Salocin

Please note that the Gere-Shetty backlash is being provoked by Hindu fundamentalists who have a habit of knee-jerk reactions to ANYTHING which raises their ire. Recent targets have included Indian couples holding hands in Mumbai, cricketers with TV endorsements, etc. This is driven by India's never ending series of elections (including the current, crucial ones the state of UP - the most populous and caste- and communally- riven state) and by the fundamentalist parties constant need to pander to the prejudices of their target constituencies. These are not stands on principle in any way.

Seems to me you're trying to have your cake and eat it here.

Washington has the right to use the word 'faggot' but those who were offended don't have the right to complain.

In contrast, the fundamentalist reaction to Richard Gere is just funny (I think) and only serves to confirm most of my views about the insanity of organised religion.

Personally, I'd be cautious about using Mel Gibson as any kind of example in what professes to be a piece about tolerance.

I humbly request you re-read the piece. You are attributing opinions to me that I do not hold.

My article in no way sought to exonerate or defend the actions of the individuals who mis-spoke or acted in a way that offended. I think I went as far as to say "Clearly, it's not hard to ascertain that this isn't a very appropriate thing to say, so the blame remains", in one case. I said that specifically to be clear on this point and it's regrettable that you did not understand.

What I wrote was a commentary on a trend that uses hyperbole and exaggerated moral indignation to further an agenda. There are two points of note - first that the punishment meted out by these interest groups is disproportionate to the error (a word out of turn can end your career) and that a group that has only one side of an argument in mind acts as judge, jury and character assassin. Second, that these interest groups appear to want to limit what can and can't be said further than my desire to defend freedom of expression feels is right.

At NO POINT did I say that "Washington had the right to use the word 'faggot'".

At NO POINT did I say that those who were offended had no right to complain.

Yikes, that seemed an unnecessarily 'pointed' rebuttal.

I humbly suggest that I did not misread your piece. You used Voltaire to support the notion of freedom of speech by those being targeted by people you don't like who are in turn utilising their own freedom of speech (in the case of Washington anyway, Richard Gere intended no offence and the reaction is bizarre to say the least).

Lets be clear, Voltaire was concerned with state oppression and censorship, and in the case of Washington, "they" (gays and lesbians) have not denied anyone the right to express themselves. They have merely reacted to those expressions by asking for an apology. To say 'they deserve to be condemned for their intolerance' sounds a lot like "moral indignation" to me.

"he was left with no choice but to act with extreme contrition because the self-appointed victims of his words, in their over-zealous defence, put his career in the balance."

That doesn't seem to be a particularly fair precis of the entire affair. This story was rumbling along since October, the main gist being that Michael Richards and Mel Gibson caused outrage for being racist but that Washington's on-set outburst (effectively 'outing' his co-star) was ignored. In January, Washington then chose to deny it on the record at the Golden Globes and after his co stars said he was lying, he was asked to apologise.

What's the final outcome? Washington (under duress) issues a public apology (seems reasonable, he was rude, he apologises... eventually) and the message is reinforced once again that bigotry is unacceptable.

I have far less problem with your second message than your first - the second argues against some of the points made in my article, the first argues against points I did *not* make in my article (namely that "Washington had the right to use the word "faggot", but those who were offended did not have the right to complain"). I don't feel it should be surprising that I should be annoyed at having what I think are offensive opinions attributed to me!

To answer the second, I agree that his behaviour was bad, and that choosing to deny having used the word was not smart, but who's to say what's going on in his head? He may well have been so horrified as to what he said that his irrational short-term reaction was to deny having said it, or perhaps he's a machiavellian bastard who thought he could get away with it - hard to tell. Either way, the judgement isn't that he said something bad, but that what he said is an indication of deeply-held prejudice, which is not necessarily the case and is also a pretty harsh accusation.

In focusing on the detail, I don't want to lose the main point of the article, however, which is that I feel interest groups exploit wide distribution media's ability to broadcast their outrage provided that outrage is of sufficient magnitude and volume to get the media's attention in the first place. Be it Gibson, Washington or Gere, the reaction follows a pattern, and I find that pattern disturbing and manipulative (although whether its deliberately manipulative, I can't say). Whether in some cases it might be justified or not, it now happens whenever the opportunity for it arises.

In its weakest form, my argument is that these interest groups deliberately over-react to get attention.

The question I suppose I could have asked is the extent to which the media itself is to blame, but asking the media to exercise restraint and not turn into a special interest group soapbox is not a realistic request - if people will watch, listen or read it, there will always be at least one form of media determined to publish it, and that is not something I think there is any way to change without damaging other freedoms that are of greater importance.