Amanda Marcotte explains the obvious.
Free speech entitles you to:
- Say what you want to without fear of government censorship or retribution.
Free speech does not entitle you to:
- An audience. You can say what you want, but people are not actually required to listen to you spew. So, contrary to many, many claims otherwise, your free speech rights are not trampled if someone ignores you, blocks you on Twitter, or refuses to give you a job as a writer or communicator for their organization. National Review isn’t stepping on my free speech rights because they don’t hire me. If your sexism stops you from getting a prominent job in media, that is also not a violation of your rights.
- To have others host your speech. This is a corollary to the first one. Facebook, blog comment sections, online forums, etc. are just like TV shows, radio shows, and magazines: Their house, their rules. They have built up an audience and they are not obligated to turn around and give you that audience to spew your garbage. Start your own damn website/magazine/forum.
- To be protected from criticism. I don’t know how many times I have to say this, but free speech protects your right to celebrate rape with your “jokes”, and it also protects my right to call you an asshole for it. Daniel Tosh can think it would be hilarious to watch someone get raped and say so, and I say that makes him a moral monster and a piece of shit. It is not censorship to hurt the tender feelings of people who think rape is hilarious.
Occassionally, you’ll see some people try to sidestep the obvious idiocy of yelling “free speech” to defend someone from, you know, free speech, by instead lodging accusations that feminists are “oversensitive” or some other garbage. But the only people I see being oversensitive in these debates are the sexists who are so torn up over criticism that they melt down, start yelling incoherent and easily disproved claims of censorship, and start issuing rape threats in order to stop the painful, painful criticism. If oversensitivity bothers you so much, physician, heal thyself.
I blame the internet for their ignorance. It’s been infected with this ridiculous libertarian bullshit for so long…
It seems a lot of people don’t understand the difference between censoring someone and censuring someone.
Amanda seems to be very nice and presents in her writing a Logical argument. However, it does not stand up to modern scrutiny. When the vast bulk of the media is controlled by a handful of men, who share a roughly similar political agenda, and who have the money to purchase, harass, and even arrest those who disagree with their roughly similar political agenda, avenues to share ideas are in practice controlled.
In my opinion, Jefferson’s premise of bringing all ideas to light, and seating the lady of Reason in her seat to assess those ideas, is best.
Calmer than you are, dudebros. Calmer than you are.
Really? I blame Rebecca Watson.
yeah, we’re pretty much talking about the internet here.
some mad scientist ought to come up with a genetically-modified antifreeze peach.
Idealist attitude, not practical in reality. It requires a civility which is not seen from certain sectors, like the Slymepit.
What people who infest the ‘pit have to do is get used to Amanda’s point 3. Your opinions will assessed and others will give their opinions of your opinion. Laughter may result if your opinions don’t stand up to intellectual scrutiny and evidence.
I’m trying to come up with a good one-liner involving octopi noir, and bitter almonds. I’m sure they (the almonds) already qualify as anti-freeze peaches without any genetic modification.
In general I agree, but I wonder if something like Facebook is so prevalent that it ought to be legally deemed a common carrier, prohibited from discriminating based on content. I like it when Facebook censors sexists but I don’t like it when they censor feminists, and they have a track record of that. There’s a case to be made for requiring services as widespread as Facebook and Twitter to be wide-open to any legal speech (prohibiting anything like threats, but not censoring based on the taste of Facebook employees).
@Lockout, 2:
In my opinion, Jefferson’s premise of bringing all ideas to light, and seating the lady of Reason in her seat to assess those ideas, is best.
Lady Reason sez:
If you call me a cunt, a whore, a slut, a mangina and threaten to rape or kill me, I don’t have to listen to you, nor provide the platform that you use to lay out your insights.
Seems like my first attempt to post this was filtered due to excessive use of mature language:
@Lockout, 2:
In my opinion, Jefferson’s premise of bringing all ideas to light, and seating the lady of Reason in her seat to assess those ideas, is best.
Lady Reason sez:
If you call me a (common word for vagina), a (women who gets paid for intercourse), a (woman that I despise), a (brainwashed man who supports feminist ideas) and threaten to (have intercourse with only one of the partners agreeing to it) or kill me, I don’t have to listen to you, nor provide the platform that you use to lay out your insights.
I suggest an analogy that may shed perspective on Amanda’s thoughtful opinion-piece. T-Bone is a black Labrador Retriever and one of T-Bones’ favorite toys is a chewed-up tennis ball. When T-Bone is chewing on his tennis ball, he is calm. However, when I expunge the tennis ball from T-Bones’ jaw, he becomes animated. He will sit up, and present his paw, and bark if enough time has passed. Then, if I throw the tennis ball across the room against the violent objections of the female, T-Bone will tear across the room and fetch the tennis ball, returning to sit calmly at my feet, chewing the ball once more.
Now you can see, that the tennis ball is Truth, T-Bone is the body politic, and my ability to throw the tennis ball across the room against the violent objections of the female is free speech. Taken together, they constitute the three pillars of freedom.
Lockout, that is the worst analophor I’ve ever heard.
Lockout:
Not surprisingly, you’ve completely missed the point. You have no right to free speech here, no matter what silly metaphor† you use to wank on about freedom.
†Seriously, WTF are you even trying to say?
Did you pay for that affected, stilted tone, lockout, or was it bundled with your Pomposity chip set?
lockout I liked that metaphore it sounded just like it was written for Abbot and Costello
keep up the good work!
uncle frogy
Isn’t that some kind of bingo?
Pompous, overblown language, a “metaphor” that doesn’t make any kind of sense, and also uses the woman/dog trope -and- has overtones of irrational overreaction and tantrum-throwing. Seriously?
I’m hoping that the little story was meant to be as strained and ridiculous as it came off. Like an intentionally bad political cartoon. . Otherwise, using the term “the female” is rather telling (though “violent objections” associated with “the female” is also rather telling).
well yeah. He probably knows what ‘expunged’ means.
Yeah, the link was only meant to apply to the second sentence. It has nothing to do with the problematic tone involved in calling a person “the female”, especially when you are telling a short little story in which THE DOG gets a fucking name.
And, just found the other turd that lockout dropped in another thread:
The stick up lockout’s ass is so far up that its partially lobotomized them.
this is completely fucking irrelevant to the people Amanda was addressing, and the argument she made.
fail.
fail.
you signed a eula to use it.
Lockout’s #10 is my absolute favorite Poe of all time.
