While using something like Hot Spot Shield or Tor will circumvent the internet filter, there is still the possibility that the Tech Department could track internet traffic. We recommend that current students that want to read our blog do so from off campus or via an internet-enabled smartphone (but not on the campus wi-fi).
“Students at the college can’t see the blog because the school blocks access to that web address on campus. That’s crazy. Ya know who else does that? Communist China.’
Eric, you are spot on in your analysis that that comment pretty much says it all. So much for the free market of ideas. Something that certainly should be highly valued on a college campus. But apparently isn’t valued at Patrick Henry nearly as much as conformity is.
I guess Mr. Farris is teaching these students some very valuable lessons though. He is demonstrating to them how authoritarians who lack confidence in the validity of their own ideas will use whatever power they can marshal in order to stifle dissent and silence competing ideas. Including threats. And he is teaching them that the best way to oppose bad ideas is to expound what you believe to be better ideas (which they seem to be doing quite nicely).
Amazingly, I have heard actual Americans on university campuses say that there can be such a thing as too much free speech. No! There is no such thing as too much free speech! And if you don’t like what someone else is saying the most effective way to counter what you perceive to be bogus in what they are saying is to speak up yourself. And thereby persuade others so they are not misled. The fact that we can do that is one of the truly swell things about living in America. We don’t have to worry about getting tossed in a cell for saying whatever damned fool thing we please within earshot of whomever we please.
Farris deserves all the bad PR that will be coming his way over this one. I’m surprised. I thought he was smarter than this.
“how authoritarians who lack confidence in the validity of their own ideas will use whatever power they can marshal in order to stifle dissent and silence competing ideas. Including threats”
Kinda like what Obama, Democrats, the Media, et al. do pretty much every single day to those that have a different viewpoint than their own.
Disagree with the President? That’s racist! Disagree with Susan Rice? That’s racist and sexist! Believe in marriage in the religious sense? You’re homophobic! Support cuts to wasteful programs? You hate poor people and children! And so on and so forth.
Now, that having been said, I also agree with the other point “the best way to oppose bad ideas is to expound what you believe to be better ideas.” And that is what Republicans and conservatives need to do with better effect. And any attempts to stifle the free exchange of ideas should be shunned.
Farris’ view is consistent – “For Christ and for Liberty” (liberty for those who share his religious beliefs, but not others); freedom of religion at the courthouse (as long as the religion is his, not others).
Farris advised the committee that they should not include a menorah in the display, by the way. That is one element of his advice that they did not take.
NateDogg614, I’ll ignore your rightwing rant about how the president is a dictator with whom the entire media and scads of others are in collusion for a moment because it distracts from the important subject at hand. We can return to that fantastic assertion at a later time.
I can only assume you think Mr. Farris and his threats against these students are just dandy. Otherwise, why would you make such a silly attempt to distract from the matter being discussed. As an American, I believe it should be imprinted in your DNA to find actions like those of Mr. Farris to be repugnant. And to cheer those resisting them. It is staggeringly ironic that Mr. Farris’ school is named for Patrick Henry. Were Patrick Henry alive today one can only imagine what scathing words he would have for Mr. Farris and his despicable behavior.
In my comment above I referenced something about hearing the completely wrongheaded notion expressed on a university campus that there can be such a thing as too much free speech. That was not spoken on a conservative campus. And the speaker would have considered themselves quite left of center politically. So you see, this is truly not a political issue or a matter of where one finds oneself on the left right continuum. Free speech is fragile and must be protected from wrong headed folks of all stripes. From that left wing kook I heard say those things about free speech to a right wing kook like Farris.
But there is more to this Patrick Henry thing than just speech. Threatening his own students? Really? He was going to sue them? He was going to subpoena records in order to identify them and seek damages? Sounds like a garden variety bully to me. And like most bullies he seems to be a scared and pathetic man.
On the home page of the Patrick Henry College web site it says “For Christ and for Liberty”. I have no comment on the man’s commitment to Christ. His commitment to liberty could use a whale of a lot of work though. Perhaps he might want to learn something about that Patrick Henry fellow. If he knew something about Patrick Henry he might not behave so abysmally in the future.
