We're Here, We're Snivelling Censors, Get Used To It!

You may also like...

87 Responses

  1. Adam says:

    Just a thought, but is it possible that Straight Pride have actually thought this all through very carefully? Perhaps they figured that no-one would read a history student's blog, and no-one else was writing about them, and the best way to have a wide readership for their nonsense was to threaten to sue anyone who posts it, thus pretty much guaranteeing a widespread Streisand effect?

    How lovely that they've used well known "straight icon" Barbara Streisand in this way. Or something like that.

  2. Kilroy says:

    How about "outing" the person that signed the DMCA?

  3. JimBob says:

    The fun part is that a UK organization is using an American law to censor a person in the UK, all because WordPress is an American company.

    Fucking thugs.

  4. MEP says:

    @Adam

    That's not entirely crazy. One of the characteristics of Orthodox philosophies (religious or otherwise) is that they have a ripping huge persecution complex. Setting oneself up for such persecution in order to be able to say to people, "See? They're persecuting me!" is certainly a tactic that appeals to a certain mindset (oddly enough, the same mindset that would consider supporting such a group if only they knew it existed).

  5. crankytexanattny says:

    "Censorious twatwafflery."

    Ken wins the internet today. But in all seriousness, well done post. And what is going on in the UK?

  6. bralex says:

    I'm generally opposed to "identity"-based political groups, as in my (limited) experience they rapidly devolve to name calling and knee-jerk responses to criticism. Very few, in my mind, have any credibility at all, and even those keep shooting themselves in the foot. That said, I disagree with the sentiment behind the original poster's comments about "pride" movements. If it's ok to celebrate (as "liberation"?) a group, how can it not be ok to celebrate another? I detest white power orgs, stuff like this straight pride group, etc., but I think they have as much of a right to organize without being vilified for _existing_ as any other gender/ethnic/political group. Now, bad behavior, poorly written materials, general buffoonery; those are fair game!

  7. Careless says:

    an organization that fights for the equal social and legal rights of heterosexuals and sentence fragments:

    They told me that if gays could marry, sentence fragments would be next?

  8. Careless says:

    btw, what is the correct way to retweet part of their "press release" without targeting it at them in any way that could conceivably be something like harassment? Just leave out the @ next to their name?

    #4 year twitter novice

  9. rmd says:

    Am I the only one who had to wiki what the "I" was for?

  10. Geno0wl says:

    @bralex

    It is not "ok" for them because they are the dominating "group". The point of the various pride groups is saying "we are not the majority, we are different than most people. And that is ok!"
    Straight/white/male pride groups are generally just butthurt that others are telling them that they are not allowed to use their position in life to negatively effect others.
    As others have said, it is just their persecution complex coming out.

  11. Kilroy says:

    @rmd: that one caught me as well. Haven't looked it up since on a work computer and the order tends to get more and more away from baseline as you go.

  12. Dan T. says:

    If they're an organization rather than a commercial entity, straightprideuk.org or straightprideuk.org.uk or straightpride.org.uk (or something similar) would be a more sensible domain name than the .com address they use.

  13. LeeC says:

    Would Anti-Slapp protections apply to a UK citizen posting on wordpress?

  14. Renee Marie Jones says:

    There really needs to be some kind of process to stop these absurd DMCA abuses. It is truly sad that we have to live with this thing just to protect the outdated business models of the record and movie industries.

  15. melK says:

    Y'know, after this, I'm looking forward to the NYODB Pride, dedicated to telling folks "why, precisely, do you ask?"

  16. melK says:

    Dyslexia, a waste is a terrible thing to mind. "NoYDB Pride". Thank you.

  17. Josh C says:

    What an incredible mix of fair points and pants-on-head idiocy. It's as though TimeCube guy were writing ersatz-insightful social commentary.

  18. Zack says:

    @Adam: I really hope that's what's going on here. I just have difficulty imagining anybody saying this stuff with a straight face. Then again, the Flat Earth Society still exists, so I guess anything's possible.

    I guess it's just important to keep in mind that agenda is irrelevant to censoriousness. Because there's always going to be a point where someone we would ordinarily agree with will become the censorious flavor of the month. A person's agenda does not inform whether or not they support censorship. We've seen censorious democrats, republicans, conservatives, liberals, straight people, gay people, straight groups, gay groups, scientists, journalists, TV show hosts, car dealers, event managers, and God only knows how many types of other people.