Classically incomprehensible in terms of intent. Bookmarked.
Check out the comments to Marcottes piece. There is a hilarious sighting of Edward Gemmer who claims Marcotte is simply wrong, full stop. Also, black is white.
I’ve seen Ed G in her comment section before. Surprise! He’s full of shit there too.
Funny story: Edward Gemmer was the first to be banned over at The Hivemind.
Is lockout for real? His comment here was just hilarious. Made completely no sense. All I got is he likes dogs.
I’d add a fourth, which is relevant in the new dynamic of the intarwebz:
4. Free speech does not include anonymity. You might be able to get away with shouting sexist words in a crowd, at random people on the street or on somebody’s website, but that doesn’t mean you won’t be recognized as having done so in “real life”.
sure it did.
It was a bros before hos speech.
no.. wait.. it was a “I can irritate women if I damn well please” speech.
….I’m gonna take my ball and go home speech?
Have you thought about how that might work in practice? You do know we haven’t actually got a Lady of Reason, don’t you? How about everybody – really everybody – gets to speak once and only once about any given subject, until everybody else has had their turn? But then, when and how do we debate? Or would you prefer that each idea only gets to be expressed once, then they’re all collected in one place where we can all go and look at them and vote for them? So you can say ‘Anyone supporting (insert cause here) is a (insert insult here)’, if you must, but only once. Ever. Or once per person, ever? Which do you prefer? Or did you have something else in mind?
Because what we have at the moment is a raw competition for space involving those media controls mentioned above at one level, and on the internet, raw competition to occupy as much space as possible with one’s idea while drowning or battling opposing ideas by any means available.
If I recall correctly, Mr. Jefferson said true understanding comes from arguments amongst friends, not from various people saying whatever they feel like. As others have noted, without the base level of civility that assumes, quoting him is pretty much irrelevant here. Folks who use base sexist slurs, or try to win arguments by being the loudest and most obnoxious do not deserve a hearing, and I don’t think Jefferson would object to that conclusion at all.
So your ability to wrestle away the Truth in order to abuse it is something we should be impressed with? I (a female even) do not violently object, but I do laugh at you.
I have to disagree but I’ll preface that with a general agreement: lots of people on the internet (and typically a class of people we may call ‘jerks’) whine about their free-speech being infringed when people disagree with them, or a blog deletes their comment etc. However the argument above is too centred on what is actually a conservative/libertarian view of free speech – i.e. that it is essentially a government issue. That is their is a view of free speech that essentially it is a protection merely from the actions of the government and that it is distinct from a different issue which we might call “not getting your speech heard”.
The final line highlights the absurdity: “It’s been infected with this ridiculous libertarian bullshit for so long…” Well, yes and no. The ACTUAL libertarian position would be this blog isn’t violating free speech by censoring or deleting a blog comment – but bizarrely it does often seem to be people claiming to be libertarians or conservatives who whine about their free speech being violated inappropriately. Perhaps it is just the usual instance that logical consistency is some sort of leftist plot (or “Alinsky tactics”) or it is some bizarre mind game. Either way they certainly are being inconsistent but they can also be doubly wrong.
So if the narrow natural-rights, libertarian view of free speech is wrong (i.e. your free speech is only violated if the government tries to stop you saying something) what is the right view? Two things:
1. A Popperian view: free speech is an important part of an open society i.e. there needs to be a largely free exchange of ideas within society. That comes with an important caveat – democracy can protect itself and free speech can protect itself. People who use their speech to try and intimidate women are themselves trying to REDUCE that important free exchange of ideas. Similarly it is really is a DEFENSE of free speech to prevent people using racist epithets to try and intimidate ethnic minorities from participating in a dialogue of ideas.
2. Power matters. A special interest blog locks out some particular viewpoint? No big deal and not an affront to free speech because their are many outlets. Rupert Murdoch’s media empire locks out some particular viewpoint? Yes that is an affront to free speech (despite what libertarians would argue). It also matters in terms of which groups are empowered in a given society. Men shouting down women is not the same as women shouting down men in a society where sexual inequality is still loaded in favour of men.
The feezepeachers ignore that other right…the one to freedom of association. Which includes the right not to associate with them.
And you were the one who understood the tennis ball???
lockout is a very attractive boy, and would increase his chances of life-happiness by not seeking attention with these stunts. His sense of individualism is to be commended but my recommendation would be for him to pursue qualifications in some manly profession, say policeman or fireman, or perhaps driving a choo choo train, rather than wanking on blogs.
But this is a terrible position. It’s only a “good” position when the person trying to get heard is “bad” in your eyes. Any unpopular opinions that get buried by sites, especially juggernaut sites like Facebook and Twitter is extremely damaging when they do it to minority voices. Google pulls this stunt all the time, actively manipulating their algorithm to remove sites from view for political reasons.
This too is only good as long as you consider those being criticised bad. When atheists try to voice their opinions in heavily religious countries they get buried in hatemail if they’re lucky. This avalanche of ill will protects itself under the banner of “criticism”. I’m pretty sure that’s the defense used by those who flood feminists sites with shit use too. Hell, they even managed to drive out BlagHag from this very blog network using this tactic.
“But that’s harassment”; well that line is clearly pretty fluid in both in law and in practice.
It’s also interesting that being protected from criticism and who gets to post where are highly interconnected. Accepting the author’s position is saying you can’t be protected from criticism, but you need to find your own space to host that criticism (even if we’re talking a rebuttal comment). Which means any time there’s a power disparity the position with the loudest outlet wins (which means they are protected by using their right to kick out opposing voices).
Again using Facebook as an example since the author specifically mentioned them, they’ve shown a clear habit of shutting down those expressing political opinions the company disagrees with. Would the author still support them if they were (even more) actively shutting down feminist views? Because we could all go on Twitter and complain until everyone changes their social network provider, right?
Power through consumer choice, I guess is the idea. And I’ll just assume people here are clever enough to see through that.
@26
Is that right, Mr Changerofbits?
I’m delighted to hear that that pompous ass Edward Gemmer will not be making every thread on The Hivemind a thread about that pompous ass Edward Gemmer!
