Pennsylvania newspaper won't accept anti-gay marriage editorials anymore

A newspaper in Harrisburg, PA informed its readers yesterday that the paper would no longer be accepting anti-gay marriage letters or op-eds.

After nationwide outrage was expressed, the paper revised its policy slightly; you can submit anti-gay marriage tracts for a limited amount of time.

Daily Caller:

After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.

Micek explained on Twitter: “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.”

Before that, there was this: “From the edit: ‘PL/PN will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.’ …This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitc letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”

Note that it is now "homophobic" to oppose a matter of public policy.  It's like saying that people who want to reform the EEOC statute are racist.  It's nonsense.

The notice at the top of the editorial page of the website now reads: “12:58 p.m. This post has been updated to further elaborate PennLive’s policy for accepting letters and op-Eds on same-sex marriage.”

A wealth of commenters were not pleased.

  • “Big Jasper” opposes the policy: “Nice to see strict speech codes will be enforced by a ‘free’ press,” he wrote. “No need to worry about that messy ‘freedom of expression’ thing anymore.”
  • “Motown” remarked, “God has the real say not some loony editorial board.”
  • And “hgunwilltravel0″ said this: “In layman’s terms, any Christian view on anything will not be tolerated on this liberal website. Say it like it is and cut to the chase, and add my statement above to your manifesto.”
  • “Chappedunderkee” focused on his bottom line and saw the glass half full. “I don’t mind who’s marrying who. It’s a good day to be a divorce lawyer.”

The editorial heavily praised the Supreme Court ruling, saying, “[Justice Anthony] Kennedy nailed it: There are no rights more fundamental than due process and equal treatment under the law.”

The board explained the newspaper’s policy to allow limited freedom of speech on the matter. (Bolded emphasis, mine.)

And that's the way it is.  I would guess that many newspapers and websites will adopt a similar policy, but not be so open about it.  The editor of the Patriot News sure is proud of his censorship, fitting right in with the other fascists out there who want to end the debate over gay marriage by accusing opponents of a hate crime.

Salvador Dalí couldn't paint a more surreal picture of America in the last 48 hours.

A newspaper in Harrisburg, PA informed its readers yesterday that the paper would no longer be accepting anti-gay marriage letters or op-eds.

After nationwide outrage was expressed, the paper revised its policy slightly; you can submit anti-gay marriage tracts for a limited amount of time.

Daily Caller:

After receiving strong pushback, the newspaper’s editorial board, which is overseen by Editorial Page Editor John Micek, quickly revised its policy. Freedom of speech will be allowed — but only for a “limited” period of time.

Micek explained on Twitter: “Clarification: We will not foreclose discussion of the high court’s decision, but arguments that gay marriage is wrong/unnatural are out.”

Before that, there was this: “From the edit: ‘PL/PN will no longer accept, nor will it print, op-Eds and letters to the editor in opposition to same-sex marriage.’ …This is not hard: We would not print racist, sexist or anti-Semitc letters. To that, we add homophobic ones. Pretty simple.”

Note that it is now "homophobic" to oppose a matter of public policy.  It's like saying that people who want to reform the EEOC statute are racist.  It's nonsense.

The notice at the top of the editorial page of the website now reads: “12:58 p.m. This post has been updated to further elaborate PennLive’s policy for accepting letters and op-Eds on same-sex marriage.”

A wealth of commenters were not pleased.

  • “Big Jasper” opposes the policy: “Nice to see strict speech codes will be enforced by a ‘free’ press,” he wrote. “No need to worry about that messy ‘freedom of expression’ thing anymore.”
  • “Motown” remarked, “God has the real say not some loony editorial board.”
  • And “hgunwilltravel0″ said this: “In layman’s terms, any Christian view on anything will not be tolerated on this liberal website. Say it like it is and cut to the chase, and add my statement above to your manifesto.”
  • “Chappedunderkee” focused on his bottom line and saw the glass half full. “I don’t mind who’s marrying who. It’s a good day to be a divorce lawyer.”

The editorial heavily praised the Supreme Court ruling, saying, “[Justice Anthony] Kennedy nailed it: There are no rights more fundamental than due process and equal treatment under the law.”

The board explained the newspaper’s policy to allow limited freedom of speech on the matter. (Bolded emphasis, mine.)

And that's the way it is.  I would guess that many newspapers and websites will adopt a similar policy, but not be so open about it.  The editor of the Patriot News sure is proud of his censorship, fitting right in with the other fascists out there who want to end the debate over gay marriage by accusing opponents of a hate crime.

Salvador Dalí couldn't paint a more surreal picture of America in the last 48 hours.