Is the issue really whether Russia loves Tchaikovsky?

Obviously feeling the heat internationally, Vladimir Putin has launched an interesting defense of Russia’s odd new law against “homosexual propaganda.” Tchaikovsky, claims Putin, provides proof that Russia is not anti-gay:

Russia’s pride in composer Pyotr Tchaikovsky, even though he was gay, is proof that the country does not discriminate against homosexuals, President Vladimir Putin said on Wednesday.

Putin was apparently seeking to ease concerns that a new law banning “gay propaganda” will be used to clamp down on gay rights. The law has been condemned abroad and brought calls from gay rights groups for a boycott of the 2014 Winter Olympic Games in Sochi.

But opinion polls show it is backed by most Russians and the measure is part a conservative course charted by Putin to consolidate support following protests against his 13-year rule.

“Tchaikovsky was gay – although it’s true that we don’t love him because of that – but he was a great musician and we all love his music. So what?,” Putin said in an interview with Russian state Channel 1 television aired on Wednesday.

“There is no cause to make a mountain out of a molehill, nothing scary or terrible is happening here in our country.”

Ironically, Putin has a point. Whether under Czarism, Communism, or Russian Mafia KGB-ism, Russia has never had freedom of speech. So restricting speech they don’t like is a no-brainer. What fascinates me is the way this new law is being spun — both by Putin and by Western media. A false dichotomy is being set up in which the law is being seen and judged solely in terms of whether or not it is “anti-gay,” almost as if they’re hoping in the process its most important — and most sinister — aspect will be ignored.

The law is a fundamental restriction on freedom of speech.

Whether anyone approves of Tchaikovsky’s genital conduct is so irrelevant as to be ridiculous in the extreme.

In a country with free speech, there is as much of a right to condemn homosexuality as there is to promote it. I emphasized this point in a comment recently, but now I’m thinking I should have made it a post, because what is an obvious First Amendment issue to me does not seem so obvious to others. Anyway, a commenter opined that “sodomy laws” act as a curb on tastes in the public square:

I mostly agree with Cuccinelli’s statement about homosexual acts, I live in Virginia, and I vote. I say mostly, because I would not use moral arguments. Homosexual acts are clearly unnatural, dangerous, and have societal impacts far beyond the consenting adults who engage in them. Scalia’s dissent in Lawrence was right on all counts and decriminalizing unnatural acts has led to all sorts of unintended deleterious consequences.

Sodomy laws were designed to curb homosexual sex and rightly so. No one really cares what anyone does behind closed doors, but if you want to drag your outré tastes into the public square, then objections will be raised.

Unfortunately for the commenters above, no Republican can win anywhere without us social conservatives.

Be that as it may (or may not), this was my answer:

Sodomy laws have little to do with dragging tastes into the public square. In fact, there are plenty of laws against lewdness, public indecency, and nudity — to say nothing of outright sex in public. As to exhibiting “tastes” which might raise objections, I’m unaware of laws in the U.S. specifically directed against bad taste. While there are laws recently enacted in Russia which prohibit “homosexual advocacy,” such advocacy has long been protected under the First Amendment. There is as much a right to condemn homosexuality as there is to promote it, and this was the case even when sodomy laws existed. (Similarly, advocacy of marijuana use is not and has never been a criminal offense — notwithstanding draconian laws against marijuana use.)

The First Amendment issue strikes me as a no-brainer. It is self apparent that forbidding the advocacy of something is a very different thing from engaging in the behavior advocated, and from a First Amendment perspective, sex advocacy or drug advocacy are vastly different from actually screwing or getting high. And, except for a a few AFA loons, (and some organizations I’ve never heard of, along with Pat Buchanan), most conservatives seem able to understand the difference between prohibiting discussing something, and prohibiting doing that thing.

That distinction ought to be more obvious to more people.

The First Amendment is as fragile as ever.