Connect with us

Porn, Equality, And Journalism Just Don’t Mix

Published

on

Last Friday I resigned from The Bilerico Project, as regular readers of this blog know, in response to its publishing, “Hot Mormon missionary boys masturbating.”

To be clear, my resignation was not a protest, not an indictment, just a simple goodbye. A hopefully graceful, albeit specific exit.

As I explained in, “Why I’m Hanging Up My Bilerico Hat For Good,”

“My writing and my activism is my work. My work is to help the LGBTQ community achieve full equality, both under the law and in the hearts and minds of our neighbors, family-members, friends, co-workers, and society in general. And so I view Bilerico and my own blog as my place of work. And, after twenty-five years of working in corporate America, I don’t believe pornography has a place in the workplace.

“I’ve had this conversation, and others, with Bil. I understand his point. And most importantly, Bilerico is his home, and his business. Bilerico is an amazing institution, one that has taught me more than I expected, and one that has contributed a great deal to the LGBTQ community. I know Bil and all the Bilerico contributors will continue to do that fine work, to help open doors for our community, and help move the national conversation forward.”

“I do not see my work and pornography as compatible or even being able to share the same home. And I do not think that that type of content here helps us in our battle to win the hearts and minds of those who might choose to help us.”

And that, as they say, was supposed to be that.

I had asked Bilerico founder Bil Browning to publish my piece on why I was resigning. I wanted to resign and have it be clear that it was a personal choice I was making, not a choice I was asking Bil or his readers to make. All I was saying was that I didn’t want my work published amid pornography, or among content that was there merely to titillate or arouse.

Had “Hot Mormon missionary boys masturbating,” been framed as an examination, why that aspect of queer culture was interesting to some, had a bearing on LGBTQ culture, or served any other intellectual purpose, rather than just, as Bil wrote, “I bring you pictures of hot Mormon missionary boys masturbating. They’re from the porn site Mormonboyz.com, but I’ve deliberately used ones where you can only see their cocks through their magical Mormon underwear…” I would have probably been fine with it. Not thrilled, but fine.

For the first time ever, Bil refused to publish my piece. In his response to my resignation letter, he wrote, “I’m all in favor of making decisions that benefit ourselves and allows us to stand up for our ideals. You did that,” and promised he would pen his own response to the subject to “get the discussion started.”

Last night, Bil published, “Porn vs Prude: Bilerico is sex positive,” in which he wrote, “if there’s one thing I’ll never apologize for, it’s that Bilerico Project is sex positive.”

Making It Personal

I am honestly saddened that Bil chose to make this issue personal, thinly veiling attacks on me under the guise of Bilerico being “sex positive,” (the insinuation being, I am not,) not having “internalized homophobia,” (the insinuation being, I do,) nor being a prude (the insinuation being, I am,) rather than offering a debate on the issue of pornography as content.

He easily could have said, “Contributor David Badash resigned after we published this piece. What do you think? Is this content appropriate for what we want the site to be?” And that, as they say, could have been that.

(If Bilerico were so “sex positive,” it would have equal amounts of “sex positive” content for all different tastes. I do not believe it does.)

Bil chose to take the discussion in an unfortunate and entirely unnecessary direction. Rather than ask his readers what they thought about porn as content, as I did mine, he wrote, “I wouldn’t have it any other way.”

(In 2008, Bil was a bit more open to conversation. But not any more.)

What Do You Think?

I did take the time to ask my readers, on this blog via a poll, and on Twitter. The overwhelming response I received was that pornography on news and opinion sites is just not what you want.

As of this writing, here’s what you had to say:

67% were solidly against it, only 27% were comfortable with it.

But rather than look at the big picture, Bil chose to try to “analyze” a few points of my piece, leaving his readers out of the full discussion.  What Bil is doing is unfortunate, and his readers, as well as the larger LGBTQ community, deserve a better, more honest and open dialogue, especially from a site that claims to be all about honest and open dialogue.

In these pages and his, in my resignation letter, and in communications with others, I have supported Bil and his work. It’s disappointing that he chose to take such a narrow track, but, as I wrote, it’s Bil’s home and place of work, and he can run Bilerico any way he chooses.