“This is worthy of a new post…”
Agreed.
Would someone start one, please?
And since we haven’t had one in 5 days, I’ve got the DTs. Com’mon, hook a buddy up.
I don’t think the president is a dictator (and hope he never becomes one), but large swaths of the media and scads of others are in collusion with him.
“I can only assume you think Mr. Farris and his threats against these students are just dandy.”
Assume all you want. You’d be wrong.
“As an American, I believe it should be imprinted in your DNA to find actions like those of Mr. Farris to be repugnant.”
I agree with you 100%. In fact, I would say the same thing if it was conservative students vs. a liberal academic/campus leader. Would you?
“Free speech is fragile and must be protected from wrong headed folks of all stripes.”
Again, I agree with you. Why is it that the left is dismissing viewpoints from the right as racist/sexist/bigoted etc. (which was essentially the point of my post).
Fundamentally we have some common ground here. And yet you refer to my commentary as a right-wing rant. So can I take it that you’re a right-winger at heart as well? Or is this a case of selective outrage on your part? Just asking.
Here ya go, DD:
http://www.equalityloudoun.org/2012/12/04/phcs-mike-farris-reduced-to-making-empty-threats-against-lgbt-student-group/
Nate, Farris is attempting to silence people through the use of law, your left wing conspiracy people are just using speech you disagree with and not the force of law.
There is a distinction.
I don’t know this Farris guy, but perhaps he finds himself in same situation as the subject of a certain Pink Floyd song?
“But in the town it was well known
When they got home at night
Their fat and psychopathic wives would thrash them
Within inches of their lives”
Resulting in:
“There were certain teachers
Who would hurt the children in any way they could
By pouring their derision
Upon anything we did
Exposing every weakness
However carefully hidden by the kids”
To quote the blog:
Question: Is it safe to access this blog from the PHC campus?
Answer: Most likely not. While using something like Hot Spot Shield or Tor will circumvent the internet filter, there is still the possibility that the Tech Department could track internet traffic. We recommend that current students that want to read our blog do so from off campus or via an internet-enabled smartphone (but not on the campus wi-fi).
Note it says, “…there is still the possibility that the Tech Department could track internet traffic….”
As far as I can tell, they nobody is saying that actually has ever happened.
You are all supposing that is happening.
Secondly, Mr. Farris retracted his statement shortly after saying it.
“After further consultation, I withdraw my note from yesterday. While we believe in the inappropriate nature of the use of our trademarked name, we believe that litigation is not appropriate.”
So, what is the problem?
I suspect that it was the threat of litigation and that would make sense. He was right to withdraw the first statement and the threat of litigation.
That having been said, its funny how the left files litigation all the time to have free speech censored (or at least the speech that they don’t agree with or they believe to be offensive).
Here is an update that reveals why Farris retracted his threat.
DD, the problem is Farris has provided a concrete view into his strong forceful religious doctrine. With such strong divine beliefs (some would debate dangerous) and questionable legal acumen one has to question why he is anywhere near advising the county on religious displays and related legal advice.
Farris should stick to his self ordained erudite knowledge of ticks.
Liberals, you are conflating a melange of topics.
Please start a “We Hate Mr. Farris and Here’s Why” post and list out your manifold gripes so your collective heads can explode.
What happened to all that religious freedom crap you were spouting above for the atheists? Suddenly, it doesn’t suit what you want.
How very, very liberal of you all.
DD, I have not read anything saying Farris doesn’t have the right to practice his religion. Nor to promote a school that follows his beliefs. You have a quirky habit of ignoring the obvious. This is about his disdain for fellow human beings and his loose understanding of the judicial system. Follow his actions for clues.
Well Hell! Farris has support:
http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=390_1354587093
For all those effected I can be reached to provide the alixir of life. Gallon jugs available at a reasonable price.
DD, it’s very hard to make any logical sense out of your last comment. How in the world does Farris attempting to intimidate some of his students because they are saying something he doesn’t like have anything to do with religious freedom.