I completely agree with this. It’s also an important distinction though that while someone may not like to have jokes directed at them, such things cannot be considered “harassment”. The reason I say this is that I’ve noticed many comments which seem to be no more than mockery or insults (protected under free speech), except that they are elevated to be called “harassment” so I’m curious about that. Celebrities get sometimes thousands of lewd messages per day in some cases, but that’s not called “harassment”, so I’m curious what would constiture “harassment” in your eyes? I’m not trying to undermine peoples feelings when they get insults over the internet, but in serious terms there has to be a sober distinction, exactly as this article in fact discusses, on the correct ways to look at things like this.
@37
Yes, Mr Nerok.
@37 zomg the IRONY!
Seriously, nerok. You think you scored points with that pity observation? Well you can’t tell the difference between a service provider and the proprietor of a blog so perhaps I shouldn’t be surprised by your fail.
What next for you? Telling us how the banana is proof of God?
And your solution to this problem would be to outlaw hate mail?
What would your definition of hate mail be? How would you enforce the ban? What system of monitoring would you set up for this monitoring? What would be the penalties? How many resources would you devot to this aspect of your legal system?
@40
But.. I’m not the one arguing against anonymity you see. That’s why that comment was funny. If you do it it’s just weird.
@41
Yes.
If you had something intelligent to say on this topic surely you’d just say it. Where does that line go? Is a blog network enough? Should we hold Salon to any such demands? How about if Tumblr became politically inclined to boot people? It’d be okay, because it’s a service?
It’s pretty clear that those you would presumably label “services”; Facebook, Twitter, Google, do not share the idea that they should not have agendas. And the original ideas presented here did not include a disclaimer about this only applying to small blogs.
Here’s my criticism of that statement: get stuffed, idiot.
Nerok, you’ve got a category error there. Criticizing people for who they are, without context of a particular action, is just plain bullying/harassment. It’s the difference between ad hominem and ad rem. If PZ says all Atheists should brand a swastka on their foreheads for solidarity, “critical” will probably be the most gentle way to describe what the response would be.
Another category error: Is/ought. It’s not a question of what should be, the article is about how things currently are. How “free speech” is actually applied and understood in real life, as oppose to the mindless bleatings of entitled MRAs.
@42
This is actually the solution in a few countries. I guess we forget not all of the internet goes by US rules. There is a definite widening of the concept of harassment going on in Europe, some good, some bad. Lots of cases intersect with online bullying and what you can or can’t say about people online.
Other cases have smacked down people talking shit on Twitter about politicians or the church.
These are all good questions and I don’t think the solution will fit in a nice slogan or pithy paragraph. I think reality is too complex for bumper sticker rules.
Please note that my critique of the proposed rules aren’t saying they are completely without merit. I just think that they aren’t a good solution and I’m trying to point out reasons why.
@43
So because it’s hard to draw clean distinctions between various types of internet services, providers, and users, your solution is to make no attempt at all and let people post whatever mental excrement they want on individual people’s blogs? Get stuffed, idiot.
And I’m still laughing that you think you made a point by referencing changerofbits’ pseudonymity. That alone proved you have nothing intelligent to say on this topic. Again, get stuffed, idiot.
Actually, yes is can. If you have had workplace training in sexual harassment, you would understand. If you haven’t, your assertion is from ignorance.
All those rape threats various woman bloggers have received? Just joking is the out card by your assertion. I call it hard core harassment.
Wow.
Truly powerful words up there.
No, you are supporting the Slymepit indirectly.
The suggestions are on the nose for dealing with internet harassment. Unless, of course, you are one of those who does harass people.
@44
No, I just expressed myself poorly. The statement was meant to convey that you consider the opinions bad. As in “it’s okay if the government cracks down on these types, because I hate libertarians”.
@45
Well then there’s a fundamental category error overlying this entire issue: all of the internet does not exist in the US or follow US rules. Yet this post doesn’t try to make that point. And the concept of “free speech” exists elsewhere but with different interpretations. I think we both know what the article says isn’t the whole story about free speech in the US either, as there are many exceptions for what you can say depending on the topic.
I took the post and comments as an invitation to discuss problems with the views expressed. Sorry?
I’m not arguing against anonymity, I’m claiming that it’s not a necessary component of free speech.
Hi Nerd of Redhead, yes, I’ve had workplace training in sexual harassment, and nothing I’ve seen on FTB would qualify under that.
You call it hard core harassment, and while you are entitled to your opinion, it’s just that, an opinion. In fact, nothing within FTB (that I have seen, including rape jokes) would constitute harassment, either legally or functionally.
Sexual harassment in the workplace is utterly different from this, and is the incorrect tool to use to look at this (as this is not a workplace, similar to how workplace sexual harassment would be completely inappropriate to look at the messages that celebrities receive for example) at least not in terms of serious critical thinking that is. I’m talking about considering this from a serious perspective, does that make sense?
What does this have to do with the ability of the blog owner to police their blog? Nothing. A blog is PRIVATE PROPERTY. You keep trying to treat the internet in-toto as a public place. It isn’t.
@52 That that wasn’t obvious to nerok the way it should have been is why I mock his skills.
Whereas I have. PZ makes short work of those posts though. Harassment is in the eyes of those being harassed, not the freeze peach supporters.
Gee, PZ works hard enough here. And what I meant is that the sexual harassment training carries over to places like this where people of varying backgrounds interact for a common cause. You don’t think it does. PZ does. Who wins?
@52
Okay, it might be an uncharitable reading and prompted by what I’ve read about people arguing for the end of pseudonyms on the internet. I’m wondering what you’re trying to say then, if the point isn’t that what you write online should be tied to your real person?
@47
The principles in the OP did not make distinctions. Let’s discuss distinctions. Where do you think the line should be drawn? At what point is a blog so large it’s a service? And what limitations should we enforce on services?
Also don’t use my insult right back at me, twice even. That’s some schoolyard stuff.
And I don’t think you’ve added clarity to your point. Criticism in civil discourse is not equal to “the government cracking down”. I’ll defend your right express “bad opinions” from the censorship of the government.
Freeze peach is an immature term for “free speech” if I understand correctly, is that right?
But you concede then, that this is an opinion that you have, and not something that is evidence or definition based?
I’m always uneasy when people invent definitions for words or cite something that they have no evidence for as fact if you see what I mean (I see enough Christians do that!).
Do you agree that using words correctly by their definition is important, or do you feel that if someone calls something harassment, then it just IS harassment? Again, if you are wanting to redefine that term to mean “anything that anybody feels harassment is harassment” then that’s fine, but it makes it difficult to use language properly if that’s the case if you see what I mean?
@59
But not from private providers, even if those providers are very large?
