A few homosexual advocacy websites have used their military members’ access to DoD networks to claim the US military is censoring websites identified as “LGBT.”

It’s bad enough the United States Department of Defense censors Towleroad and AMERICAblog – banning the gay civil rights Web sites from being accessed on DOD computers – and it’s even worse that the Pentagon has no problem permitting their computers to access Ann Coulter’s and Rush Limbaugh’s hate-filled Web sites…

While claiming persecution is all the rage, this is actually really old news.  The ACLU has been going after libraries and public schools for years for using the same web filtering software — BlueCoat and its categories — the DoD uses.  So much ire has been aimed at BlueCoat it has revised the wording of its filter and made a point of publishing its ‘neutral stance’ on the topic.  It only provides a service; its customers choose how to employ it.

Also, as noted before (when an Air Force Sergeant tried to get ChristianFighterPilot.com blocked from military servers as “hate speech”), it is difficult to claim some form of institutional persecution over the way the DoD runs its information systems.  It is a bit more…complex…than that.  Besides, the US military is not obligated to allow certain websites onto its systems merely because DADT was repealed.

Still, it seems the Pentagon has taken the unusual step of officially responding to the complaints — something atheist Jason Torpy noticed, spurring him to see if he could coat-tail the scandal by claiming atheists, too, were discriminated against in favor of Christian (not religious, but Christian) websites.  Complaints or not, in the end, the military is free to control its information systems as it sees fit.

The greatest irony, however, is the blindness some people have to their own image — namely, homosexuals who consider anything labeled “LGBT” to be inherently benign.  In light of current scandals ongoing in the military, the DoD is particularly sensitive to issues of a sexual nature.  In that regard, the complaints about homosexual websites being “censored” are poorly timed, as a website that proudly identifies itself as “gay” or “LBGT” is, by definition, sexually-oriented.  To claim otherwise is to say an ESPN site isn’t sports-oriented.

After all, when a website, group, or organization proclaims themselves “LGBT,” they are choosing to publicly associate by their sexual behavior.  That the characterization makes for awkward dinner conversation does not change its truth.

ADVERTISEMENT