  19. Careless says:

    Then again, the Flat Earth Society still exists,

    Does it? last time I checked (about 10 years ago), I couldn't find any evidence that it did. There seemed to be one guy keeping it alive, and he had died. Everything else I could find was mocking him

  20. bralex says:

    @Geno0wl – oh, I get the butthurt that leads to these groups. And I get the butthurt that leads to other boutique political action groups – I live in suburban DC and see more narrowly tailored associations that you could shake a stick at. Again, mock and vilify the stances taken by the organization and I'm right with you; support and advocate for the cause, fine. But to vilify an organization _because it exists_ on one side of an issue, and not those on the side one agrees with, strikes me as a bit hypocritical. If it's ok to have the (ethnicity/orientation/whatever)-American Pride Parade, why not the …mmm, I don't remember my logic. Contrapositive? Why are pro-LGBTI (still haven't looked up I) acceptable, but anti-LGBTI _automatically_ bad, before they have done anything? Don't get me wrong either; if you want to have me shut the door in your face, drop by fundraising for a Tea Party candidate. It's the inconsistency that gets me, not the specific issues. Ah well, this is why I became an engineer – first, I don't get people issues, and second I am not very articulate (though I do well for an engineer :)

  21. whheydt says:

    Many years ago…Before the Internet (BtI)…the route to a store I shopped at periodically took me past a street sign with an arrow and the text "Black Chamber of Commerce". I used to wonder what the public reaction be if there were a similar sign that said "White Chamber of Commerce"…

  22. manybellsdown says:

    I believe I = Intersex, for those who don't want to google it at work. People with ambiguous genitalia.

  23. Zack says:

    @GenoOwl: I think the point he's making is that groups should be lambasted for their conduct, not their founding charter. A pro-straight/pro-white/pro-male group (albeit that last does represent, if only statistically, a minority group in most places :) ) should be maligned based on its negative conduct, not on the basis that one group can represent every group of that type.

    For instance:
    Because the NAACP supported someone who was later found guilty of defamation, and many of their leaders also had defamation judgments against them (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tawana_Brawley_rape_allegations#Aftermath), and the NAACP has not had the spine to stand up to these defamers, nor punish or expel them for bad conduct- and has not punished or expelled them despite endless repetition of the same bad conduct- that they represent a spineless and hateful group of people whose only purpose is to lash out rather than being an actual advocacy organization.

    It would be improper in the highest degree to extend that categorization to other groups, to believe that it is the result of their advocacy period that this hate and cowardice exist. There are many legitimate advocacy groups that have worked wonders for the African American community and have helped members of the community move forward in the face of many, many obstacles.

  24. ZarroTsu says:

    you're* an* Could you remove it, or I will* @Straight Pride tweet

    Personally I'd have responded with, "If you don't consider me an official journalist, why is anything I write a problem?", if only to hear the next step in their process. Probably a lack of response.

    As for the written article by Oliver, it all sounds excessively droll how irrational Straight Pride is acting, well beyond just the removal of his article. Acting as if homosexuality is a disease with permitted defenses that do not exist, presented in a manner that reflects well when read by someone who's fucked up in the head enough to 'join' Straight Pride.

    The entire argument one way or the other, at least as posed by Straight Pride, relies heavily on people following nonexistent rules they themselves THINK are defined, written, cataloged, and preached. This argument falls apart exclusively to people who either do not give a damn (like decent people topically should), or people who fall into the grey area of bi-sexuality (whom I now wonder when "bisexual pride" will become a thing).

    Anyone who flaunts their homosexuality like it's a weapon or shield needs to be smacked upside the head and told 'no'. Similarly, anyone who flaunts their heterosexuality like it's a weapon or shield also needs to be smacked upside the head and told 'no'. This is not a slander against your sexuality, this is a slander against you being a fucking idiot. I'm pretty sure there is no "Fucking Idiot Pride" group. But perhaps there ought to be.