Had Bil published my piece, a real discussion on the pros and cons of publishing pornography as content might have been held. Instead, Bil chose to be disingenuous, claiming, “No Internalized Homophobia: Bilerico Is Sex Positive,” writing, “it’s our genitals and what we do with them that sets us apart in most straight/cis people’s minds,” but neglecting to remind his readers that in “Hot Mormon missionary boys masturbating.” he had written, “you can’t be a proper Bilerico unless you’re both political and perverted.”

So, which one is it? “Sex positive” or “perverted?”

I think calling your writers and readers “perverted” speaks far greater to issues of internalized homophobia rather than, “I do not see my work and pornography as compatible or even being able to share the same home” with pornography.

Bil also writes, “I think that David’s premise depends on what your definition of “porn” is.”

Well, porn is porn. If it’s NSFW, it’s porn, or close enough. Like Clinton’s “I did not have sexual relations with that woman,” what you call it isn’t what’s important. it is what it is. Why not be honest about it?

Matt Algren, an LGBTQ blogger who writes Asterisk, weighed in in the comments section of Bil’s piece.

I’m glad that you at least acknowledge that you do posts like that to up your hit count and therefore probably your ad revenue. “Sex sells”, though, has never been the sounding call of a respectable news/opinion organization. Using that motto as a defense signals to me that you put your income over your journalistic integrity, and I think that’s unfortunate.

I suppose the most frustrating part of your post here is its dishonesty. When you talk about being “sex positive” and proclaim that you won’t “shun” a segment of the community, you’re implying that someone has suggested you should be “sex negative” and that you should shun some LGBT people.

The problem is that no one has said those things. No one. You’re just being dishonest so you can cover yourself in glory. Why not just say “Yep, sometimes we publish naughty pics from skeezy amateur porn sites of guys in y-fronts, so don’t come here from work” and let that be the end of it? Why did you have to try to insert some false moral battle of which you can be the self-styled champion?

And to make matters worse, when you declare that you don’t have “internalized homophobia” and set this up as “porn vs prude”, you’re implying that the person you’re responding to (in this case, David Badash) does suffer from internalized homophobia and is a prude. That, mon frere, is what they call unprofessional, or in less polite society, “fucked up”.

Of the piece that initiated my resignation, Bil writes,

“Even the post about masturbating Mormon missionaries didn’t show any exposed genitalia – although you could see the shadow of one guy’s cock through his undies and if you blow up one of the other pictures you can see the outline of that guy’s balls through his knickers. The post is marked NSFW with the disclaimer: “I’ve deliberately used ones where you can only see their cocks through their magical Mormon underwear. They’re still NSFW, but if you need more there are tons more graphic preview pictures at the site.

So what do these posts all have in common if the moniker of “porn” isn’t sticking? They’re about sex – and gay sex specifically.”

That’s not a disclaimer, it’s an invitation. Again, why not be honest about it?

(And perhaps someone can tell me what Prince William’s Penis, at one point the #1 post on Bilerico, and one I mentioned as an example of what I felt was inappropriate, has to do with “gay sex specifically?”)

Another LGBTQ blogger wrote me, asking for anonymity, but stating,

“The idea that this is about sex-negativity is simply a strawman.

“The question, to me, is does Bilerico want to be Queerty, or do they want to be a serious forum for LGBT news and analysis?  It’s difficult to be both.

“When I look for real analysis in the Netroots, where do I go?  Digby, Steve Benen, Ezra Klein, and others.  I think we can agree that it would be weird if all of a sudden Ezra decided to post NSFW shit below the fold.  It doesn’t mean Ezra is “sex-negative.”  That’s just not what Ezra does.

“In the LGBT world, Pam Spaulding doesn’t post stuff like that either.  Towleroad links to fun, naughty stuff sometimes, but Andy doesn’t present himself as an analyst, but more as a collector of things lots of LGBT people (and straight people too!) might find interesting.  So because he casts such a wide net it’s appropriate.  The problem is that Bilerico seems to want to have it both ways, to be a place where “serious commentary” can co-exist with Mormon porn, and it’s not “sex-negative” to say that that format doesn’t work.  If Bilerico were large enough to be an LGBT equivalent of FireDogLake, that would work, but they’re not.”