@54
This emphasis on private property rights is so libertarian. But I’m guessing you don’t subscribe to that philosophy. This debate (about what class of entity a website should be) has been going on for a while. Is it the same as having an open house party, is it the same as putting a sign in your yard.. I guess where you see cases that are good; a feminist blog banning shitheads, I see other people being banned for differing political views. Creationists shutting down rebuttals.
I do have some philosophical problems with the idea that putting things online isn’t making them a public space, especially if you provide comment space too.
yes, that’s right, it’s, like, totally immature.
Thank goodness an adult has finally shown up.
Spank me, Daddy.
The criteria is simply wrong Nerd of Redhead. It’s invalid for all the same reasons that PZ’s points above AR valid! I guess a couple examples might make this clearer:
1) As this is PZ’s site, is harassment then whatever he DEEMS to be harassment, is that your point?
2) And, as an important distinction, if someone posts things outside of this site, such as on Twitter, or that other site that you guys mention that you don’t like, is THAT harassment ?
That’s an important distinction, and I’m really curious how you view both of these cases?
There are plenty of valid reasons to use a ‘nym to remain anonymous to a reasonable degree. I don’t think that harassment and bullying are among the valid reasons and I think you risk losing your anonymity if you go to somebodies site to harass/bully them.
@58 School yard stuff? As in ‘get stuffed’? Don’t tell me to ‘get stuffed’ then whine when I tell you to get stuffed. So, go get stuffed. I’m done engaging with you as I have no further interest in your opinion on any subject.
What part of PRIVATE don’t you understand? You make at category error in trying to pretend a private house/blog is a public park as far free speech goes. It isn’t.
davideddy:
Emphasis mine. Tell me, David, how often have you received messages that you should be raped? How often have you heard about being kicked in the cunt? Had any happy little jokes about acid being thrown in your face?
Many of the people you’re involved in this discussion with (now and later on) are people who have been raped, sexually assaulted and/or subject to physical violence along with other types of abuse. I fall into more than one of those categories.
Now, when you say “not harassment” and include “not functionally harassment”, you’re wrong. There isn’t any sort of effective legal remedy to the harassment many people in the blogosphere have been subject too, and that’s the sort of thing that the harassers jump on with glee – “oh, so you were threatened with rape. If it’s really a threat, why haven’t you gone to the cops, huh? Must not have been an actual threat, you hysterical feminazi!”
Many of us here have been subject to such dialogue, and I’ll tell you something, it’s harassment. Some of this ongoing harassment has been going on for a solid two years now, unrelenting, always escalating. Now, it’s nice if you haven’t ever had to deal with such shit for no reason other than being a woman on the internet*, but all that happens to be is a sign of your privilege in life. You don’t get to project that privilege onto those of us who are marginalized, so stop doing that please.
I’ll also add that the harassment doesn’t need to be directly aimed at me all the time. Every time I read another sickening rape threat, another “joke” about throwing acid in someone’s face, another “joke” about whether or not it would be okay to rape a skepchick on the grounds that they are annoying, another “joke” about how no one in their right mind would rape her, ’cause she’s fat, another remark about the pussified manginas who are under the thumb of beef curtain lezzies, another remark about how if someone was a ‘girl’, they’d kick someone in the cunt (and on it goes, that’s not even the tip of the harassmentberg), it affects me.
It affects me up close and personal. Even if I was a completely healthy person who didn’t have to live with PTSD and a host of other problems, thanks to childhood abuse and being raped, it would affect me. Woman already get to live with the knowledge that we are never safe. Yeah, we might get lucky and not be targeted throughout our lifetime, but the reality we face daily is a terrifying one. We know we aren’t safe. It’s difficult enough dealing with the standard, systemic sexism which surrounds us. It’s difficult enough dealing with people every single fucking day who consider us to be objects. It’s difficult enough dealing with people every single fucking day, who think they have the right to judge every single thing we do. It’s difficult enough dealing with people every single fucking day, who act as though we are invisible. It’s difficult enough dealing with people every single fucking day who think we belong in *these roles* only, so don’t get out of your place! It goes on.
Whether or not harassment and threats are aimed directly me or not, every single one is a reminder that I’m not safe. I never will be. Every person like you who comes along to happily explain that harassment and threats aren’t really harassment and threats are part of the problem. A big huge part of the problem. You’re basically telling me and all the others who are harassed, threatened and slimed up one wall and down the other, that we don’t matter. We don’t know what the problem is, no, not really.
I don’t appreciate you or others like you, strolling in to mainsplain the situation to us. We know what the situation is, what the reality happens to be. You don’t.
*Yes, yes, we know all about the chill girls, who think it’s all fine and join in the harassment campaigns. We know all about the wives and girlfriends who think it’s just dandy. Spare me. That shit happens because of toxic sexism, too.
davideddy:
Emphasis mine. Tell me, David, how often have you received messages that you should be raped? How often have you heard about being kicked in the cynt*? Had any happy little jokes about acid being thrown in your face?
Many of the people you’re involved in this discussion with (now and later on) are people who have been raped, sexually assaulted and/or subject to physical violence along with other types of abuse. I fall into more than one of those categories.
Now, when you say “not harassment” and include “not functionally harassment”, you’re wrong. There isn’t any sort of effective legal remedy to the harassment many people in the blogosphere have been subject too, and that’s the sort of thing that the harassers jump on with glee – “oh, so you were threatened with rape. If it’s really a threat, why haven’t you gone to the cops, huh? Must not have been an actual threat, you hysterical feminazi!”
Many of us here have been subject to such dialogue, and I’ll tell you something, it’s harassment. Some of this ongoing harassment has been going on for a solid two years now, unrelenting, always escalating. Now, it’s nice if you haven’t ever had to deal with such shit for no reason other than being a woman on the internet**, but all that happens to be is a sign of your privilege in life. You don’t get to project that privilege onto those of us who are marginalized, so stop doing that please.
I’ll also add that the harassment doesn’t need to be directly aimed at me all the time. Every time I read another sickening rape threat, another “joke” about throwing acid in someone’s face, another “joke” about whether or not it would be okay to rape a skepchick on the grounds that they are annoying, another “joke” about how no one in their right mind would rape her, ’cause she’s fat, another remark about the pussified manginas who are under the thumb of beef curtain lezzies, another remark about how if someone was a ‘girl’, they’d kick someone in the cynt (and on it goes, that’s not even the tip of the harassmentberg), it affects me.