  25. Pharniel says:

    @bralex -

    Two reasons -

    One – generally because those enjoying significant privilege would require any lobbying and/or special interest group to begin with and

    Two – because these groups are almost always dedicated to protecting the privilege at the expense of the counter groups. It doesn't help that the names of these organizations are often code-words/dog whistles for maintenance of privilege and run by reactionary elements with the goal of reverting all progress for the minority groups that they are a 'copy' of.

    See straight pride uk's response to Uganda/Russia –
    "Straight Pride support what Russia and Africa is doing, these country have morals and are listening to their majorities. These countries are not ‘anti-gay’ – that is a term always used by the Homosexual Agenda to play the victim and suppress opinions and views of those against it."

    This answer makes it clear that not only do they wish to preserve privilege enjoyed by their erstwhile constituency but also wish to increase this at the expense of others.

    You see the same thing with "White PowerRights", "Men's Rights" and "Christian's Rights" groups.

    PS – The sheer number of these groups who turn out to be functionally indifferent from hate groups means that all of these groups are automatically suspect.

  26. I think that this delightful bunch of bullying twits needs to be introduced to the pithy response first used in Arkell v. PressDram.

  27. Zack says:

    @Pharniel

    Reversed version of your post to help provide some perspective.

    "Two reasons -

    One – generally because those enjoying significant privilege would require any lobbying and/or special interest group to begin with and

    Two – because these groups are almost always dedicated to protecting the privilege at the expense of the counter groups. It doesn't help that the names of these organizations are often code-words/dog whistles for maintenance of privilege and run by reactionary elements with the goal of reverting all progress for the groups that they are a 'copy' of.

    See EQUAL US's response to Canada/UK –
    "EQUAL support what Canada and UK is doing, these country have morals and are listening to their majorities. These countries are not ‘Censorious’ – that is a term always used by the Heterosexual Hegemony to play the victim and suppress opinions and views of those against it."

    This answer makes it clear that not only do they wish to preserve privilege enjoyed by their erstwhile constituency but also wish to increase this at the expense of others.

    You see the same thing with "Black Power Rights", "Women's Rights" and "Athiest's Rights" groups.

    PS – The sheer number of these groups who turn out to be functionally indifferent from hate groups means that all of these groups are automatically suspect. "

  28. Goku says:

    As a stragiht man. Please allow me ot. Appolygize for tese poeple. We an't all dat. Dum and illiterate.

  29. i also love how they refer to "the Homosexual Agenda" as if it is some shadowy sinister organization, or maybe it is a rock group that I have not previously heard of?

  30. James Pollock says:

    "It is not "ok" for them because they are the dominating "group". The point of the various pride groups is saying "we are not the majority, we are different than most people. And that is ok!""

    I've got no problem with "we are the majority, we are different from some people, and that is ok!"

  31. ernie says:

    Looks like they're retreating slightly . . . @StrightPrideUK is now a protected twitter . . .

  32. SirWired says:

    @Bralex – I don't think anybody has a problem with the existence of a "Heterosexual Pride" group; if being straight is something somebody enjoys and is proud of, why not? I'm not sure I see the point, but whatever floats their boat…

    I think the issue comes from the fact that the way they choose to express the "pride" is by demonizing gay people. (Belittling your opponent would seem to be the opposite of pride to me…)

    Mainstream Gay Pride groups do not spend any sort of time vilifying how evil and sneaky straight people are as a whole. (Although I'm willing to concede it is highly likely that such groups exist somewhere…)

  33. SirWired says:

    "But speaking as a straight guy, would it be possible to have a straight-positive organization that isn't a pack of craven socially dysfunctional nitwits?"

    Probably not, no. Normal people part of a large majority don't usually feel the need to form a special organization reminding people how much they dominate. What would the point of such an organization be?

    Newsletter Headline: "After All These Millenia, It's Still Great to be Straight."
    Press Release: "Studies Show That Boys Who Like Girls Generally Aren't Bullied For It"
    Action Alert: "A Man and Woman Decided to Get Married Today; it Took Half an Hour, Fifty Bucks, and a Single Form. Their License Was Valid Everywhere."
    Parade Banner: "Having Sex With My Spouse Isn't Illegal"
    Editorial: "Boys and Girls Are Attracted to Each Other, and That's OK."

