Is Richard Gage breaching the AIA Code of Ethics & Bylaws?

[JayUtah]

I'll just pop in and say that free speech should be respected. I wouldn't complain to AIA about Gage because of his beliefs, because I want to win in the debate, not by yanking his credentials and making him a low-level martyr. Nothing else is gained by pushing this line of thinking, in my opinion.

I can see wisdom in this line of reasoning. Taking the high road is almost always the best policy.

However keeping in mind the importance of free speech, I don't think it's necessarily acceptable for Gage to suggest that he speaks for other AIA members or that his claims represent those of any portion of that membership. Gage's free speech does not extend to speaking on behalf of others without their consent.

I belong to several professional organizations in order to identify with the ethic and standards those organizations represent. In return for enjoying the umbrella of credibility they provide, I agree to respect and contribute to that credibility. I don't forsake my personal beliefs and crazy hobbies. But I don't pursue them under color of organizations that might not want to be associated with them. If any of the organizations I affiliate with were being used by an individual to lend undue credibility to nonsense, I would say something. That's my free speech.

 

[carlitos]

I'll just pop in and say that free speech should be respected.

Actually, no. Free speech per se deserves no respect. At all. None. That Gage says ridiculous, false, damaging, paranoid and slanderous things is not deserving of respect. No. "Free speech" should be judged on its merits, and speakers can earn respect by saying things that earn them respect.

 

[beachnut]

I'll just pop in and say that free speech should be respected. I wouldn't complain to AIA about Gage because of his beliefs, because I want to win in the debate, not by yanking his credentials and making him a low-level martyr. Nothing else is gained by pushing this line of thinking, in my opinion.

Gage, his speech is essentially yelling fire in delusional minds. A low key malicious presentation. If Gage's nonsense hits the wrong mind, the next Tim McVeigh for 911 issues, he is misleading people. His presentations are anti-government claptrap. He is milking all he can from idiots. The good part, he only makes 400,000 dollars a year, there is a limit to nuts around the world, it is holding at the 400,000 dollar level.

Is Gage insane, an idiot, or a slick salesman of woo? He looks like one of the 911 terrorists. Like the terrorists, does Gage only lie to get his mission done, take money?

AIA is like the BBB, sometimes a club. If you have a complaint with a business, the BBB many not be much more than a place to cover-up the complaint. The best way to expose fraud in business is though insurance companies. If the fraud has covered many people, there might be many claims, and the next time you see the business selling bad stuff or services, is gone. It comes down to money, and insurance companies hate to pay out, and love to shut down fraud. Double charging for repairs through insurance and back to the manufacturer; tell both of them. In Gage's case his fraud is a willing contract between him and idiots who donate money. He is a nut spreading disrespectful lies. He does not care - which covers insanity, stupidity, or greed.

 

[Orphia Nay]

Lots to think about. Thanks all for your varying replies. I respect all of you.

I'm still not sure whether to issue a complaint or even whether Gage is in breach for certain.

So, I've gone through the code and picked out the sections that may apply, in order to help make a decision.


http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiap074122.pdf

CANON II – Obligations to the Public
Members should embrace the spirit and letter of the law governing their professional affairs and should promote and serve the public interest in their personal and professional activities.

Ethical Standard 2.3 - Civic Responsibility: Members should be involved in civic activities as citizens and professionals, and should strive to improve public appreciation and understanding of architecture and the functions and responsibilities of architects.

Rule 2.301 Members making public statements on architectural issues shall disclose when they are being compensated for making such statements or when they have an economic interest in the issue.

--

CANON IV – Obligations to the Profession
Members should uphold the integrity and dignity of the profession.

Ethical Standard 4.2 - Dignity and Integrity: Members should strive, through their actions, to promote the dignity and integrity of the profession, and to ensure that their representatives and employees conform their conduct to this Code.