Bilerico is a unique enterprise. It’s not for everyone, as it wasn’t for me. That’s fine. I chose to try to leave honorably and respectfully. It’s unfortunate, as I wrote to Bil after he published, “Porn vs Prude: Bilerico is sex positive,” that he “chose not to display the same level of respect for me, or my work, or, for that matter, [his] readers” that I had offered him.

I was honored that Michael R. Triplett, a board member of the National Lesbian & Gay Journalists Association, wrote in, “Porn, Skin, and Profits: The LGBT Media Dilemma,”

“Badash has taken a principled stand about where he wants his paid and unpaid work to appear. I’d also agree that “porn,” skin-ads and “boys in underwear” posts undermine the overall credibility in terms of news and analysis. OTOH, can bloggers and LGBT media survive without them?”

And that’s the point. The point is that pornography, fighting for equality, and serious, intellectual news and analysis journalism just don’t mix.

Be Who You Are. Just Be Honest About It.

As the anonymous blogger above wrote, Pam Spaulding’s Pam’s House Blend doesn’t post porn. (Nor does The Advocate, both of which I admire greatly.)

Towleroad isn’t an activist site, it’s not an analysis site, it’s a news/entertainment site, just like 365Gay is, and just like Joe.My.God is. I don’t think these three are trying to be the home of serious queer intellectual discussion and debate. That’s fine. They are a few of my favorite sites, which I read daily and respect for the excellent work they do. But Bilerico is trying to be the home of serious queer intellectual discussion and debate. Or claims to be.

If there’s a way to mix porn, journalism, and serious intellectual debate, while fighting intelligently for equality, and maintaining credibility to the rest of the world, I have yet to see it. Nor, quite frankly, do I want to.

Related Topics:
Continue Reading
Click to comment
 
 

Enjoy this piece?

… then let us make a small request. The New Civil Rights Movement depends on readers like you to meet our ongoing expenses and continue producing quality progressive journalism. Three Silicon Valley giants consume 70 percent of all online advertising dollars, so we need your help to continue doing what we do.

NCRM is independent. You won’t find mainstream media bias here. From unflinching coverage of religious extremism, to spotlighting efforts to roll back our rights, NCRM continues to speak truth to power. America needs independent voices like NCRM to be sure no one is forgotten.

Every reader contribution, whatever the amount, makes a tremendous difference. Help ensure NCRM remains independent long into the future. Support progressive journalism with a one-time contribution to NCRM, or click here to become a subscriber. Thank you. Click here to donate by check.

News

‘Assassination of Political Rivals as an Official Act’: AOC Warns Take Trump ‘Seriously’

Published

16 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Democratic U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is responding to Thursday’s U.S. Supreme Court hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was a U.S. president, and she delivered a strong warning in response.

Trump’s attorney argued before the nation’s highest court that the ex-president could have ordered the assassination of a political rival and not face criminal prosecution unless he was first impeached by the House of Representatives and then convicted by the Senate.

But even then, Trump attorney John Sauer argued, if assassinating his political rival were done as an “official act,” he would be automatically immune from all prosecution.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, presenting the hypothetical, expressed, “there are some things that are so fundamentally evil that they have to be protected against.”

RELATED: Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

“If the president decides that his rival is a corrupt person, and he orders the military, or orders someone to assassinate him, is that within his official acts for which he can get immunity?” she asked.

“It would depend on the hypothetical, but we can see that could well be an official act,” Trump attorney Sauer quickly replied.

Sauer later claimed that if a president ordered the U.S. military to wage a coup, he could also be immune from prosecution, again, if it were an “official act.”

The Atlantic’s Tom Nichols, a retired U.S. Naval War College professor and an expert on Russia, nuclear weapons, and national security affairs, was quick to poke a large hole in that hypothetical.

“If the president suspends the Senate, you can’t prosecute him because it’s not an official act until the Senate impeaches …. Uh oh,” he declared.

RELATED: Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

U.S. Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez blasted the Trump team.

“The assassination of political rivals as an official act,” the New York Democrat wrote.

“Understand what the Trump team is arguing for here. Take it seriously and at face value,” she said, issuing a warning: “This is not a game.”

Marc Elias, who has been an attorney to top Democrats and the Democratic National Committee, remarked, “I am in shock that a lawyer stood in the U.S Supreme Court and said that a president could assassinate his political opponent and it would be immune as ‘an official act.’ I am in despair that several Justices seemed to think this answer made perfect sense.”

