[slapshot]

> to see that they were some ultra conservative bible toting rebels is... Bizarre.

Or Mother Jones is trying to set up a strawman of them as being homophoboic bigots without realizing that they were actually protesting [1] the then-controversial Stanford speech code, which prohibited much more speech than the government could prohibit. Lawsuits [2] were underway against the speech code and it was a bit of a topic of the day.

As others have pointed out, the safest way to protest a speech code that bans certain slurs against protected groups is to attack your own group. Rabois standing around using anti-gay slurs can easily prove that he's actually protesting the speech code by saying "look, I'm not homophobic, I'm actually gay myself." A bunch of white guys standing around dropping the n-word would not work out as well.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keith_Rabois#Early_life [2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corry_v._Stanford

[cadlin]

I looked through your links and don't see anything about Keith Rabois being gay. That he was might be common knowledge, but it's not intimated on those sites.

[mattdeboard]

Keith Rabois is the author of the post you're commenting on.

[cadlin]

Right, I was commenting on this:

"As others have pointed out, the safest way to protest a speech code that bans certain slurs against protected groups is to attack your own group. Rabois standing around using anti-gay slurs can easily prove that he's actually protesting the speech code by saying "look, I'm not homophobic, I'm actually gay myself.""

Also, if he were a closeted homosexual it would make sense as to why he didn't tell Square about the relationship.

[samstave]

Thanks - I didn't get any of that from the article.

[notahacker]

Except that Rabois (and Thiel) were both in the closet at the time. In lieu of "look, I'm not homophobic"...

first-year law student Keith Rabois - refused to answer their questions, but sent a letter to the Stanford Daily confirming the allegations. "Admittedly, the comments made were not very articulate, not very intellectual nor profound," Rabois wrote. "The intention was for the speech to be outrageous enough to provoke a thought of 'Wow, if he can say that, I guess I can say a little more than I thought.' " http://news.stanford.edu/pr/92/920212Arc2432.html

Because obviously, the world is a poorer, fundamentally less free place if we're not allowed to harrass people by shouting we hope they die of AIDs. Thiel at least later admitted embarrassment over the whole episode.

The bona fide bigots have more integrity.