Pre-2009 Star Trek and LGBTQI+ representation: simple disinterest or active hostility?

[Damian]

I worry about that as well. I know I say it a lot but free speech is more than just a law but also a kind of way of life. You want a world that values free expression, even if things people say are things you don't like. What you don't want is people embracing censorship by working around the rules to still stay legal but also still be something that goes against the spirit of the law. Loophole censorship is not a good way to have a society were people overcome their differences and try and work together to get things done.

I am glad to see there is no widespread effort to ban free speech in the US. Yes there are fringe groups out there, even fringe politicians. But it's never really picked up steam.

I just never understood the call to ban certain speech. If you don't like what someone is saying speak up. You have a right to free speech as well. Use it.

 

[evilchumlee]

Free speech will never be banned in America. What is disturbing though is if future generations don't value it then it won't matter. Sometimes ideas and laws exist only on paper and not in the real world if the people don't like them.

I'm already starting to see that. I can see that some people don't value free speech... or rather, they value their OWN free speech but nothing dissenting. Dissenting speech should be banned or otherwise punished.

The problem is, it can always be turned around and used against you...

I would never say "will never be banned"... I'm afraid there are too many people across political spectrums would be ok with it, in a shortsighted attempt to silence their enemies while assuming they would be completely protected.

Hell, it's a very real possibility we are about to ban TikTok, for "national security". That's a precedent that concerns me. If Trump gets elected, and he declares CNN to be a threat to national security, can he ban CNN? It's somewhat hyperbolic, but it's also absolutely not outside the realm of possibility to at least be attempted...

 

[Jayson1]

To ban free speech it would take a Constitutional Amendment. Very hard to do. But as one can see in society people still have their ways of suppressing speech, anyways.

 

[Damian]

Hell, it's a very real possibility we are about to ban TikTok, for "national security". That's a precedent that concerns me. If Trump gets elected, and he declares CNN to be a threat to national security, can he ban CNN? It's somewhat hyperbolic, but it's also absolutely not outside the realm of possibility to at least be attempted..

I don't think you'd see CNN be banned. There is some cross party support for banning TikTok for differing reasons. Concerns about national security and so forth. I think there might be some room for argument there. I don't use TikTok myself though I'm aware of some of the issues. A debate about that might not be necessarily a bad thing. TikTok is a foreign private company with ties to a rival national government.

But CNN is a US cable network. That would fly in the face of the First Amendment without any doubt. I know liberals get hung up about Fox News and conservatives about CNN and MSNBC and so forth. But I would not support any kind of ban or legislation against any US media company. No politician would be able to ban a network. It wouldn't likely get the needed support in Congress and even if it somehow did it would be shot down in court rather quickly for an obvious first amendment violation. I consider them all opinion networks (I stopped going to any of them for actual 'real' news years ago). And they all have a right to exist and state their opinions under the First Amendment. I know they like to pretend they are news networks but I don't think anyone really believes that anymore.

 

[Skipper]

I would just like to add that hate speech is banned in many European countries (including mine) and strangely we have not fallen into some infernal dystopia. Indeed, on average most European countries are freer than the United States in almost all indicators.

 

[Damian]

I would just like to add that hate speech is banned in many European countries (including mine) and strangely we have not fallen into some infernal dystopia. Indeed, on average most European countries are freer than the United States in almost all indicators.

The US is one of the few places in the world that we have true free speech, that's true.

Part of it is our history and our cultural traditions. Free speech here is cherished as an absolute right. Many other countries have never had free speech of the sort we do so they sometimes don't understand it as we do.

But I still don't like the idea of banning any kind of speech. Those hateful people are still out there. You're just pushing it into the shadows and underground. Don't think by banning hateful speech you're eliminating it. It's still there. Simmering and stewing.

 

[Skipper]

But I still don't like the idea of banning any kind of speech. Those hateful people are still out there. You're just pushing it into the shadows and underground. Don't think by banning hateful speech you're eliminating it. It's still there. Simmering and stewing.