    You get the idea… Most Boring and Pointless Group Ever.

  34. wanfuforever says:

    Support attacks in Africa and Russia because it shows they have morals? I've been hanging around a bunch of degenerate heteros then, seeing as how they don't feel the need to get all stabby with me…

  35. Matthew Cline says:

    Some tangential questions:

    1) If John Doe gives an interview to a reporter/journalist, does John Doe own the copyright to the interview?

    2) If the answer to #1 is "yes", can John Doe revoke the implicit license given to reproduce the interview?

  36. James Pollock says:

    "1) If John Doe gives an interview to a reporter/journalist, does John Doe own the copyright to the interview?"
    No, although John does have a privacy interest if there is/was an expectation of privacy. There also might be false light publicity if John is substantially misrepresented.
    Exception: If John has hired the reporter/journalist, and the reporter journalist has signed a "work for hire" copyright assignment.

  37. ernie says:

    Hah, I just perused their page. From their welcome:

    "If it is equality that we are aiming for, why not acknowledge that heterosexuals can be happy with the lifestyle that they have been given by birth. Straight Pride is no more bigoted the Gay Pride."

    But in their contact:

    "We are always looking for other proud heterosexuals to make the campaign stronger and to assist us., If you feel you could help and are a straight, married, single heterosexual that is based in the United Kingdom the please get in touch."

    What a bunch of hypocrites . . .

  38. bralex says:

    Given the troubles others have with blockquotes I won't even try :)

    @SirWired – you've hit it exactly. Except, anyone who started a "Straight Pride" group would _automatically_ be assumed to be some sort of monster.

    I don't give a fig about race in and of itself, and feel that our laws and structures should be race blind, offering no special advantages or disadvantages to anyone based on race (yes, I know things can have disproportionate effects based on historical discrimination etc., leave that aside for now as OT :) ). If I start a group opposing _all_ official favoritism and discrimination (including affirmative action) will it not _automatically_ be seen as racist?

    I'm laughing trying to think of the newsletters for the various "majority" groups :)

  39. Michael K. says:

    Straight Pride UK has taken their twitterz private.

  40. rmd says:

    @ZarroTsu

    I'm pretty sure there is no "Fucking Idiot Pride" group. But perhaps there ought to be.

    You're just baiting us now.

  41. JT says:

    In the culture wars, I always find the "not ashamed to be [majority characteristic]" trope curious, as if offering equal rights diminishes the majority somehow, like we're on some kind of rights budget and there's only so much to go around.

  42. Jack B. says:

    It looks like Straight Pride (UK) have this Oliver kid's number. After all, isn't publishing an article for the world to read exactly what one would expect a not-journalist to do?

  43. On DMCA complaints.. I'm in the UK and have filed DMCA complaints against other UK individuals on a number of occasions to deal with stolen content. Why? Well, the major search engines are US-based and it is an effective way of dealing with the problem.

    But the gotcha is this – a DMCA complaint is a sworn statement and making a false one is perjury (the statement itself makes this declaration). Perjury (even in a foreign legal jurisdiction) is a criminal offence in the UK. I don't know of anyone having been prosecuted for a false DMCA complaint though.

  44. Innula Zenovka says:

    Mr Sidorove presumably has in mind Section 2 of the Protection From Harassment Act, 1997.

    While this section is certainly open to abuse, the prosecution would need to make the Magistrates (it's a summary only offence) sure that the defendant's actions amounted to a course of conduct that constituted "harassment" in the normal sense of the term in everyday English.

    The defendant would be able to advance the defence that his actions were, or may have been, reasonable under the particular circumstances.

    Somehow I doubt this case will be troubling the courts.

  45. wgering says:

    @ZarrouTsu:

    I'm pretty sure there is no "Fucking Idiot Pride" group. But perhaps there ought to be.

    It's called the YouTube comments section.

    Also,

    If you feel you could help and are a straight, married, single heterosexual that is based in the United Kingdom the please get in touch.

    [Emphasis added]

    They manage to be contradictory and redundant in the same sentence. Their people clearly have no tradition of proofreading. That Facebook post sounded like it had been translated from Russian to English with Bing.

  46. Careless says:

    Now where can I marry a gay sentence fragment?

