Caiden Cowger | Education | Gay Youth | Religion | Republican Party

14-Year-Old Anti-Gay Radio Pundit Pulled From The Air


Last week Andy wrote about Caiden Cowger, a deeply religious 14-year-old author internet talk-radio host, whose on-air anti-gay rant went suddenly viral. In the rant, Cowger said:

I see younger people that is turning out to be homosexuals...we've got about 30 teenagers in this county that I'm at that are homosexuals and it is sickening...I knew these teenagers when they were in elementary school...they were not homosexuals. They just decided all of a sudden - I think I'm going to be gay. Why they are becoming homosexuals is because they are being encouraged ... [by] President Obama. It's all right, it's okay you were born that way.

There was a lot more, and it was all tragic for a lot of reasons. Because of the grammar; because of the absence of critical thought; because this plainly immature and unformed 14-year-old's youthful idiocies had, by the gross democracy of the internet, been placed permanently in public view, doomed to follow him through life no matter how much he evolved or came to regret his adolescent wrong-headedness.

Well -- the service hosting Caiden Cowger's program, Speaker, has belatedly tried to rectify the latter problem. The Advocate reports they've taken away Cowger's show:

This follows after YouTube also appeared to remove the show from its site, although its resurfaced elsewhere on the site and opponents have started a red-flagging campaign.

“While we not only support free speech, we help it find its way to more people faster and easier with our service that is the audio equivalent of YouTube, but like them, we cannot and will not condone hate speech," said Spreaker CEO Francesco Baschieri in a statement. "Consequently, we have pulled down audio content from Caiden Cowgar, whose recent gay-bashing clearly crosses the line from free — to hate — speech."

While Cowger's shows have been removed from Speaker, his account with the service remains active. On Friday, he posted a brief statement asserting that he doesn't hate gay people. Speaker reports it may restore some of Cowger's past episodes to the internet once their content has been vetted.

Feed This post's comment feed


  1. "Deeply religious?" Fourteen year old boys aren't deeply anything, except horny. This sad little closet case is frightened of his own desires. Classic case. An inept young Tonette Perkins.

    Posted by: Abel | Jun 10, 2012 8:41:40 PM

  2. Shut up, Michael Lederman. You're always coming here shilling some anti-gay junk. Sorry, but we're not buying what you're selling.

    As for this Caiden Cowger kid, if a company chooses not to associate with flagrant bigotry, they have that right. So good on Speaker for pulling this boy's shown. Definitely, a 14 year old kid focused more on who is having gay sex and being an outspoken advocate of the social conservative movement, is not someone who has their priorities in order, and the blame here should primarily go to Caiden's parents, who have turned their child into a monster.

    Posted by: Francis | Jun 10, 2012 8:55:58 PM

  3. @Michael, God chose Moses for the honor of receiving his ten commandments, so I guess the multiple wives thing works for God. And Jesus had no wives at all. He spent all his life in the company of men. We call them long-time companions nowadays. If you're saying Jesus was a virgin to all those men then prove it.

    Oh, and if you can get a dog--any dog--to agree to marry you, then you can call it the same thing.

    Posted by: JJ | Jun 10, 2012 9:04:04 PM

  4. I'm gonna demand to go on FOX news and spout pro-gay and pro-Obama propaganda! Because it's part of my first amendment right to free speech, right? They have to let me on!!!

    Posted by: KevinVT | Jun 10, 2012 9:13:23 PM

  5. "Deeply religious?" Fourteen year old boys aren't deeply anything, except horny"

    Abel, I beg to differ. There are plenty of 14 year olds who are deeply religious and/or deeply intellectual, or deeply concerned with others. This view that the only certain thing you can be at 14 is a horndog is WAY off base, in my experience. Teenagers are not just a collection of hormones. As a teenager I was FAR more interested in reading and ideas than sex. And I managed to keep my virginity until I married at age 34. This kid may just be the type that isn't deeply sexual.

    I"m not trying to side with his politics here (Speaker had every right to withdraw support from his show. His free speech was not violated.) I just don't understand this belief that everyone, especially teenagers, is intensely sexual.