It affects me up close and personal. Even if I was a completely healthy person who didn’t have to live with PTSD and a host of other problems, thanks to childhood abuse and being raped, it would affect me. Woman already get to live with the knowledge that we are never safe. Yeah, we might get lucky and not be targeted throughout our lifetime, but the reality we face daily is a terrifying one. We know we aren’t safe. It’s difficult enough dealing with the standard, systemic sexism which surrounds us. It’s difficult enough dealing with people every single fucking day who consider us to be objects. It’s difficult enough dealing with people every single fucking day, who think they have the right to judge every single thing we do. It’s difficult enough dealing with people every single fucking day, who act as though we are invisible. It’s difficult enough dealing with people every single fucking day who think we belong in *these roles* only, so don’t get out of your place! It goes on.
Whether or not harassment and threats are aimed directly me or not, every single one is a reminder that I’m not safe. I never will be. Every person like you who comes along to happily explain that harassment and threats aren’t really harassment and threats are part of the problem. A big huge part of the problem. You’re basically telling me and all the others who are harassed, threatened and slimed up one wall and down the other, that we don’t matter. We don’t know what the problem is, no, not really.
I don’t appreciate you or others like you, strolling in to mainsplain the situation to us. We know what the situation is, what the reality happens to be. You don’t.
*Deliberate, filters.
**Yes, yes, we know all about the chill girls, who think it’s all fine and join in the harassment campaigns. We know all about the wives and girlfriends who think it’s just dandy. Spare me. That shit happens because of toxic sexism, too.
davideddy (#60)
No. It’s a sarcastic term for the immature misunderstanding/bastardization of actual free speech promulgated by harassers and trolls.
Well, PZ sure is suppressing disagreement here quite fiercely. Look at all those poor banned souls who have been unable express their idiocy freely.
*shakes head*
Poor people.
I have finally seen the light.
Down with the oppressor!
Make PZ stop silencing people and banning them from internet. Go freedom!
*strange sounds at the door*
*shuffling*
Wait, no, no don’t take me away. Where are you taking me? I don’t want to go to the cornfield!
*fades away… forever*
Nope, it’s up to them to decide what speech they want to host for you, read the SLA or you may be turned into a link of a human centipede!
So are the sentence davideddy.
@65
“Get stuffed” is maybe the least offensive insult. I chose it because it sounds silly. And I pointed out that you used it twice because that looked silly to me. And now you’re just doing a whole “harumph, I’m done with you” routine over it, despite me inviting you to discuss the issues further. Okay. Bye.
@66
Here’s an example of non-harassment:
Someone posts a comment here linking to their website and calling me ugly.
Here’s an example of harassment:
Someone posts a comment here linking to their website and calling me ugly, half a dozen or more times a day, every day, for years. They also post the same brief tirade on twitter several times a day. They post it on other blogs several times a day. They post on a forum many times a day saying the same thing. They recruit their friends to join in the chorus.
There’s nothing in the second case that’s individually different in content from the first. Can you see, though, why one is harassment and the other isn’t?
nerok, I’m not inviting you to discuss issues further and never was. Only someone as utterly clueless as you could think that. You fell flat on your face right from the first post. There was never any grounds for discussion with you.
In case you still can’t tell, I was and am mocking you because I think you are an idiot, Mr Get-Stuffed. Google messing with its search engine rankings and Amanda Marcotte receiving rape threats on her blog are equivalent issues only in your fool head. I know you fancy yourself a deep thinker on the issue of free speech who is able to apply a razor sharp critique to the arguments others make, and that amused me greatly for its absurdity… for a time.
But now I am just bored with you. Don’t flatter yourself that it’s anything more than that. No harumphing involved. Just a lot of yawning now.
Everything Caine said in #67! That. Exactly that!
wow, you attack a person for a grammatical error? That’s pretty shameful (and you wonder why people mock and insult you … I think you have your answer right there! Clearly, you don’t have a leg to stand on to say that people are “harassing” you when you act like spoiled children?)
@74
You are solid comedy. I just wanted to point out, again, that the OP made no specific distinction to these principles being limited in scope, so your thinking about my thinking are way off base.
You have a nice day now.
@73
Definitely. What about a case where you don’t get that many insults from any one person, but the sheer mass of insults easily surpass any one contributor’s effort?
Essentially harassment en masse.
I don’t twitter or facebook. But harassment is not the intent, but the effect. That is the part folks who complain about “internet censorship” (a real oxymoron, as the internet is neutral, even if various sites aren’t) don’t get.
What I have to presume they mean is they can’t say what they want, where they want, when they want, and they expect not be criticized for their outre opinions. I have an opinion of that behavior.
All they have to do is realize they are going to be held responsible for what they say, and maybe they need to dial the abusive rhetoric from 150 to 8, and attitude everybody else is wrong from 150 to 8.
@77 That you have no understanding whatsoever of the context of this discussion is on you nerok, not on me.
Tah tah!
Depends on the context. If, for instance, I were to visit the slymepit and get bombarded with insults and contempt, that would not be harassment. I can easily avoid it.
If it’s on my own blog where I’m obligated to track the comments, where I’ve booted off the persistent trolls, and they keep coming back to repeat the same insults and contempt, it’s harassment.
Is all this difficult for you to comprehend?
yes, my comment was a vicious “attack”.
*eyeroll*
@81
My problem with the OP is in the wider context of this interpretation; the pitfalls and problems. It seems like it’s to be taken specifically as a rebuttal of a subset of these harassers’ claims about free speech and the conflict with the stalkers. Fair enough, my bad.
Jeebus, they really come out of the woodwork don’t they? How fucking difficult is it to grasp that someone’s blog, FB, twitter etc is analogous to their living room or their office – i.e. a privately owned or administered space – and that the internet is not a fucking democracy/libertarian wet dream? I get to decide what behaviour I tolerate in my house, virtual or not.
If you knock on my front door and start babbling about Jesus, I can tell you I’m not interested and then shut the door. Your free speech has not been denied – just the privilege to exercise it in my private space. There are a hundred other houses on this street, a million in the city. Go for your life.
If you start insulting people or just acting in a way that shits me at a party I’m hosting, I get to tell you to shut up or leave my house. In this and the previous case, I’m exercising my right to associate with whomever I choose – which includes not associating with you. Furthermore, if you don’t bugger off when I ask, I have legal recourse if the situation becomes extreme enough. Go to a party where your bullshit is welcome.