Rule 4.201 Members shall not make misleading, deceptive, or false statements or claims about their professional qualifications, experience, or performance and shall accurately state the scope and nature of their responsibilities in connection with work for which they are claiming credit.
Commentary: This rule is meant to prevent Members from claiming or implying credit for work which they did not do, misleading others, and denying other participants in a project their proper share of credit.

 

[chrismohr]

Actually, no. Free speech per se deserves no respect. At all. None. That Gage says ridiculous, false, damaging, paranoid and slanderous things is not deserving of respect. No. "Free speech" should be judged on its merits, and speakers can earn respect by saying things that earn them respect.

Actually, free speech is a core value of our country, one I embrace wholeheartedly. Free speech deserves respect. How do we respond to someone who is saying something we believe to be false or even a lie? Expose the falsehood. Which I did, 238 times in my YouTube videos. Our Founding Fathers and journalists like me have an almost religious respect for free speech. AIA did the right thing: dissociate his beliefs from their organization. Seems like plenty to me. You don't have to respect Gage to respect free speech.

 

[Scott Sommers]

Actually, free speech is a core value of our country, one I embrace wholeheartedly. Free speech deserves respect. How do we respond to someone who is saying something we believe to be false or even a lie? Expose the falsehood. Which I did, 238 times in my YouTube videos. Our Founding Fathers and journalists like me have an almost religious respect for free speech. AIA did the right thing: dissociate his beliefs from their organization. Seems like plenty to me. You don't have to respect Gage to respect free speech.

This has nothing to do with freedom of speech. You can hide behind this claim as a way of defending his right to promote dangerous ideas in the name of his profession, but it is the wrong principle to appeal to here.

Gage has a Constitutional right to say anything he wants. He is not a criminal and no one here has advocated arresting him. The issue is whether an architect can say anything he or she wants, even if it violates the scientifically understood consensus of the profession. This is particularly significant for architects making these unjustified claims who say their beliefs are based in their architect training.

You actually seem to be arguing against professional association and peer review. Shouldn't architects as a profession, be able to decide what constitutes correct professional practice? Shouldn't they be able to able to define what constitutes malpractice of the profession? If anyone can make any claim whenever they want, what's the point of professional association? Members can say anything they want, even if it violates the interest and safety of their professional clients. For that matter, what's the point of licensing? Why bother having an architect association and license when architects can say anything they want no matter what the implications? Let anybody call themselves an architect and claim it falls under freedom of speech.

Are you a closet anarchist?

 

[chrismohr]

I'm taking free speech to an extreme, I agree. And I know no one is talking about arresting Gage. But there are other things people can do which I consider harassment, such as "turning him in" to AIA, which already knows about him and has already taken appropriate action to distance themselves from his beliefs. Gage says, I am trained as an architect (true) and I am a member of AIA (also true). These are ways of saying, what I say carries some weight. That is also true, in the sense that a trained architect has at least some expertise when it comes to buildings and their structural characteristics.

So my "free speech" beliefs carry over to not using tactics of harassment to shut a person up and making a martyr of sorts out of him. Another example: there are housing associations that exercise their contractual rights with homeowners under their jurisdiction to forbid people from flying flags on Memorial Day. If I were a veteran I would take that one to the Supreme Court. Even if such a ban is technically legal, it is odious to me in the extreme and violates the spirit of free speech if not the letter. I want people to be able to speak their minds without fear of reprisal and harassment.

As for Gage and AIA, he is promoting 9/11 Truth, which has nothing to do with threatening the core values of AIA as far as I can see. If he becomes a practicing architect again and starts refusing to add fireproofing to steel structures, then they would have a basis for saying, "You are violating our principles of architectural integrity and we cannot allow you to be a member of our association."

 

[Scott Sommers]

So you're not really defending Gage's right to say anything he wants, but trying to protect him from harassment by claiming his right to freedom of speech. OK...that makes things a little different.