  47. sorrykb says:

    Careless asked:

    Now where can I marry a gay sentence fragment?

    That's the tragedy of sentence fragments. They are doomed to be forever alone.

  48. Vicki says:

    @Careless: The trick will be finding a sentence fragment that can tell the officiant "want to marry this person" rather than "dry cleaning for Emma" or "only on Thursdays after 4 p.m."

  49. jdgalt says:

    I would have thought that a letter, like anything else someone writes, is "born copyrighted". (Though a case could be made that sending one to a proclaimed journalist, without any statement that it's off the record, is permission to reproduce it.)

    PS. Legalize the marriage of sentence fragments! We need more complete sentences!

  50. Phlip says:

    "[W]ould it be possible to have a straight-positive organization that isn't a pack of craven socially dysfunctional nitwits? I'd hate for a stereotype to develop."

    You're a bit late for that one… the stereotype of MRA groups, Straight Pride groups, White Power groups and the like as generally terrible human beings is pretty heavily established at this point, and has been for some time.

  51. James Pollock says:

    "That's the tragedy of sentence fragments. They are doomed to be forever alone."

    Forever incomplete.

  52. James Pollock says:

    "I would have thought that a letter, like anything else someone writes, is "born copyrighted"."
    It is. Like all other copyrighted materials, it is subject to fair use.

    "the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright.
    17 USC 107, emphasis added (note that UK law will be different, although copyright law is based on international treaty so the differences shouldn't be substantial in most cases.)

  53. David says:

    I would say that when someone refers to himself as a journalist and asks you some questions via email, and nothing indicates that it will be off the record… then if you respond, even though your response IS technically copyrighted, you are giving that person an implied license to publish that response.

    There are some actions that by their very nature indicate that you are willing to have your technically copyrighted work published. If you step in front of someone's video camera and do an impromptu dance, you cannot then demand they erase the tape because you own the copyright to your performance.

  54. Canadian says:

    I'm going to quote a True Blood recap by Jacob Clifton:

    White people and rich people have a narrative where everything is fair and the deck isn’t stacked, vampires have a narrative where humans are food, straight people have a narrative where one strictly defined kind of marriage is fundamental to society, men have a narrative where women are irrational, and so on. And when those kinds of privilege get threatened, you’re going to provoke, always, a reactionary movement that invents as much history as it needs to, in order to fix the world, and which — a more, fascinating recent development — supports in turn a certain protective coloration of victimhood, a jealousy and taking-on of what is now seen as the given minority’s ‘right’ to complaint. A very real and terrified sense of being *oppressed by equality*

  55. Lawrence Statton says:

    @jdgalt: When you are answering questions you believe to be from a journalist, whether they were a bona fide journalist or not, and you title your responses to their questions Press Release, you would have to be a special kind of super-king-kamaya-maya-bitch stupid to think you had an expectation of privacy.

  56. barry says:

    I like Popehat because it finds new ideas. The 'private & confidential press release' is way up there.

  57. En Passant says:

    bralex wrote Aug 12, 2013 @1:12 pm:

    If I start a group opposing _all_ official favoritism and discrimination (including affirmative action) will it not _automatically_ be seen as racist?
    In 1995-6, Ward Connerly, a black man, chaired the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign to put Proposition 209 on the ballot.

    Prop. 209 enacted an amendment to the California Constitution which provided

    The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

    Mr. Connerly was denounced as a racist by opponents of Prop. 209, because the amendment would end state government affirmative action policies.

    Prop. 209 passed by more than 54% of the vote.

  58. En Passant says:

    @)#%! freakin' bluockqotes! Maybe this will display right:

    bralex wrote Aug 12, 2013 @1:12 pm:

    If I start a group opposing _all_ official favoritism and discrimination (including affirmative action) will it not _automatically_ be seen as racist?

    In 1995-6, Ward Connerly, a black man, chaired the California Civil Rights Initiative Campaign to put Proposition 209 on the ballot.

    Prop. 209 enacted an amendment to the California Constitution which provided

    The state shall not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public employment, public education, or public contracting.

    Mr. Connerly was denounced as a racist by opponents of Prop. 209, because the amendment would end state government affirmative action policies.