If you arrive at my blog, twitter, FB etc and do anything at all that I don’t like, bang. I don’t care if you think it’s unfair; I get to be as goddamn draconian as I want to. It’s my space, just like the house I live in. If I block you or ban you there is literally no shortage of other places you can go to post whatever stupid/vile shit you want about me or anything else. As Amanda said, you’re not owed an audience – and I decide who uses my soapbox. As there’s no internet police to come and drag you off my internet, my only real option, should a polite request to leave fails, is to shut you down so you fuck off of your own volition.
Exactly. And that’s the precise point that I’ve been trying to make, thanks for that.
I agree that if someone comes to you and pushes something in your face, on your site, that can be interpreted as harassment, but something that someone on another site writes about you or me, or photoshops an image, that’s NOT harassment, for EXACTLY the reason you just pointed out here, BUT many people on this site (and others) are saying that IS harassment, which is completely fallacious. It’s an important distinctions that goes along with the points that you’ve set out in your post above; people can’t shout “free speech!” for *anything*, and by precisely the same standard, people can’t shout “harassment!” for *anything*. I agree with your post, but this must also apply to how we use and define words like “harassment” and so, as you say, it’s completely invalid to define something that happens on a different site as “harassment” as that’s just bad reasoning and not rational.
Hobgoblins in your mind. Not real. Which is why your fears and opinions aren’t taken seriously. Get a reality check before you preach. Then don’t preach if your vision conflicts with the real world.
Hankstar:
And I am draconian when it comes to my blogs. I opt out of most social media, FB, twitter and all that. However, I get to read and see the ongoing harassment here and at other blogs, and I’m made aware of what’s going on elsewhere. I still have to see the nasty ass comments dumped on my blogs, in order to delete them. I’m forced into placing certain posts in moderation status, which isn’t how I normally like to do things.
One of the first hits for my nym is “Caine, Fleur du mal is a lying she-hag”. I can’t do anything about that, nor all the other hits which are, um, coming from a certain contingent.
As I said in #67, it still affects me, even if it isn’t aimed directly at me. It hurts people I care about, and that makes me angry.
No, you are missing the point. One incident of behavior that can be considered harassment is often dismissed. Repeated behavior of the same IS harassment, deliberate and cruel by the perpetrator. Bullying behavior, and if it is bullying, it is harassment. That is what Amanda and PZ, and the horde have been telling you. Total context applies.
Wow, that was a revelation. You mean I can’t call it harassment when my co-worker correct the grammar in a report I wrote??? Sheesh, thank goodness davideddy was here to set me straight!
/bitter fucking sarcasm
Davideddy, stop arguing against that stupid fucking strawman that it’s okay to “shout harassment for anything” and engage with the topic at hand. You’re coming off like a clueless, arrogant git.
Also, adding to mine @ 87, most of the people coming in for the worst of the ongoing harassment campaign don’t have the luxury of ignoring social media. Many of them depend on it to make their living, and it’s utter shit that they have to deal with such fuckwittery on a large scale every single day. This is one of the reasons that dimwits like davideddy are so damn annoying – they don’t come in for this treatment, so they can say “hey, it’s a photoshopped pic of so and so with their head on a whale, so what?” :spits:
Not if it’s done once, or twice. If it’s done continuously for two years then it is harassment, deliberate and vile harassment, and no-one both decent and rational would deny that. In such a case, the target will hear about it repeatedly, will be upset and probably frightened by it – because it indicates an obsessive hatred that can be expected to lead to more direct hostile action and that upset and fear is precisely the intention.
@84
But this is the libertarian view on private property rights. They even say you have the right to evict anyone you dislike from the premises of your business, which would be the go-to defence for sites like Facebook and Twitter to ban anyone they don’t like.
And if you don’t see a problem with that, imagine they are kicking off people for expressing atheist views.
@86
But I’ve specifically mentioned real problems with this interpretation. Things that are actually happening. You’re just stating your personal opinion as fact over and over. I applaud the last part of that paragraph though, please don’t.
Re: comment 84
The problem is that a blog etc are not the same as your house. I’m not saying that you can’t or shouldn’t be able to police your own blog but I also don’t think that analogy is wholly apt.
The issue is that there is a whole gamut of semi-public spaces and freedom in semi-public spaces is a tricky issue. For example with physical freedom to simply walk about we have obviously public places like streets and common land and obviously private spaces like your back yard or house. But there are many semi-public spaces like a shopping-mall – it acts like a public space (you can just wander in and around without an invitation) but has aspects of a private space (the shopping mall management can ask you to leave). Treating a shopping mall as a wholly private place would mean that the management could actively discriminate against ethnic minorities for example. Treating a shopping mall as a wholly public place would make it hard for the owners to run it efficiently.
A blog has a similar mixed status. It is public in so far as anybody can go and look at what is written there and, typically, there is an open invitation to comment.
SallyStrange:
Well, you can’t. Apparently davideddy is allowed, however, given that he was *attacked* by someone pointing out his difficulties regarding grammar. :eyeroll:
And yet you continue your inane preaching of hobgoblins. I’ll deal with reality.
Things that happened on different sites that involve me:
1. Some anonymous poster threatened to track me down and rape me on Thunderf00t’s blog.
2. Tf00t declined to respond to my email requesting the IP address of the poster and declined to remove the threat.
3. Other posters started claiming that I was the anonymous poster, posting fake threats against myself for lulz.
4. This lie spread to the slymepit and has percolated there ever since, the last instance I know of someone making a reference to my alleged propensity for faking rape threats against myself was sometime in March. This is well over a year after the initial incident.
5. One of the same people who believes and spreads this lie went to #WIS2 and was personally welcomed by the head of CFI.
I consider that harassment. Even though none of it happened on my blog or on blogs which I regularly read. You don’t? Explain why.
Once you’re finished, perhaps you can explain exactly how much nerve it takes to come into a feminist space like Pharyngula and make the boneheaded claim that just because YOU haven’t personally witnessed any harassment means that there really isn’t any harassment worth worrying about. Perhaps you can explain why the fuck anyone who’s been harassed should listen to your admittedly ignorant ass about what is harassment and what isn’t. Because I’m not seeing it.
Hi SallyStrangle: “Davideddy, stop arguing against that stupid fucking strawman that it’s okay to “shout harassment for anything””
ok, so you realise that you’ve just said that PZ Myers is a clueless, arrogant git? Look above at what PZ Myers said on this. He laid out this point about harassment above fairly clearly.