I am surprised by your position, though. You are not an architect. There are people here who are architects. As they have pointed out, the AIA is not at all concerned about disciplining members, regardless of what they do. The result of such a situation is that they need to encouraged by public pressure. In fact, this is a common situation. There are numerous medical practitioners whose irregularities are widely rumored, yet associations like the AMA will not take action. I am surprised by your position because you seem to be saying that in such situations public pressure is tantamount to harassment.

Gage uses his status as a member of the AIA and a licensed architect to claim the fireproofing to steel structures, as it is defined in post-9/11 fire codes, is not necessary. Whether he tells this to paying clients or to the general public makes little difference. He claims to have the authority to say this because he is a licensed architect in good standing with the AIA. Some members of the public feel this is conduct unbecoming of a licensed architect in good standing with the AIA. I think the public has the right to complain about professionals they think have violated public trust and this is not harassment. In fact, a democracy can not function properly if the public does not do this.

Chris, I understand that you think of Gage as your friend. But the argument about government and association you are constructing is very strange. You seem to be saying that anyone can make any professional claim they want and it should not be regulated. You seem to be saying these sorts of claims should be policed by rules of politeness rather than professional conduct or liability.

The public has the right to complain about the conduct of AIA members. The AIA should respond to public pressure. How they respond is their business. Calling this harassment is simply wrong.

 

[Oz1976]

Gage is calling for more followers to take up the torch of 9/11 Truth, to me THAT is encouraging harassment of the families of 9/11. How much have they had to endure over the last 10 years simply with the horrific losses they suffered, and then to be bombarded YEAR IN AND YEAR OUT on the anniversary of that tragic day with "911 was an inside job", "Remember Building 7!" (this was a GAGE initiated campaign!), etc etc...

He is publicly out there pursuing followers to engage in this kind of "activism". To me, that warrants any and all rebukes and puts his "credentials" and "associations" in the realm of "fair game". Harassment? He's as guilty as any of harassment, if this is considered as such. I think your friendship with him clouds your judgement on certain issues regarding him. This would be no different than a petition placed by the public to oust, have removed, etc, any other public figures associations.

 

[chrismohr]

I've stood up for some pretty despicable people, not just my friends, when it comes to saying let them say what they want. Does it seem a little weird at all to have a thread set up to look for reasons to complain to AIA about Gage's 911 lectures? And past threads seeing if we can find any reason to turn AE911 over to the IRS? Get real, these are fishing expeditions. I'm not talking about politeness or friendship here, I'm talking about making it difficult for Gage to make his claims by havaing counter-arguments easily accessible to anyone who looks. I've had almost 30,000 views from people who type in keywords like "Gage," "Blueprint for Truth," "Experts Speak Out," "Ed Asner," etc. Other people are much nastier than I am, it's my style to be polite, but I'm not objecting to people who knock him around in the court of public opinion. I'm trained as a journalist and I'll say it again, we journalists are a bunch of First Amendment hawks, even when technically First Amendment rights aren't being violated. I'm actually surprised that is hard to understand.

 

[Scott Sommers]

I've stood up for some pretty despicable people, not just my friends, when it comes to saying let them say what they want. Does it seem a little weird at all to have a thread set up to look for reasons to complain to AIA about Gage's 911 lectures? And past threads seeing if we can find any reason to turn AE911 over to the IRS? Get real, these are fishing expeditions. I'm not talking about politeness or friendship here, I'm talking about making it difficult for Gage to make his claims by havaing counter-arguments easily accessible to anyone who looks. I've had almost 30,000 views from people who type in keywords like "Gage," "Blueprint for Truth," "Experts Speak Out," "Ed Asner," etc. Other people are much nastier than I am, it's my style to be polite, but I'm not objecting to people who knock him around in the court of public opinion. I'm trained as a journalist and I'll say it again, we journalists are a bunch of First Amendment hawks, even when technically First Amendment rights aren't being violated. I'm actually surprised that is hard to understand.