CNN legal analyst Norm Eisen, a former U.S. Ambassador and White House Special Counsel for Ethics and Government Reform under President Barack Obama, boiled it down: “Trump is seeking dictatorial powers.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘They Will Have Thugs?’: Lara Trump’s Claim RNC Will ‘Physically Handle the Ballots’ Stuns

 

Continue Reading

News

Justices’ Views on Trump Immunity Stun Experts: ‘Watching the Constitution Be Rewritten’

Published

19 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Legal experts appeared somewhat pleased during the first half of the Supreme Court’s historic hearing on Donald Trump’s claim he has “absolute immunity” from criminal prosecution because he was the President of the United States, as the justice appeared unwilling to accept that claim, but were stunned later when the right-wing justices questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s attorney. Many experts are suggesting the ex-president may have won at least a part of the day, and some are expressing concern about the future of American democracy.

“Former President Trump seems likely to win at least a partial victory from the Supreme Court in his effort to avoid prosecution for his role in Jan. 6,” Axios reports. “A definitive ruling against Trump — a clear rejection of his theory of immunity that would allow his Jan. 6 trial to promptly resume — seemed to be the least likely outcome.”

The most likely outcome “might be for the high court to punt, perhaps kicking the case back to lower courts for more nuanced hearings. That would still be a victory for Trump, who has sought first and foremost to delay a trial in the Jan. 6 case until after Inauguration Day in 2025.”

Slate’s Mark Joseph Stern, who covers the courts and the law, noted: “This did NOT go very well [for Special Counsel] Jack Smith’s team. Thomas, Alito, and Kavanaugh think Trump’s Jan. 6 prosecution is unconstitutional. Maybe Gorsuch too. Roberts is skeptical of the charges. Barrett is more amenable to Smith but still wants some immunity.”

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

Civil rights attorney and Tufts University professor Matthew Segal, responding to Stern’s remarks, commented: “If this is true, and if Trump becomes president again, there is likely no limit to the harm he’d be willing to cause — to the country, and to specific individuals — under the aegis of this immunity.”

Noted foreign policy, national security and political affairs analyst and commentator David Rothkopf observed: “Feels like the court is leaning toward creating new immunity protections for a president. It’s amazing. We’re watching the Constitution be rewritten in front of our eyes in real time.”

“Frog in boiling water alert,” warned Ian Bassin, a former Associate White House Counsel under President Barack Obama. “Who could have imagined 8 years ago that in the Trump era the Supreme Court would be considering whether a president should be above the law for assassinating opponents or ordering a military coup and that *at least* four justices might agree.”

NYU professor of law Melissa Murray responded to Bassin: “We are normalizing authoritarianism.”

Trump’s attorney, John Sauer, argued before the Supreme Court justices that if Trump had a political rival assassinated, he could only be prosecuted if he had first been impeach by the U.S. House of Representatives then convicted by the U.S. Senate.

During oral arguments Thursday, MSNBC host Chris Hayes commented on social media, “Something that drives me a little insane, I’ll admit, is that Trump’s OWN LAWYERS at his impeachment told the Senators to vote not to convict him BECAUSE he could be prosecuted if it came to that. Now they’re arguing that the only way he could be prosecuted is if they convicted.”

READ MORE: Biden Campaign Hammers Trump Over Infamous COVID Comment

Attorney and former FBI agent Asha Rangappa warned, “It’s worth highlighting that Trump’s lawyers are setting up another argument for a second Trump presidency: Criminal laws don’t apply to the President unless they specifically say so…this lays the groundwork for saying (in the future) he can’t be impeached for conduct he can’t be prosecuted for.”

But NYU and Harvard professor of law Ryan Goodman shared a different perspective.

“Due to Trump attorney’s concessions in Supreme Court oral argument, there’s now a very clear path for DOJ’s case to go forward. It’d be a travesty for Justices to delay matters further. Justice Amy Coney Barrett got Trump attorney to concede core allegations are private acts.”

NYU professor of history Ruth Ben-Ghiat, an expert scholar on authoritarians, fascism, and democracy concluded, “Folks, whatever the Court does, having this case heard and the idea of having immunity for a military coup taken seriously by being debated is a big victory in the information war that MAGA and allies wage alongside legal battles. Authoritarians specialize in normalizing extreme ideas and and involves giving them a respected platform.”