This is directly engaging with the topic at hand. Free speech and the consequences of free speech (i.e. what is or is not harassment, or allowable under free speech).
/bitter fucking common sense
/shouty people make themselves look very stupid all by their shouty selves
nyqonly:
It’s not tricky at all. A certain level of behaviour is expected when out in semi-public or public places. Frinst., it’s not generally considered to be okay to drop your pants and pee wherever you wish. The people who are (and have been) actively fighting back over the two years of sustained harassment are delivering that simple message: just because you can drop your pants and piss all over yourself doesn’t mean you should.
And it’s private in that the blogowner has the right to remove your comments, stop you posting any more, block your IP, and indeed the right to block comments altogether. conversely if you want to open the door of your home and invite the world and its dog in, you can. It’s not clear what problem you think you are raising.
Not open, so your analogy fails. Rules for Commenters. This isn’t a public space. Treat it as PZ’s house.
Some people seem to be struggling with the concept that something that isn’t a violation of free speech can still be wrong for other reasons.
When Facebook was taking down pages on breastfeeding but not ones promoting rape, that wasn’t a violation of free speech. It was shitty corporate behavior for other reasons.
davideddy:
Also davideddy:
Yes you do shouty davideddy.
Nick:
:Snort: Oh, nuanced emphasis is so difficult, much like grammar, and actually thinking something all the way through. Tsk.
Except that you elided the salient point PZ made:
But harassers don’t allow their targets to avoid the harassment. Not even going silent stops them. Nothing the target can do short of scrubbing their identity will make the harassers stop harassing, though moderation of spaces can mitigate the damage. One of the purposes of the ongoing harassment campaigns is to generate false narratives to be brought into the targets’ spaces and gaslight them and their allies. For instance:
https://proxy.freethought.online/almostdiamonds/2013/06/05/what-happens-at-the-slime-pit/
nyqonly@93:
No, it wouldn’t. Yes, some anti-discrimination laws limit their applicability to places that are “public accomodations” or “common carriers” or other defined terms. But that’s a legislative choice, not some inherent limitation. For example, a factory that is privately owned and not open to the public in any way still can’t discriminate against ethnic minorities in hiring.
Do you agree that this is precisely what PZ Myers described above?
Some celebrities get many thousands or tens of thousands of these per day. That person is not responsible for people that post on his blog (do you agree?)
You agree that he did the right thing there, giving out such information is against the policy of FreeThoughtBlogs also, yes?
This has happened many times in the past, I can give you many examples of people how have done this, including respected journalists trying to support their own newspaper articles.
This is not a lie, it is an assertion or accusation. Not a lie.
You have not said what this person has done wrong. If he spread the assertion/accusation, that is not in any way a crime, since as above, certainly this has happened many times in the history of the press.
I’ve explained why here, not a single thing you’ve mentioned falls under harassment. In fact, in summary, a random person made a *horrible* post directed at you, the person Tf00t didn’t give an IP address in line with most privacy laws, and some people made an assertion about you (not a lie) that you didn’t like (while that must have been frustrating, they certainly are well within their rights to make that assertion), and if he was welcomed to a conference by a third party, please explain to me what is wrong with that? If that personally hurt you, I can understand, but you have not indicated anything that is harassment? Remember, you have asserted that I am an “ignorant ass”, and that I come off as a “clueless, arrogant git”. If the head of the CFI welcomed you, who makes insulting comments about people, should I class the head of the CFI welcoming you as a personal harassment (you specifically said that you consider his welcome to be part of the harassment). Your use of the word “harassment” is completely fallacious and without merit for all of the points that I’ve made (please see also PZ Myers statement on this in comment 81 above).
“admittedly ignornat ass” -> demeaning, uncivil, insulting, potentially harassing behaviour if continued. No need for it.
Our free speech is important to us, as is the language we use to refer to how we are wronged (there are laws around this). Technically nothing above counts as harassment in anyway whatsoever. I’ve described in detail why. You seem to WANT to believe this is harassment, much as Christians WANT to believe in God. As a rational person, using critical thinking, can you explain to me seriously how any of this is harassment?
Nope, you didn’t read the policy right. Commercial use is prohibited, not make fools sorry they were fools. What a fuckwitted idjit.
Pteryxx, please see PZ Myers comment at 81 above which completely refutes your point. He states that “Depends on the context. If, for instance, I were to visit the slymepit and get bombarded with insults and contempt, that would not be harassment. I can easily avoid it.” so that is NOT harassment according to PZ Myers comment. He also said “Is all this difficult for you to comprehend?” so I hope that this is clearer for you now.
Actually you do. Her testament, which being a woman, you discount. MRA FUCKWIT.
And you missed PZ’s point. Which we, the horde, have been telling you all day. Your reading comprehension leaves a lot to be desired. One would think you are deliberately being obtuse and stupid.
Just to clarify Pteryxx, you are misinterpreting what PZ said. If you can easily avoid it, then it’s not harassment, just as say a celebrity gets thousands of lewd messages per day, and people might talk about a celebrity in a bar “I hate that [name], wish he’d die!” (or whatever drunken nonsense), that is NOT harassment, and so, as PZ points out, neither is anything on a third party site. It’s simply not harassment. If people come to your home, or your site, and do that repeatedly then yes, I agree, that’s harassing in a soft fuzzy sense of the word (as it’s technically not harassment in the eyes of the law).
Bzzzzt, wrong, try again. Repeated communication intended to annoy or alarm is “technically” harassment and is punishable by law. There’s no need to be physically near.
You can’t even mansplain this correctly.
@ screechymonkey:
Seriously, the inability to grasp the difference between an actual violation of free speech and shitty behavior by a private venue is… somewhat mystifying.
@ Nerok: Until Facebook et al gain the authority to actually prevent competing media from hosting their own content, of course they can do whatever the hell they want with their Terms of Service. That does not preclude people from (a) pressuring them to modify their terms through publicity, or (b) simply not using their product. Which makes comments like this, by you, completely asstastic:
Ok, let’s run this thought experiment. I would:
(1) Stop using Facebook (perhaps obviously, since they’ve just kicked me off!)
(2) Raise public awareness about how shitty Facebook is being, with the goal of getting other people to either stop using it or make their use conditional on Facebook revising its policy.
(3) Look for an alternative to using Facebook (which a lot of people seem to be doing these days anyway — almost like alternative social media exists!).