We've been through this First Amendment stuff already. Once again...it's got nothing to do with Freedom of Speech anymore than what a teacher instructs in their classroom has to do with it. Gage can make any claim he wants. But if Gage is claiming he has special knowledge as a licensed architect about how the WTC towers were exploded with thermite or something like that, he has lost this protection. He has no more right to speak openly as an architect than I do when I teach my students. And as you know, that's exactly what he's doing. Luke Rudkowski has this right. DRG has this right. Gage does not.

But he does not have this knowledge because he is an architect. He has it in spite of being an architect. Members of the public, including some licensed architects are deeply bothered by this. Is a new problem for architecture and there is no precedent about how to handle such a situation. What you describe as "fishing expedition" is discussion among concerned members of the public about how best to apply public pressure to a professional group that does not want to adopt public standards in their definition of professional conduct. Once again, I am surprised that you don't see this as how citizens have a responsibility to act if democracy is to work.

Yesterday afternoon, I spoke about our issue with a friend who has no interest at all in conspiracy. I asked what she thought about your idea that the AIA has already made clear what they think of Gage's actions. She is European and her reply that this has been the attitude of the entire Catholic Church toward the issue of pedophilia - it is an internal matter for the Church to control and those outside the Church need not concern themselves with it. Would it be OK for a bishop to defend pedophilia if he stated that he himself is not pedophile but that it is not inappropriate for a pedophile to be a priest as long as he repents and does not engage in sexual contact with children. This, I believe, is the position of some European Catholic officials. Is this an appropriate position for a Church official to speak in public? Or even among other Church officials? Or even to have in private? Is this protected by Freedom of Speech or his right to a private life?

As I have said, I understand you want to defend your friend. I am not sure there is an adequate defense for him, though. He simply does not have the right as an architect to say anything he wants anywhere he wants, anymore than I do as a teacher. Nor do I believe you think this. I believe you are making this argument selectively to defend him.

Chris, if you want, I can pull out dozens of statements from military commanders, top officials or business leaders who were forced from their positions because of things they said. So regardless of whether I am right about your defense of Gage and its basis in personal loyalty, there is a clear public precedent for this. Social leadership, both official and unofficial, are simply not permitted to say anything they want anywhere they want and retain that status. This is a principal of democracy.

 

[Oystein]

The "Right to Free Speech" issue does not fully apply here, I think, unless the AIA is construed as an agency of the State. Gennerally, constitutional rights define the limits of what the state can do vis-a-vis its citizens, but these limits to not necessarily apply to the dealings among citizens. It is possible, and common, to limit and rescind rights through contracts. For example, employees are generally not allowed to speak ill of their company in public, to some extent not even in private. It's not unconstitutional of they get fired for breaching that rule.

From a purely constitutional perspective, Gage has every right to speak every lie he pleases.

Now free speech can be restricted by law, if it is deemed that this is the only way to protect other rights that bear more weight. The practical prohibition on calling "fire!" in a crowded room being the classical example. So could it be that state laws restrict the right to free speech of architects by holding them to some standard of veracity even when they are not presently practicing architecture? Perhaps that's possible, but then somebody would have to point out these rules. Surely they can be found in writing somewhere.

By becoming a member of AIA, Gage has entered into a contract with them, and so Orphia is right to look into their bylaws: Is Gage under any obligation to be mindful of AIA rules when he speaks in public, but not in connection with designing and erecting an actual building?

Let's see:

...
So, I've gone through the code and picked out the sections that may apply, in order to help make a decision.

http://www.aia.org/aiaucmp/groups/aia/documents/pdf/aiap074122.pdf

CANON II – Obligations to the Public
Members should embrace the spirit and letter of the law governing their professional affairs and should promote and serve the public interest in their personal and professional activities.

Ethical Standard 2.3 - Civic Responsibility: Members should be involved in civic activities as citizens and professionals, and should strive to improve public appreciation and understanding of architecture and the functions and responsibilities of architects.