The chancellor of a college acting like a bully toward some of his students is simply that and nothing more. The fact that the college in question is a Christian college doesn’t somehow make it an issue of religious freedom. Unless you are saying that the sort of bad behavior shown by Farris is somehow a tenet of Christianity. I certainly don’t think it is. There are lots of Christian colleges in America and the chancellors of those institutions don’t seem to engage in this sort of abusive behavior.
Maybe I’m missing something. Please enlighten me. How does calling the guy out for his bad (and many would say unChristian) behavior become an issue of religious freedom. If I label any organization that I run as “Christian” and then behave like a slimeball am I then free to charge anyone who criticizes my slimy behavior with abridging my religious freedom?
And by the way, I certainly don’t hate Farris. I don’t believe I have read anything in the comments from anyone that would indicate hatred toward the man. But then I suspect you know that too. It’s a very convenient dodge to deflect legitimate criticism of the man’s very bad behavior toward his students by accusing those who level that legitimate criticism of hating him and floating the notion that there is somehow a religious freedom issue because the guy who is acting like a jackass is the chancellor of a Christian college.
Farris may be an oddball but in a country of more than 300 million people there will always be many of those. He behaved badly. He’s not alone. Most of us do from time to time. But when that happens most decent folks look at themselves, realize they have behaved badly and apologize for being an ass and adjust their behavior and move on. Let’s see what Farris does. If he thinks his behavior was proper, or worse doubles down on it, then parents thinking of sending their precious children to his college may want to reconsider.
I think his behavior was indefensible. Apparently you think it is too. Otherwise you would have been able to defend it rather than engaging in your transparent dodge. The guy was wrong. In a big way. That doesn’t make him an evil man nor does it make those who point it out haters.
Anyone can react to something with insufficient consideration and step on his dick with both feet. That’s what Farris did here. What he does next (after he has had time to reflect) will tell us what type of character he possesses. And I’m not talking about withdrawing the threat of litigation. That was always an empty threat (and a breathtakingly lame and stupid one at that). He HAD to do that. Had he proceeded he would have made himself look even more foolish than he already has. I’m talking what he does going forward to acknowledge that he understands that his behavior toward his students was wrong and how he behaves toward them in the future.
Here is my point.
In this same thread, we read liberals defending atheists’ freedom of/from religion and freedom of speech.
Scroll down farther and we have this incident. PHC is a private christian college. The Student Handbook says,
“Students will not advocate non-Biblical sexual practices, such as extra-marital sex, homosexuality or homosexual “marriage” (e.g., Is 5:20, Romans 1:26-27). (Supporting a candidate for public office who advocates such practices does not in itself constitute the advocacy of such practices.)”
We have someone who claims (special note: “claims” as there is no evidence) to be a student at PHC and started the Queer at Patrick Henry blog.
Here is the rub. Liberals are defending atheists at the town center wrapping it in freedom of/from religion and freedom of speech. Same liberals, in the same thread, then pounce on Mr. Farris…and Patrick Henry College in general…for espousing the Christian tenent that homosexuality is sinful and immoral.
So, if we accept that we are free to practice our beliefs, then one has to accept that Mr. Farris and Patrick Henry are acting perfectly within their rights.
You can’t both say that atheists have a right to profess their beliefs in the town square and then turn around and exclude Mr. Farris or PHC from professing theirs.
Whether Mr. Farris has any case to sue Queer at PHC for the use of “Patrick Henry College” or “PHC” is beyond my knowledge.
DD, is it so hard to understand the distinction between government sponsorship on government property and what someone does on private property?
I suppose I shouldn’t be surprised. You think the public square is more yours than mine (or many others) during the holiday season…
No, EB, the public square is equally yours and mine.
If the atheists want to celebrate something on the public square at whatever time of the year is appropriate, then have at it.
But, what we have now, is bullying…which is the next point of liberal hypocricy. When a liberal gets bullied, well, that is very wrong and shameful. But, when a liberal does the bullying, then it is all glorious and good because they are justified in fighting for whatever “cause” they represent.
