There's been a lot of controversy - covered by both blogs and the mainstream media - regarding one Amanda Marcotte, comments she's made in the past, the Edwards campaign hiring her, and resulting media furor (additional link here).

Her site currently has a vitriolic suspended page notice up, as well.

Now, those who know me know that while Catholic, I'm about as lapsed as one can possibly be. I can't imagine myself going to a number of other faiths, due to problems with their central tenets or behavior, and my schism with the Catholic Church has a lot to do with some boneheaded stances they have on breaking "certain" laws, harboring "certain" lawbreakers, and general idiocy in a couple policies that directly contradict the Bible (example, celibate priesthood).

However, Marcotte's comments after being hired, probably-fired, "not fired", and then "resigning" from the Edwards campaign show a lot of what I find wrong with a general attitude I see often - mostly from the Left, but not always. The attitude is as follows: that their "right" to free speech means that no consequences should ever follow, no matter what they say, no matter how vitriolic or abusive the wording they choose.

Now, the "right to free speech" only protects you from government intervention. Yet time and again, the Left insists that not only does the "right to free speech" mean (but only for them, not those "evil right-wing haters" that they rail against) that they have the right to stand in the street and say something, but that they somehow - by virtue of "right to free speech" - deserve public airtime. So instead of a business decision by (example) radio stations to stop playing the Dixie Chicks following blatant anti-American ranting, it was "oh you're attacking the Dixie Chicks' right of free speech if you don't play their music on the radio." And the likewise with Marcotte, who's said some incredibly vile and nasty things, but thinks that it's a problem with her "right of free speech" if the Edwards campaign, notified of this and seeing a lot of people rightfully outraged by her hiring, fires her.

On the suspended page she put up, Marcotte says the following:

Because I had the nerve to be critical of the Catholic church's stance on birth control and abortion---nevermind their political opposition to distributing condoms to fight HIV, a stance that has helped usher thousands and possibly millions to their untimely deaths---I've gotten a number of letters from people who call themselves "Christians", as Bill Donohue also calls himself. Chrisitians are people who are supposed to follow the behavior and teachings of Jesus Christ. I mention this, because it seems to me that therefore, when Christians are contemplating an action that is morally questionable, it appears they should consult the Bible before acting.

Luckily, I happen to have a Bible laying around this house, because even though I'm not a Christian, I was an English major, and it is important to Know Your Ancient Mythologies if you are reading poetry. And I flipped to this passage that seems to have solid advice on what to do if you've got some asshole dragging a woman in front of an angry crowd and yelling, "SINNER!":

The scribes and the Pharisees brought a woman who had been caught in adultery, and placing her in the midst 4 they said to him, “Teacher, this woman has been caught in the act of adultery. Now in the Law Moses commanded us to stone such women. So what do you say?” This they said to test him, that they might have some charge to bring against him. Jesus bent down and wrote with his finger on the ground. And as they continued to ask him, he stood up and said to them, “Let him who is without sin among you be the first to throw a stone at her.” And once more he bent down and wrote on the ground. But when they heard it, they went away one by one, beginning with the older ones, and Jesus was left alone with the woman standing before him. Jesus stood up and said to her, “Woman, where are they? Has no one condemned you?” She said, “No one, Lord.” And Jesus said, “Neither do I condemn you; go, and from now on sin no more.”

Granted, I don't think criticizing the church for policies that hurt families and even get people killed is a "sin", but my letter writers do.

Just for Marcotte's help - since she's so nicely hidden all the posts of her site, and is more than likely spending this time going through her archives and wiping out the "harmful" comments, much the same way she "moderates" her commentary section so that it resembles the left-wing echo chamber - I'll paste a few of the things she's said in the past here. Google Cache is wonderful for stuff like this:

link 1:
Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

link 2:link 3:At least 114 times referencing "Jeebus." While this is an ages-old Simpsons joke, her uses were far less humorous, instead meant to be deliberately derogatory towards Catholics/Christians.

Marcotte also goes out of her way to try to paint it as if it were the "right wing shills" alone who were offended by stuff like this: it turns out that liberal Christians were just as offended (second link).

Also interesting - and falling into my main problem with the Left and their idea of what "free speech" constitutes is that Marcotte vowed revenge even while some of the left tried to defend her, leading to the most insightful post I've seen yet on it:

But what I find most disturbing is the absolute unwillingness of people like Mr. Stoller to admit that people on the left can engage in hate speech and can needlessly offend both allies and potential ones just as easily as extremists on the right.

This is what I find amazing about comments from those I know who are farthest to the Left, as well as hardcore left-wing groups in general: while they get "offended" all the time, there is a blind spot that says that their comments can somehow never be "offensive", no matter what they say.

And these are the same people who will say the most godawful things, and insist that they have the "free speech" right to say them, and insist that their political allies have the right to shout "down with America", or parrot slogans for the destruction for Israel or the West, or any number of nasty things, while at the same time shouting that the voices that oppose them are "hate speech" that should not be "allowed."

Updated: Marcotte has a piece in the left-wing Salon.com today in which she repeats her talking points: innocent victim, attacked for being woman/feminist, Catholics are misogynists, right-wing noise machine, supposed right to free speech without anyone on the other side having the right to respond.

May I just say: I'm Catholic. I don't hate women, far from it. I don't think women are worth any less than men, though there have been a few times I've been concerned for lowering of physical standards in certain jobs where public safety (police, firefighting) is concerned, and I say this having had a friend back in College who was a volunteer firefighter and who probably could have hoisted me over her head one-handed.

Marcotte? She's a bigot. She's not a "feminist", she's a sexist who's no better than she claims those who were offended by her words are.