Gage claims that he is doing exactly that: "promote and serve the public interest", "improve public appreciation and understanding of architecture".

You'd have to prove he is knowingly, and actually, confusing the public. We here tend to think that's a no-brainer, but I am not sure.

So yeah, could be that he is imn breach on that rule.

Rule 2.301 Members making public statements on architectural issues shall disclose when they are being compensated for making such statements or when they have an economic interest in the issue.

I think he is not hiding the fact that he gets money for his act - he openly asks for donations, entrance fees, and his income is on public record.

--

CANON IV – Obligations to the Profession
Members should uphold the integrity and dignity of the profession.

Ethical Standard 4.2 - Dignity and Integrity: Members should strive, through their actions, to promote the dignity and integrity of the profession, and to ensure that their representatives and employees conform their conduct to this Code.

Rule 4.201 Members shall not make misleading, deceptive, or false statements or claims about their professional qualifications, experience, or performance and shall accurately state the scope and nature of their responsibilities in connection with work for which they are claiming credit.
Commentary: This rule is meant to prevent Members from claiming or implying credit for work which they did not do, misleading others, and denying other participants in a project their proper share of credit.

I think this Ethical Standard is too vague to be applied, and Rule 4.201 is not broken by Gage as far as I can tell.

 

[Scott Sommers]

The "Right to Free Speech" issue does not fully apply here, I think, unless the AIA is construed as an agency of the State. Generally, constitutional rights define the limits of what the state can do vis-a-vis its citizens, but these limits to not necessarily apply to the dealings among citizens.

Of course Gage is not protected by any sense of Freedom of Speech. What Chris is describing is more akin to anarchy than anything the principal of Freedom of Speech was intended to protect. While it may make sense on a personal level, leading to liberal though and cosmopolitanism, following it on an institutional level would lead to the breakdown of society as it is currently regulated.

 

[LSSBB]

Of course Gage is not protected by any sense of Freedom of Speech. What Chris is describing is more akin to anarchy than anything the principal of Freedom of Speech was intended to protect. While it may make sense on a personal level, leading to liberal though and cosmopolitanism, following it on an institutional level would lead to the breakdown of society as it is currently regulated.

I wouldn't go so far at to say anarchy. I think however Oystein is right. Chris, I think you should not look at this as to whether Gage is free to say what he wants it's whether he can say what he wants and put AIA after his name and not expect, or even warrant, contractual repercussions.

I am a Navy Reservist. I have exercised my freedom of speech. But I did not include my rank nor "USN" after my name. If I do so, I become, in the reader's mind, a spokesperson for the USN, which I am not when expressing personal opinion in a non-official capacity. This is what Gage is doing by adding AIA.

Therefore, Gage is subject to any contractual repercussions he may earn by including AIA after his name, and if others feel that is a misrepresentation they have a full right to raise the issue with the AIA in order to mitigate any misunderstandings from the reader or listener of Gage's material, as to whom he represents.

 

[chrismohr]

Well... All very interesting. And BTW I used to be a libertarian (no more). So I still ask, what is the least obnoxious way to accomplish something with others? I still believe that shining a light is generally better than "going after" someone by seeing if you can strip him of his AIA credentials. I still believe the spirit and the ethos of the First Amendment encourages tolerance beyond its literal constitutional meaning. Look at what the First Amendment did for religious tolerance, I mean Jews and Baptists and Catholics REALLY living in harmony. As for AIA, as I have said, if I felt Gage were violating ethical and engineering standards in the profession of architecture, I would support seeing him lose his certification or even his license.

One of my friends got breast cancer last year, and a 9/11 Truth person told her about a place in Mexico that claims to cure cancer with coffee enemas. My friend would be dead now if she did that to the exclusion of medical treatment. So I respect the need for standards in medicine and architecture and other areas where lives depend on abiding by codes.

