GLADD is Really Quacked-Up on This One.
Everyone has their opinion of the GLADD, A&E, and Phil Robertson sage. GLADD and other organizations were petitioning A&E to remove Robertson from Duck Dynasty because they viewed his comments as "hate speech". While the term may mean different things to different people, my complaint is it seems so many activists define hate speech as "Expressing a position on a critical social issue different from the one I want expressed". They develop an Orwellian view of speech something like: "All speech except hate speech should be tolerated. Speech that disagrees with my speech is hate speech."
What people need to understand is tolerance means not only getting others to tolerate your ideas, but getting yourself to tolerate the ideas of others as well. There's no question in my mind that the leadership of GLADD has an unwavering opinion they are right in their actions. Their own website says they are "Fighting Media Defamation of LGBT People for Over 25 Years." While I do not think that in itself is a bad cause, I personally find fault with their tactics. It seems ironic that an organization so devoted to expanding one type of freedom for a class of people is also so willing to take away another type of freedom for another class of Americans.
GLADD sees themselves as the loser in this incident. They failed to achieve their objective of stopping the expression of a viewpoint they believe wrong. I see the American people in general as the victors instead. At least in this one case, the right to express an opinion has been protected. Ironically, this benefits GLADD as well as all Americans. They are one of the most controversial or cutting-edge organizations in our society today, depending on your viewpoint. What would their position be in if someone considered their speech too extreme and tried to suppress it?