    Prop. 209 passed by more than 54% of the vote.

  59. M. Alan Thomas II says:

    I love how they explain that they both thought that he wasn't going to write anything about them and say that he fooled them into thinking that he's an "official" journalist. If anything, they're shooting themselves in the foot by claiming that they answered what they thought were questions by an "official" journalist without ever asking to be off the record and yet thought their statements immune to publication.

  60. legionseagle says:

    @LawrenceStatton Irrespective of their expectations, Straight Pride should have been aware that as per s.30 Copyright Designs & Patents Act 1988

    Fair dealing with a work (other than a photograph) for the purpose of reporting current events does not infringe any copyright in the work provided that (subject to subsection (3)) it is accompanied by a sufficient acknowledgement.

    Which of course makes this a case about a UK body using a US statute to cut off the free expression of a UK individual, such free expression being protected under English law.

  61. Anony Mouse says:

    If they're an organization rather than a commercial entity, straightprideuk.org or straightprideuk.org.uk or straightpride.org.uk (or something similar) would be a more sensible domain name than the .com address they use.

    That's because nobody seems to know anymore that ".com" means commercial. Everyone wants to use .com instead of what they should be using. Hell, the website for the Illinois Secretary of State is a .com instead of .gov.

    Then again, considering how corrupt the state of Illinois is, that's probably appropriate.

  62. flip says:

    When I read the replies to the questions, all I thought was "what a bunch of bigots". Oh, and idiots for not understanding what a press release actually is or is used for. If I had an available web presence and followers, I'd post a copy myself.

    We have country wide events which our members attend, and ask people their opinions and views, on such event at Glastonbury this year was very positive with the majority of people we asked, replied they were happily heterosexual.

    One wonders what the actual question was, whether it was phrased the same way every time, and what exactly this event was. Sounds to me like they might have biased the answers…

    Oh, and their Facebook page no longer exists…?

    And am I the only one who finds their location – Moscow – interesting in terms of their use of 'socialist' in condemning Oliver, and their approval of Putin? Why do I get the feeling there's a connection to conservative politics and Orthodox Christianity somewhere?

    Lastly on copyrights of press releases: I wouldn't think that there is an expectation of copyrights on those, even though the law itself may differ. Think about it: the point of a press release is often to have it sent out over various press release wires/services, which reproduce the release so it is sent to relevant individuals and reporting agencies. What's the point of copyrighting a release – or expecting it not to be copied – when the whole point is to have it seen by as many eyes as possible?

    @David

    If you step in front of someone's video camera and do an impromptu dance, you cannot then demand they erase the tape because you own the copyright to your performance.

    There are actually performance rights. So while it might not exactly apply to your example, a dancer who performs and you tape it can indeed demand royalties because they own the performance copyrights. This is why you can't film stage performances without permission.

  63. ZarroTsu says:

    Try reading that facebook post they took down in Gollum's voice. It's fitting, if a little insulting to Gollum.

    And now an open question. How many members of Straight Pride does it take to screw in a lightbulb?

  64. legionseagle says:

    @ZarroTsu Screwing in lightbulbs is contrary to God's plan. And I doubt Edison would be too impressed by it, either.

  65. Basil Forthrightly says:

    @ZarroTsu they don't screw in lightbulbs, they all screw in hot tubs.

  66. Lawrence Statton says:

    Worth pointing out: The *FIRST RESULT* for a search for Straight Pride UK on Google this morning was a news-hit for the piece on The Guardian's website (whether this story made it into the print edition of that august publication or not, I can't speculate.) The piece is … less than fully flattering, but does, thoughtfully, exclude sentence fragments.

  67. @bralex:

    If it's ok to celebrate (as "liberation"?) a group, how can it not be ok to celebrate another?

    The problem is they aren't celebrating being gay. Look at their own description of themselves: "Straight Pride is a small group of heterosexual individuals who joined together after seeing the rights of people who have opposing views to homosexuality trampled over and, quite frankly, oppressed". They apparently think opposing homosexuality is a necessary part of being straight. I'm pretty sure the large group of straight people who have absolutely no problem with homosexuals would agree that they're not really straight.