    Posted by: Mary | Jun 10, 2012 9:30:49 PM

  6. @Mary: one small thing, Speaker didn't support his show like it was a seal of approval. From what I get from the article is they were the internet/audio hosting service provider for the show. They don't have to host his site/show if they don't want to as he was just a customer. They don't have to do business with him.

    Posted by: OK | Jun 10, 2012 9:44:56 PM

  7. They are not taking away his ability to speak, just not through those specific avenues. These commercial entities are companies. They are not police, they are not law enforcement officers, they are not rounding up protestors and putting them in jail. It is their right to have and take whatever they feel and Caiden very lawfully, very LEGALLY AGREED to these sites Terms of Use. If he violates these Terms of Use then the site has every right to take down content and even delete his account.

    The ACLU can't touch this with a 10ft pole. It's ok though. The kid will be coddled by the extremist he idolizes and given a paid national show.

    Posted by: chris255 | Jun 10, 2012 10:11:26 PM

  8. Don't forget which church he comes from: the PENTECOSTAL church which is as homophobic as the BAPTIST.

    Posted by: FunMe | Jun 10, 2012 10:25:39 PM

  9. @OK
    I said "I love the ACLU" in order to let you know what kind of person I am. I specifically avoided suggesting they should take it up for the reasons you state. They would not prevail. The companies are legally correct. I never said otherwise.
    I implied that I was sorry to see them give the appearance of limiting his free speech because if big corporations do so and the public approves there is noone but the ACLU to object when SCOTUS finds hate speech unprotected speech and defines it so liberally we will not be able to demonstrate in public or criticize the government. I fear that the precident set by large corporations can lead to an actual legal limitation of free speech.
    Philosophically, I take the position that we should never appear to limit the free speech of our opponents. Strategically I say this because it just makes them able to paint themselves as martyrs.
    I think he should be broadcast as widely as possible because he is so extreme he discredits homophobia. He helps us, not hurts us.
    Next time, try attacking a position I am actually taking instead of presenting me as a straw man easy to knock down. Thanks. :)

    Posted by: NullNaught | Jun 10, 2012 10:36:00 PM

  10. @Nullnaught

    Your last sentence at 10:36: how were you being "attacked"? "OK" just brought up a point that the company is under no obligation to provide him a vehicle to bring forth the kid's opinions. You weren't attacked! Geez, when someone brings up another viewpoint you think you are being attacked? I guess your opinion is the only one that matters?

    Posted by: WHAT? | Jun 10, 2012 10:58:56 PM

  11. He is the product of anti-gay Christian teaching. Anti-gay Christian Churches teach children how to bully gay children.

    Posted by: Dave | Jun 11, 2012 12:19:30 AM

  12. @paul b
    "Check the spelling's... " you're two consenting adults".
    We'll do our best to correct your grammar while your here Michael. Now put your cousin back in her crib and wipe your fingers off, it's dinner time."

    Make that "while you're here".
    If you want to play grammar police, make sure of your own. ;-}

    Posted by: Rich | Jun 11, 2012 1:14:19 AM

  13. @What?
    I didn't say I was attacked. I said a position I didn't even hold was attacked. Should I have said criticized? I was responding to OK. Have you noticed that what he said directed at me seemed to assume I had taken a position and then proceded to criticize or "attack" it logically as regarding the law. That is, he implied a charge that involved a matter of legal opinion on which we agreed. As if I had taken a legal position I hadn't. I don't think it is unfair to say he had attacked a position I did not hold.
    The bit about presenting me as a straw man easy to knock down was refering to the fact the fallacy he had commited is called a "straw-man argument."
    He hadn't offered a differing opinion. He directed at me a non-sequitur opinion which only made sense if you assume he was criticizing a position I did not hold.
    So even if you want to disagree with my choice of language, I would argue that I never said I took it personally... my remark about next time try attacking a position I actually hold is about I don't think he is in my intellectual league because he doesn't display the reading comprehension necessary to debate with me if he can't accurately replicate my position.
    I would have said nothing if he had made his remark general rather than personally aiming it at me. Does this not seem reasonable to you?
    Did I tell him his opinion was wrong, or that I agree with him legally? I think I said I agree with him. I disagreed that what he argued with had anything to do with what I was saying?
    Have I made this overly-clear? I don't want to do so, but you have displayed no more reading comprehension than OK. I am afraid if I don't say it over and over in many different ways once again a position I do not hold will be criticized.