The atheists are in the town square to denigrate Christians mainly and Jews secondarily. That is the problem I have with them. Do they go to Muslim festivals and protest? How about Hindu ones? Nope. They have an affinity/obsession for Christmas.
“Liberals are defending atheists at the town center wrapping it in freedom of/from religion and freedom of speech. Same liberals, in the same thread, then pounce on Mr. Farris…and Patrick Henry College in general…for espousing the Christian tenent that homosexuality is sinful and immoral.”
Here is the deal, DD. If Mr. Farris was simply saying he disagreed with the blog (as lodly and obnoxiously as he wished to – i.e., exercising his right to fee speech) we liberals would have no problem with it (other than to point out that his opinion is wrong – but he has the right to it and to state it any way he wishes).
It is in threatenign to use the legal system to stiffle ANOTHER person’s right to free speech and to follow that up with using Communist China tactics of blocking internet access to certain internet sites with differing political views that might threaten his power position that we are critiquing.
In the first part, I think it is pretty clear that he does not have the right to do what he did and even threatening lawsuit with intent to intimidate others who are exercising their free speech is worthy of a ACLU lawsuit, imo (you hear that David W.?), which is probably why he retracted so quickly. Damage done, imo. He needs to pay the price.
In the second case, he may have the right and power to censor any website on his campus but we have the right to point out and condemn the hypocrisy and even vile nature of exercising such power as he has.
“The atheists are in the town square to denigrate Christians mainly and Jews secondarily.”
Then the “Christians” and “Jews” (I am using these terms VERY loosely, btw) are in our public square to denigrate anyone else who does not subscribe as they do to their religions. If one is bullying, DD, then so the other.
“It is in threatenign to use the legal system to stiffle ANOTHER person’s right to free speech”
“with intent to intimidate others who are exercising their free speech”
Eric, you just described the modus operandi for Real Advocate.
“Then the “Christians” and “Jews” (I am using these terms VERY loosely, btw) are in our public square to denigrate anyone else who does not subscribe as they do to their religions. If one is bullying, DD, then so the other.”
No, they are there to celebrate their respective holidays.
If atheists had a faith tradition of celebration in December, I wouldn’t have a problem with it. But they don’t. They are just their to poke sticks in the eyes of Christians and Jews.
to wit,
Don’t you think being the sole “person of interest” is intimidating ?
http://www.realadvocate.org/blog0/persons-of-interest/
And “Our mission is nothing more, nor less, than the elimination of hate from goverment itself.”
And if you are “hateful” by their definition, then it follows that the mission is to eliminate you. More ad hominem, homo-fascistic liberalism
“If the atheists want to celebrate something on the public square at whatever time of the year is appropriate, then have at it.”
Appropriate to whom DD? You?
It seems they’ve decided when it’s appropriate.
The fact that Farris does this stuff and also serves in some way on the courthouse lawn committee (doesn’t he have some connection?) is the real hypocrisy here.
“Christians deserve their right to speech on public places! But when they are paying tuition to me, not so much free speech ok?”
DD, are the Christians and Jews who are against these displays, some of whom have spoken very loudly on the issue also “their (sic) to poke sticks in the eyes of Christians and Jews?”
I know that certain sects of the Roman Catholic Church performed self-flagellation back in the day as a means of repentance. Perhaps poking a stick in one’s own eye is a similar action here.
Farris is not on the committee:
http://www.loudoun.gov/documents/15/3366/Membership%20Roster_201205091041296691.pdf
PHC is a private school. Under that whole “free association” thing, they can accept or deny participation. Whether you like it or not, they are free to admit/deny/expel students for their stance on homosexuality.
“Appropriate to whom DD?” “Appropriate” is subjective. Christianity obviously have Christmas and Easter. What faith tradition does atheism celebrate and when do they celebrate it? Darwin Day was the only thing I saw that came close. So be it. Put something up in February.
A.E. Gnat, if you don’t want to celebrate then don’t. That’s your right.
But don’t impede those that want to. That is infringing on others rights.