I also would not want the AMA to stifle research, beliefs etc. such as "complementary medicine" (yoga along with chemo, for example, even if unproven). 100 years ago or so, some crazy doctor was looking at food mold and ended up saving hundreds of millions of lives with penicillin. Same with researching possible government malfeasance. Every once in awhile a Watergate gets uncovered; as a journalist I want the whistleblowers and the on-the-edge investigators/researchers to have maximum leeway and freedom, just in case...

 

[ozeco41]

...Gage claims that he is doing exactly that: "promote and serve the public interest", "improve public appreciation and understanding of architecture".

You'd have to prove he is knowingly, and actually, confusing the public. We here tend to think that's a no-brainer, but I am not sure...

Hi Everyone - I'm back.

Only two points I will refer to at this late stage of the thread.
The first, which is a derail, but my continuing observation of the extent to which US folk despite "Freedom of Speech" in their constitution, over-read that freedom to mean "free to say whatever you want wherever you want and damn the consequences".

The second point I think goes to the core of this thread topic and it is this:

What action by Richard Gage could constitute a breach of ethical standards of AIA? That in turn requires us to define two things - what the standards require and what Gage does which could breach the standard.

Let's take the core elements which Oystein has quoted viz:
1) "promote and serve the public interest"; AND
2) "improve public appreciation and understanding of architecture".

..and I think I can be more definite than Oystein and claim that Gage is in breach of both these standards.

Recall that it is "public interest" which he is required to serve NOT "Richard Gage's version of 'public interest' which suits Richard Gage's personal view"

AND, similarly

It is "..public appreciation and understanding of architecture" NOT "appreciation of the bit of architecture which R Gage wants to put forward".

So it is the whole body of Architectural profession which he is obliged to represent - not his personal preferences to the exclusion of the overall interest of the profession.

Now the core issue is that Gage presents a set of views about WTC 9/11 collapses which he may or may not believe. The status of his personal honesty on those matters is not relevant. What is relevant is that he is aware that the majority of architectural (and engineering) professionals hold views contrary to his own.

To legitimately represent the architectural profession in public presentation he is obliged to do two things (at least) in his public presentations. Those are:

A) Advise those lay or persons otherwise uninformed about 9/11 matters that the body of professional opinion disagrees with his own view.

B) Desist from presenting his own "explanations" as if they are complete, legitimate, unopposed or stronger in merit that the accepted wisdom of the profession.

If he does not comply with those two conditions he is not "[promoting or serving] the public interest" NOR is he "improv[ing] public appreciation and understanding of architecture".

Therefore, prima facie, he is in breach of the AIA ethical standard.

 

[ozeco41]

I wouldn't go so far at to say anarchy. I think however Oystein is right. Chris, I think you should not look at this as to whether Gage is free to say what he wants it's whether he can say what he wants and put AIA after his name and not expect, or even warrant, contractual repercussions.....

I agree as far as you go but I suggest that legally it goes a step further.

The ethical standard is an obligation which Gage accepts by being a member of the AIA.

It applies to his public statements whether or not he publishes his membership of AIA either in the statement or elsewhere. Even if his membership was not known publicly the ethical obligation is still binding.

BTW I am a "Fellow" of the "The Institution of Engineers Australia". The relevant part of our "Code of Ethics" says:

3. Exercise leadership
3.1 Uphold the reputation and trustworthiness of the practice of engineering
a) [not relevant here]
b) engage responsibly in public debate and deliberation...

Clearly if I was to publicly make the sort of false statements that Gage makes which are deliberately structured to be misleading I would NOT be "...engag[ing] responsibly in public debate and deliberation..." AND I would be in breach of my professional Code of Ethics.

Probably more to the point:
A) I would not even think of doing it; AND
B) Would be of no doubt that it was professional ethical misconduct if I did.

And, in Gage's case, the relevant issue is not his personal belief whether that be genuine, deluded or mendaciously claimed. The relevant issue is that he is aware of differing points of view and that his view is not the accepted view of his profession.