    Posted by: NullNaught | Jun 11, 2012 2:54:13 AM

  14. his parents should be put in jail.

    Posted by: Dan Skinner | Jun 11, 2012 5:45:51 AM

  15. Watch the Christians cry like the spoiled children they are because their puppet got his content pulled.

    Posted by: Sarm | Jun 11, 2012 7:50:29 AM

  16. I was watching the premiere of True Blood last night and I forgot the one image in the opening credits of a small boy in Ku Klux Klan about indoctrination (especially in the south)

    Posted by: woodroad34d | Jun 11, 2012 8:20:49 AM

  17. Courts in America have put limits on free speech throughout history. Anyone who thinks otherwise should do a bit of research.

    Posted by: Jack M | Jun 11, 2012 8:27:21 AM

  18. @ Jack, that still doesn't mean their decisions are constitutional. I say, no limits.

    Posted by: Pygar | Jun 11, 2012 9:43:33 AM

  19. Censorship in any form is abhorrent in a free society. This kid might have spouted idiotic things but if he can be silenced, who among us is safe from the same treatment?

    Posted by: A. | Jun 11, 2012 10:55:16 AM

  20. RUsh Limbaugh often has gay callers on his show and he treats them with respect. He was deep;ly saddened when Greg Lougainis revealed he has AIDS, becaus ehe liked him and admired him as a national treasure, and said so. He is not a homophobe.

    Posted by: ted baldwin | Jun 11, 2012 1:04:43 PM

  21. Shutting this kid up is not the solution. He will find other ways. Educating him is his business, we do not need to be running Maoist reeducation camps. If he knows 30 kids in his county that are gay now, then that is amazing. But he needs to be told by them that they were not seduced by Obama. They don't have any money, Obama would not care about them one way or another.

    Posted by: ted baldwin | Jun 11, 2012 1:13:01 PM

  22. There is a really good documentary "The wild and wonderful Whites of West Virginia" (Family name, and coincidentally also their color). It has some very insightful and articulate interviews with the local law enforcement, and is also a real good argument against "Gummint Checks". There is mention of a young teenage White who commited suicide. I'm thinking he may have been Gay, but in that family he could have just been normal.

    Posted by: Sam Molloy | Jun 11, 2012 1:19:06 PM

  23. While I think the things that this kid said were incorrect & appalling he has the First Amendment right to do so. I'm sure people like Rush Lambaugh, Glenn Beck and Bryan Fischer are this kids heroes but they too have the right to be stupid. We cannot ban someone from free speech just because we don't like the message. I personally would prefer this kid, along with Limbaugh, Beck & Fischer be out in the open so people just how stupid they really are.

    Posted by: Rick Smith | Jun 11, 2012 2:51:47 PM

  24. @Nullnaught:

    Somebody added another view to your point and you go off that your position is being attacked! Did he say he was attacking your position or being critical of you? They directed a comment at you. Apparently nobody can carry on a conversation without you getting all defensive and going into a huge lecture. Why even bother.

    Posted by: DAVE | Jun 11, 2012 3:48:24 PM

  25. Hot Damn! Here I thought I had an on line version of the "Rush" comedy show that I could get on the computer. The kid was great! Complete with all of Rush's mannerism's and idiotic story line. Just think, in a year or two, when he "Matures", and comes out; he will be on every talk show going.

    Posted by: Jerry6 | Jun 11, 2012 9:10:22 PM

  26. « | 1 2 3 »

Post a comment


« «Dogs Respond To Crying Humans; Seem To Empathize« «