    To put it another way, as a German American, I like going to events celebrating my heritage. We drink beer, listen to polka music, eat wurst and schnitzel, sing German drinking songs, etc. People dress up in their lederhosen and Tyrolian hats.

    If instead I showed up at an event and all they wanted to do is talk about how, say, Jewish Americans are oppressively destroying our way of life, I'd get out of their pretty quick, because the group obviously has nothing to do with celebration.

  68. Drat, I need an edit button. "I'm pretty sure the large group of straight people who have absolutely no problem with homosexuals would not agree that they're not really straight."

  69. ernie says:

    Hmmm, looks like their twitter account has been hacked and taken over. Seems that whoever hacked it also deleted all their old tweets? Internet vigilante justice . . . bleh. Now they actually do have something valid they can complain about . . .

    Their <a href="https://www.facebook.com/pages/Straight-Pride-UK/"Facebook page looks offline as well, but I'm guessing that was voluntary on their part?

    Webpage appears to still be up . . .

  70. Trent says:

    I would like to point out that Gay Pride marches are not what a group of posters think they are. The Gay Pride movement was an offshoot of the SanFran gay movement started by politicians use of anti-gay publicity for campaign purposes spearheaded by Patti Davis for Reagan but started by Anita Bryant in Florida. The 1977 backlash against the gays organized the gay movmeent in the largest community in the nation into a political and economic force (through organizers like Harvey Milk). The Gay Pride marches were an extension of that, they were concocted to show American communities that gays weren't unicorns and that they lived and worked among them. Later the movement was extended further with the "come out of the closet" campaign to show Americans that someone they cared about was gay (humanizing the movement). This is and for the most part has always been a movement to show that gay is not "deviant" behavior (as defined in the 80s). Gay Pride marches started as an extension of the "come out" campaign, but later evolved into a pride movement that wasn't exclusive to gays. In fact most gay pride parades these days are an expression of pride in any sexuality including straight, I'd wager at least half the turnout and probably more at most gay pride parades is straight.

    The Southern Poverty Law Center has an excellent history of the anti-gay movement and it's origins in money and politics.

    http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/intelligence-report/browse-all-issues/2005/spring/the-thirty-years-war

  71. ZarroTsu says:

    Hmmm, looks like their twitter account has been hacked and taken over. Seems that whoever hacked it also deleted all their old tweets?

    They should lead the "FUCKING IDIOT PRIDE" group. Because that is absolutely the dumbest thing that could come of this entire censorious battle.

  72. Lawrence Statton says:

    @ernie – their twitter account wasn't hacked – they abandoned it and started a new one. An intrepid person notice that the identity was available and immediately homesteaded it.

  73. Meo says:

    Not to the marriage of sentence fragments
    Admit impediments: love it not. Love
    Which alters when it fragmentatin sends,
    Or bends with auto-correct to remove:
    O no! why, look here, another faulty.

  74. Anony Mouse says:

    "The Southern Poverty Law Center…"

    Hardly an unimpeachable source. Also while Gay Pride marches may have started to show that "gays are just like us", more and more they seem to be about "scaring the straights". Quite a few gay people now consider Gay Pride marches to be doing more to hold back gay rights than just about anything.

  75. Castaigne says:

    @Anony Mouse: "The Southern Poverty Law Center…" Hardly an unimpeachable source.

    Please explain why?

    Also while Gay Pride marches may have started to show that "gays are just like us", more and more they seem to be about "scaring the straights".

    I have not seen this; your supposition seems to be unsupported by my perusal of gay community forums and the like. What is your source for this?

    Quite a few gay people now consider Gay Pride marches to be doing more to hold back gay rights than just about anything.

    Again, your source for this?

  76. Robert White says:

    If it was sent as a "Press Release" hasn't it been "released" to the "press" for distribution by the press to the non-press readers of the press?

    I mean how can you feign surprise with a straight face if you send someone a "press release" and they then use it as press releases are normally used?

  77. Robert White says:

    "if everyone made the choice to be gay"… nothing more needs to be said, so I'll say it. 8-)

    This "choice to be gay" thing always gets my goat. It takes "choice not to hide in shame" and conflates it with state-of-being.

    If everyone would just make the choice to be white and male then all this would stop… If you're black or female you should make the choice not to be at all or something.