 

[carlitos]

Actually, no. Free speech per se deserves no respect. At all. None. That Gage says ridiculous, false, damaging, paranoid and slanderous things is not deserving of respect. No. "Free speech" should be judged on its merits, and speakers can earn respect by saying things that earn them respect.

Actually, free speech is a core value of our country, one I embrace wholeheartedly. Free speech deserves respect. How do we respond to someone who is saying something we believe to be false or even a lie? Expose the falsehood. Which I did, 238 times in my YouTube videos. Our Founding Fathers and journalists like me have an almost religious respect for free speech. AIA did the right thing: dissociate his beliefs from their organization. Seems like plenty to me. You don't have to respect Gage to respect free speech.

I respect the right to free speech and would give my life to defend it. I have highlighted the words you may have missed. Per se - in and of itself - free speech is not worthy of respect. If you run around accusing honorable people of mass murder, you do not earn my respect. If a KKK guy says a bunch of racist crap, he deserves no respect. His right to say his racist crap does have my respect, but the content of the KKK guy's speech does not.

Clear?

So I still ask, what is the least obnoxious way to accomplish something with others?

Why should someone choose the least obnoxious way to deal with a dishonest con man like Gage. Screw that evil parasite.

I am a Navy Reservist. I have exercised my freedom of speech. But I did not include my rank nor "USN" after my name. If I do so, I become, in the reader's mind, a spokesperson for the USN, which I am not when expressing personal opinion in a non-official capacity. This is what Gage is doing by adding AIA.

Bingo. Gage should get the architectural equivalent of being disbarred, defrocked, whatever.

 

[A W Smith]

Box Boy works out of a UPS store, Irony.

http://www2.dca.ca.gov/pls/wllpub/WLLQRYNA$LCEV2.QueryView?P_LICENSE_NUMBER=19220&P_LTE_ID=1010

CALIFORNIA ARCHITECTS BOARD




Licensee Name:GAGE RICHARD THOMAS License Type:ARCHITECT License Number:C19220 License Status:CURRENT Definition Expiration Date:January 31, 2013 Issue Date:April 26, 1988 Address:3527 MT DIABLO BLVD # 370 City:
State:
Zip:
County:CONTRA COSTA Actions:No

https://maps.google.com/maps?q=3527...+94549&t=h&z=17&panoid=75OqjrllZfd54xXLZpobdA

 

[chrismohr]

I respect the right to free speech and would give my life to defend it. I have highlighted the words you may have missed. Per se - in and of itself - free speech is not worthy of respect. If you run around accusing honorable people of mass murder, you do not earn my respect. If a KKK guy says a bunch of racist crap, he deserves no respect. His right to say his racist crap does have my respect, but the content of the KKK guy's speech does not.

Clear?


Why should someone choose the least obnoxious way to deal with a dishonest con man like Gage. Screw that evil parasite.


Bingo. Gage should get the architectural equivalent of being disbarred, defrocked, whatever.

Carlitos and Ozeco have excellent, compelling points. And I believe free speech deserves enormous respect while the content of individuals exercising their right of free speech can be reprehensible. If you asked me if neo-Nazis should be allowed to deny the Holocaust I would throw up and say yes. I would add that doctors who practice psychic healing and coffee enemas instead of delivering medically sound cancer treatments deserve to have their licenses revoked.

I've made my arguments in favor of letting Gage say whatever he wants and have it be very easy for anyone to google their way to a slew of rebuttals of all kinds. I think in the long run this is what will work: someone hears his lecture, says OMG, looks it up on google and sees tons of YouTubes and debunker sites and thinks, well I think I'll direct my political energies elsewhere. But if someone manages to have his AIA membership stripped away, that will not stop him from lecturing. All it will accomplish will be to make him look like a martyr. The narrative will be, I stood up for the Truth and I got oppressed and censored. And because people don't go to Gage's lectures for advice on architecture, I don't see that AIA has cause to dump his membership anyway.