It's a perfectly valid opinion. But I find the reasoning that "If you ban hate speech then AUTOMATIC DICTATORSHIP!!! IT'S PRACTICALLY MATHEMATICAL!" ridiculous and unfounded.

 

[evilchumlee]

I would just like to add that hate speech is banned in many European countries (including mine) and strangely we have not fallen into some infernal dystopia. Indeed, on average most European countries are freer than the United States in almost all indicators.

Except speech, apparently

I'm going to go out on a limb and say anywhere where one can be jailed for saying words is a dystopia. It might be a gilded dystopia, but a dystopia nonetheless.

It's also not necessarily a quick process. Europe is ABSOLUTELY seeing a rise in right wing, authoritarianism... let us hope that laws intended to protect people are not bastardized into hurting people.

It's a perfectly valid opinion. But I find the reasoning that "If you ban hate speech then AUTOMATIC DICTATORSHIP!!! IT'S PRACTICALLY MATHEMATICAL!" ridiculous and unfounded.

That's a gross misrepresentation of what I said in the most alarmist possible way.

I have concerns that it sets a bad precedent that could be used for that.

Lest we forget this is also the United States... a nation who elected Donald Trump as President, who also still has enough support to potentially become President again, who tried to overthrow the United States government to be installed as an unelected ruler.

Yeah, i'm concerned about any legal precedents that may allow such a thing.

 

[1001001]

Okay, all of us (me included) have gone very far afield from Star Trek.

This is a good conversation, but doesn’t belong in this forum.

Anything else about pre-2009 Star Trek?

 

[Damian]

Okay, all of us (me included) have gone very far afield from Star Trek.

This is a good conversation, but doesn’t belong in this forum.

Anything else about pre-2009 Star Trek?

Star Trek...what's that

 

[BK613]

Well, on topic, we have been giving TNG a hard time for not having a LBGT+ character but what about The Voyage Home which was released a year earlier? I mean it was set in San Francisco, after all.

 

[Takeru]

I would just like to add that hate speech is banned in many European countries (including mine) and strangely we have not fallen into some infernal dystopia. Indeed, on average most European countries are freer than the United States in almost all indicators.

Exactly, limiting hate speech is a good thing and makes societies more stable. America allowing people to say the nastiest things, spread lies and incite hate and believing society will sort it out by fighting back is one if the reasons for the rise or Trump and ultra rightwing politicians because guess what, society did not sort it out because the people listening to the lies simply tuned out the truth.

The US is one of the few places in the world that we have true free speech, that's true.

No country has absolute free speech, not even the US, the most popular example is shouting "Fire" in a crowded theater, that is illegal and you can be prosecuted for it and it's not the only example, make threats against people and law enforcement will show up at your door. Make threats against government officials and see how well "But the 1st amendment ..." works as a defense. Spoiler alert, it won't!
You might say of course threats aren't protected speech but why not? Because at some point people decided the first not every form is acceptable, first amendmend or not. Think about that before you call american free speech absolute because it isn't.

Part of it is our history and our cultural traditions. Free speech here is cherished as an absolute right. Many other countries have never had free speech of the sort we do so they sometimes don't understand it as we do.

That's american exceptionalism at work, you are so convinced that your country got it right you're not even entertaining the thought that there are things to fix and some additional limits to the ones already existing could be a good thing.

But I still don't like the idea of banning any kind of speech. Those hateful people are still out there. You're just pushing it into the shadows and underground. Don't think by banning hateful speech you're eliminating it. It's still there. Simmering and stewing.

Except there's proof that deplatforming works. Evil ideas will still exist if pushed into the underground but they won't influence the masses.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say anywhere where one can be jailed for saying words is a dystopia. It might be a gilded dystopia, but a dystopia nonetheless.

But that includes america, you can be jailed for saying certain things.

 

[Skipper]

Except speech, apparently

I'm going to go out on a limb and say anywhere where one can be jailed for saying words is a dystopia. It might be a gilded dystopia, but a dystopia nonetheless.