    It all really boils down to "if you'd just get on with hiding and keeping your place, then we in charge would not have a problem".

  78. ZarroTsu says:

    @Robert

    But what if I wanted to hide that I'm straight?

    Also, something noticed about your phrasing:

    [...] I mean how can you feign surprise with a straight face [...]

    I wonder if their idiocy follows their policies too? Maybe I'm over-thinking this.

  79. Jon says:

    "Me fail English? That's unpossible!"
    Peter Sidorove

  80. Innula Zenovka says:

    Straight Pride UK are really getting a lesson in the Streisand Effect. BuzzFeed has an update.

    I am wondering if Straight Pride UK have never heard the sound advice, "when you're in hole, stop digging".

  81. AlphaCentauri says:

    Oliver did substantially misrepresent Siderove — by cleaning up his grammar. Siderove probably thinks he was misquoted. On the other hand, it's hard to imagine he thought he had a copyright claim on the finished product.

    Was Siderove born in the UK? He doesn't write like it. Сидеров is a Bulgarian name, I think.

  1. August 12, 2013

    […] PopeHat writes: […]

  2. August 12, 2013

    […] If you want to read the whole story about what transpired with them, go check out the story at popehat's most excellent blog.  But here's the short version:  a history student writes to them, identifying himself as a […]

  3. August 12, 2013

    […] to lawyers, barring him from mentioning their group. Original article reproduced by (among others) Popehat. The Popehat post includes some extra detail, including some cringeworthy tweets and an […]

  4. August 17, 2013

    […] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is an American law which requires US-based websites (like WordPress) to comply with demands (“DMCA takedown notices”) from copyright holders to remove copyrighted material posted by others; it’s the reason for the ubiquitous “This video has been removed” notices on YouTube.  Even though Straight Pride and the blogger, Oliver Hotham, both reside in the UK, a huge fraction of internet companies (including blog-hosting sites) reside in the US; DMCA notices are thus an all-too-common means of censoring others because although the takedowns can be appealed, it takes time, effort and submitting to some onerous conditions.  Since Hotham is a student he lacked the resources to pursue this; it would probably have ended there had Steiner, flushed with his sleazy victory, not pushed the issue by demanding Hotham remove all references to Straight Pride UK from his blog and refrain from ever writing about them again.  Hotham responded as any self-respecting blogger would:  by blogging about it (the post is quoted above).  And what happened next? […]

  5. September 27, 2013

    […] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is an American law which requires US-based websites (like WordPress) to comply with demands (“DMCA takedown notices”) from copyright holders to remove copyrighted material posted by others; it’s the reason for the ubiquitous “This video has been removed” notices on YouTube.  Even though Straight Pride and the blogger, Oliver Hotham, both reside in the UK, a huge fraction of internet companies (including blog-hosting sites) reside in the US; DMCA notices are thus an all-too-common means of censoring others because although the takedowns can be appealed, it takes time, effort and submitting to some onerous conditions.  Since Hotham is a student he lacked the resources to pursue this; it would probably have ended there had Steiner, flushed with his sleazy victory, not pushed the issue by demanding Hotham remove all references to Straight Pride UK from his blog and refrain from ever writing about them again.  Hotham responded as any self-respecting blogger would:  by blogging about it (the post is quoted above).  And what happened next? […]

  6. September 27, 2013

    […] The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is an American law which requires US-based websites (like WordPress) to comply with demands (“DMCA takedown notices”) from copyright holders to remove copyrighted material posted by others; it's the reason for the ubiquitous “This video has been removed” notices on YouTube. Even though Straight Pride and the blogger, Oliver Hotham, both reside in the UK, a huge fraction of internet companies (including blog-hosting sites) reside in the US; DMCA notices are thus an all-too-common means of censoring others because although the takedowns can be appealed, it takes time, effort and submitting to some onerous conditions. Since Hotham is a student he lacked the resources to pursue this; it would probably have ended there had Steiner, flushed with his sleazy victory, not pushed the issue by demanding Hotham remove all references to Straight Pride UK from his blog and refrain from ever writing about them again. Hotham responded as any self-respecting blogger would: by blogging about it (the post is quoted above). And what happened next? […]