Department of Defense at War with Eur-gay-sia

Where do you even begin with the creepy, Big Brother-esque tactics of the Department of Defense and the internet filtering company they use called Blue Coat?  Yesterday a number of liberal bloggers (many of whom are LGBT) found that their sites were blocked on government computers at the Pentagon when similar right-wing sites like Red State, and Breitbart that rely mostly or exclusively on blog contributors went unfiltered.

The story deepened when the aforementioned bloggers also found that Blue Coat has an entire category devoted to LGBT.  And it's not that they're mistakenly being flagged as pornography, they actually have an entire category called "LGBT" devoted exclusively to blocking sites with LGBT content.  It turns out that they leave no gay stone left unblocked either:

"Websites that provide reference materials, news, legal information, anti-bullying and suicide-prevention information, and other resources for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (“LGBT”) people or that relate to LGBT civil rights. The websites included in this category were selected because they do not contain sexually explicit content and are generally suitable for viewing by all age groups."

Really Department of Defense?  Really Blue Coat?  Anti-bullying and suicide-prevention materials are blocked even though (and this comes from Blue Coat's own website) "they do not contain sexually explicit content and are generally suitable for viewing by all age groups."  In fact, Blue Coat's URL Categories sheet is even more vague:

"Sites that provide information regarding, support, promote, or cater to one's sexual orientation or gender identity including, but not limited to lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender sites."

By that definition they should be blocking sites that refer to couples in any way.  They are not, however, because as we can see in the first link, the National Organization for Marriage's website remains unblocked.  Blue Coat seems to have an agenda because when you browse their Violence/Hate/Racism category, you see that they make every possible effort to avoid condemning violence against LGBT:

"...sites that depict hostility or aggression toward, or denigrate an individual or group on the basis of race, religion, gender, nationality, ethnic origin, or other involuntary characteristics..."

Who knows what the asshat that originally authored these things was actually trying to convey, but it looks to me like they're trying to excuse hate and violence directed at LGBT by implying that these are not involuntary characteristics.

Of course, Blue Coat has been caught doing some sketchy things before...

Editor's Note: The DoD has released one of the most factually inaccurate and generally mystifying statements in recent memory.  When did Miss South Carolina get a job as their PR spokesperson?

What To Do With ‘Hate’ Speech

Earlier today I posed the following question on Twitter: ‘What’s the opinion on ‘hate’ speech?  Do we need to be above letting mere words hurt us or more conscious of what we’re saying?'

Pretty much every response favored a middle ground, to which I agree.  As a writer, I am probably more comfortable around such language than most, seeing words as simple strokes on paper and understanding that there is a lot more, tone, context, background, that goes with them and gives them meaning and weight.

Still, it is undeniable that words like ‘nigger’, ‘faggot’, and ‘tranny’ are offensive and do cause harm, even if members within those cultures identify as those words.  In a world where none of the three groups associated with those words are equal to the straight, cis-, white majority (and we kid ourselves greatly on the first in this country), they’re too often used to hold those minorities at a disadvantage, to point out that there is something inherently wrong with whomever or whatever those words are directed at.  They’re more than calling someone black, gay, or transgendered, they’re also pointing out that there is something wrong with being those things.  It is for this reason that I have largely stricken them from my vocabulary.

Use of the Word Faggot

Lately there's been a much stronger push to eliminate the word 'faggot' from our vocabulary.  When you get right down to it, the word is a slur used to denigrate gay people.  Or perhaps more accurately used to remind gay people that there are many places in this country where they are still inferior.