The Nation’s justice correspondent Elie Mystal offered up a prediction: “Court doesn’t come back till May 9th which will be a decision day. But I think they won’t decide *this* case until July 3rd for max delay. And that decision will be 5-4 to remand the case back to DC, for additional delay.”

Watch the video above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

Continue Reading

News

Justices Slam Trump Lawyer: ‘Why Is It the President Would Not Be Required to Follow the Law?’

Published

22 hours ago

on

April 25, 2024

By

Justices on the U.S. Supreme Court hearing Donald Trump’s claim of absolute immunity early on appeared at best skeptical, were able to get his attorney to admit personal criminal acts can be prosecuted, appeared to skewer his argument a president must be impeached and convicted before he can be criminally prosecuted, and peppered him with questions exposing what some experts see is the apparent weakness of his case.

Legal experts appeared to believe, based on the Justices’ questions and statements, Trump will lose his claim of absolute presidential immunity, and may remand the case back to the lower court that already ruled against him, but these observations came during Justices’ questioning of Trump attorney John Sauer, and before they questioned the U.S. Dept. of Justice’s Michael Dreeben.

“I can say with reasonable confidence that if you’re arguing a case in the Supreme Court of the United States and Justices Alito and Sotomayor are tag-teaming you, you are going to lose,” noted attorney George Conway, who has argued a case before the nation’s highest court and obtained a unanimous decision.

But some are also warning that the justices will delay so Special Counsel Jack Smith’s prosecution of Trump will not take place before the November election.

READ MORE: ‘To Do God Knows What’: Local Elections Official Reads Lara Trump the Riot Act

“This argument still has a ways to go,” observed UCLA professor of law Rick Hasen, one of the top election law scholars in the county. “But it is easy to see the Court (1) siding against Trump on the merits but (2) in a way that requires further proceedings that easily push this case past the election (to a point where Trump could end this prosecution if elected).”

The Economist’s Supreme Court reporter Steven Mazie appeared to agree: “So, big picture: the (already slim) chances of Jack Smith actually getting his 2020 election-subversion case in front of a jury before the 2024 election are dwindling before our eyes.”

One of the most stunning lines of questioning came from Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson, who said, “If someone with those kinds of powers, the most powerful person in the world with the greatest amount of authority, could go into Office knowing that there would be no potential penalty for committing crimes. I’m trying to understand what the disincentive is, from turning the Oval Office into, you know, the seat of criminal activity in this country.”

READ MORE: ‘Doesn’t Care if Pregnant Women Live or Die’: Alito Slammed Over Emergency Abortion Remarks

She also warned, “If the potential for criminal liability is taken off the table, wouldn’t there be a significant risk that future presidents would be emboldened to commit crimes with abandon while they’re in office? It’s right now the fact that we’re having this debate because, OLC [Office of Legal Counsel] has said that presidents might be prosecuted. Presidents, from the beginning of time have understood that that’s a possibility. That might be what has kept this office from turning into the kind of crime center that I’m envisioning, but once we say, ‘no criminal liability, Mr. President, you can do whatever you want,’ I’m worried that we would have a worse problem than the problem of the president feeling constrained to follow the law while he’s in office.”

“Why is it as a matter of theory,” Justice Jackson said, “and I’m hoping you can sort of zoom way out here, that the president would not be required to follow the law when he is performing his official acts?”

“So,” she added later, “I guess I don’t understand why Congress in every criminal statute would have to say and the President is included. I thought that was the sort of background understanding that if they’re enacting a generally applicable criminal statute, it applies to the President just like everyone else.”

Another critical moment came when Justice Elena Kagan asked, “If a president sells nuclear secrets to a foreign adversary, is that immune?”

Professor of law Jennifer Taub observed, “This is truly a remarkable moment. A former U.S. president is at his criminal trial in New York, while at the same time the U.S. Supreme Court is hearing his lawyer’s argument that he should be immune from prosecution in an entirely different federal criminal case.”

Watch the videos above or at this link.

READ MORE: ‘Blood on Your Hands’: Tennessee Republicans OK Arming Teachers After Deadly School Shooting

 

Continue Reading

Trending

Copyright © 2020 AlterNet Media.