Norway is at the first place in every freedom index out there (USA is usually ranked 24th or lower), but you are virtually claiming that this Northern European country is a dystopia while the United States is the only truly "free" country.

I just remembered this scene

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

 

[Damian]

On topic I am glad to see here that the conversation has generally been respectful, and we've avoided ridiculous hyperbole. It'd be easy for things to degenerate on a topic such as this.

Even about Rick Berman. It'd be easy for people to just say he's a raging homophobe. But people haven't really. Is it possible? Sure, people have entertained that as a possibility, and it's a valid thing to consider. But people have looked at what evidence there is and have largely said that they can't say that with any certainty.

And we've given weight to the possibility that it just wasn't considered a priority, and maybe not considered at all. And whether it should have been and if Star Trek missed the boat a bit on this topic back then.

 

[Skipper]

Guys, where can I find the discussion about LBGTQ representation and Star Trek? Perhaps these other discourses would be better off in the Neutral Zone?

 

[Skipper]

Even about Rick Berman. It'd be easy for people to just say he's a raging homophobe. But people haven't really.

Uh, Gerrold literally said this. He's quoted in the first posts.

 

[Damian]

That's american exceptionalism at work, you are so convinced that your country got it right you're not even entertaining the thought that there are things to fix and some additional limits to the ones already existing could be a good thing.

Talk about blowing things out of proportion .

Uh, Gerrold literally said this. He's quoted in the first posts.

I was talking about posters here. And people have acknowledged that, but also acknowledged they were hard pressed to find other direct evidence he was a homophobe from elsewhere. And Gerrold had a lot of issues with Rick Berman.

 

[BK613]

Guys, where can I find the discussion about LBGTQ representation and Star Trek? Perhaps these other discourses would be better off in the Neutral Zone?

Or maybe Misc?
Cudos to everyone here though, for keeping it civil...

 

[Skipper]

Norway is at the first place in every freedom index out there (USA is usually ranked 24th or lower), but you are virtually claiming that this Northern European country is a dystopia while the United States is the only truly "free" country.

I just remembered this scene

To view this content we will need your consent to set third party cookies.
For more detailed information, see our cookies page.

Accept third party cookies

I just remembered a story a French acquaintance of a friend of mine told us. In Paris a somewhat elderly American lady began (kindly) to have a conversation with him. At one point she asked him how he felt about living without freedom, not how Americans lived. A little awkwardly, he tried to explain to him that France was a free country, that is, they had also made the revolution for freedom (before the Americans!), and, well, they really had freedom. The lady looked at him with a kind smile and with a hint of pity she replied "Yes, of course, I'm sure you have it".

 

[Takeru]

Guys, where can I find the discussion about LBGTQ representation and Star Trek?

Ah, yes, the actual topic of the thread. Oops.

I still think there was no good reason not to have gay representation in the late 80s or 90s. A gay romance at the center of the show with extended make out sessions, no, probably not but that's not really what people expected. Just an acknowledgement that not straight people exist would have been a nice start.

Uh, Gerrold literally said this. He's quoted in the first posts.

But David Gerrold seems to have an axe to grind when it comes to Star Trek and by the time he left Berman wasn't even in charge, it was still Roddenberry's show. So I'm not 100% sure I can take his word for it.
Another reason why I'm not comfortable with laying all the blame at Berman's feet is that it lets everybody else off the hook. You're telling me Piller on TNG and early DS9, Behr, Taylor, Braga etc. had nothing to say when they ran their respective shows?
Paramount could have ordered their supposedly progressive shows to include LGBTQ characters, Voyager and Enterprise had UPN to deal with and networks are very powerful too, NBC demanded the inclusion of female main characters on Law & Order and threatened to cancel the show otherwise which led to the firing of Dann Florek and Richard Brooks and them being replaced with S. Epatha Merkerson and Jill Hennessy. The studio caved to their demands
This could have happened on Star Trek too, Berman was not the be all and end all of decision making, many people either agreed with not having LGBTQ characters or didn't care. Neither is a good look.