Well, that thought experiment was even easier than I thought! It’s almost like your point is completely silly!
Now, we can have a long conversation about whether certain media giants are in fact attaining government-backed censorship-level authority, but y’know what? Let’s not, because it’s completely irrelevant to the issue at hand: a moderately popular blogger is deciding what will and will not be allowed on his blog. Full stop.
This isn’t hard. Stop making it hard.
davideddy@107:
So if something happens often enough, it ceases to be a crime? How high does the murder rate have to be before it’s legal to kill?
ok, Nerd of Redhead, please explain it:
1) If PZ goes to a different site and is abused there, that’s NOT harassment (by PZ’s definition)
2) If people write insults about PZ elsewhere in a place where PZ does not go, then, even with point (1), that IS harassment!?!?
That is absolutely and utterly bonkers. What you said there just knocks it out the park of stupidity. Raving nonsense and that is the biggest logic fail I’ve heard probably this year … The Sun newspaper doesn’t say things so dumb in fact.
MY reading comprehension. wow. I think the god of logic just facepalmed him/her-self if he-she read what you just said. That is idjit cubed … wow. just wow.
These definitions are important. Free speech / harassment is important. People can’t go around calling “free speech!” for anything just as they should not call “harassment!” for anything. It’s really the same point.
DARVO
you appear to be an expert on the law…. not.
http://www.ncsl.org/issues-research/telecom/cyberstalking-and-cyberharassment-laws.aspx
now run along and larn ya somethin.
Nope. Also, it’s not entirely avoidable for me. It comes up in other venues I’m involved, totally unrelatedly – Mick Nugent’s “open dialogue” for example.
If his responsibility for removing it from his blog. If he does not remove it then I can only conclude that he’s okay with rape threats as a part of the discourse on his blog.
First of all, there’s no unified FTB policy on that. PZ’s policy, with which I agree, is that if you post threats or abuse, your right to anonymity is forfeit. It’s right there in the sidebar, dumbass. So, no, Tf00t did the wrong thing.
So? That has nothing to do with people actively spreading lies about me.
Yes it is a fucking lie, you pathetic piece of shit. I have said repeatedly that I never faked a rape threat against myself; to maintain otherwise is to lie.
Yes I did. I said he helped spread that pernicious lie about me.
I believe it could be slander, or libel, depending, but that’s not the point. Harassment is not always strictly illegal.
Idiot, the laws about rape threats entail that I should report actionable threats to the police and that Tf00t’s obligation is to help me do that.
Nope, not even within their legal rights, though of course nothing will ever come of that, and definitely not within the bounds of ethical behavior.
A third party? Observe the twisting of truth in progress. He was welcomed by the head of CFI, who concurrently refused to welcome the bulk of the participants, who were mostly feminists and among whom were many women who’ve been dealing with online harassment far more than I have, often at the hands of the same person.
Where do you draw the line between personally hurting, and harassment? The harassment part comes in where large numbers of people, whom I don’t even have any contact with, consistently spread this lie (yes, it’s a lie, fuckface) in fora I don’t frequent as well as fora I do, not allowing it to die. It’s such a perfect object lesson in the sexist fuckery that even relatively unknown people like myself are subject to for the crime of being a feminist on the internet.
I apologize for being unclear. I did not mean to say that Ron Lindsay, head of CFI, was harassing me, but that he enabled the harassment by refusing to recognize the actual history of this person.
You can easily avoid it, dipshit – fuck off from this blog and I’ll immediately stop talking about you. Unlike what would happen on the Slymepit and the subject of conversation were me, or Caine.
Hahaha! Yes, I WANT this to happen. Idiot, could you possibly discredit yourself more? That’s the same reasoning used by the lying harassers who started the lie in the first place.
I just did.
yes. you’re exactly right. It might not be your reading comprehension, instead you seem to be imposing your own interpretation of things that actually doesn’t apply.
go figure.
it’s not your comprehension that’s to blame, in that you can obviously read the words on the page, you just can’t seem to respond to what is actually written there.
well then, SallyStrange above and others should then have no problem with taking this harassment to the courts then right?
oh, what’s that, they can’t? oh, and why can’t they? oh, because it’s not harassment you say and cannot be prosecuted in any way? oh, so I was, um, right?
so, Bzzzt, well done there, fantastic piece of “just wrong”-ness on your part. I don’t know what mansplain means. Is that another immature thing like freeze peach? I’m guessing it’s another insult that you seem so fond of here?
Sorry, I DON’T PLAY THIS BY YOUR RULES.
Nope. This is why nobody is thinking you have a point. Free speech was well defined in the OP. It doesn’t exist in a PRIVATE blog. Accept that reality.
Sexual harassment is defined. Whether you find that definition sufficient or insufficient is irrelevant. We, here find it relevant in discussing harassment, and will not accept your idiotlogical changes in the definition. If you can’t deal with people disagreeing with your nonsense, take it on the road; fade into the bandwidth. Otherwise, you are wrong until you evidence, not opinion, yourself right. The MRA fuckwits are heavy on opinion, non-existent on evidence. You appear to be following their playbook. Not a good sign if you wish to be listened to.
Yeah, I know that post exists, but that it shows up first is an artifact of Google’s algorithms based on your search history.
For me, it brings up a first, second, and third, then bunch of other pages about Michael Caine.
Fuck you.
This is the last refuge of the harasser. “Report it to the police or else it’s not harassment! If it’s not harassment you can’t complain about it!”
Since the police don’t give a shit, it’s a perfect recipe for silencing women who talk about being harassed.
Whoa, blockquote fail of the day @125!
Of fer fuck’s sake, davideddy. Obviously PZ means if he goes over to another site ONE TIME and posts some comments that result in immediate negative replies there he can’t call it harrassment because it’s a known risk of posting comments that one can just walk away from, whereas an ongoing, protracted campaign of negative posts directed toward PZ from a site he doesn’t go to can constitute harrassment.
Are you really this obtuse?
Right. So if a person doesn’t feel like fighting a long, complicated court case that will doubtless bring even more abuse and stress in their direction, they should just shut up and take it?
Please transport the misplaced “a” from before “first” to after “then”.
SallyStrange:
QFMFT. I’m quite tired of our mansplaining, tone trolling douchecake. It’s ever so interesting that the ignorant, privilege blind asshole is more than willing to yell “if you keep calling me names, it’s harassment!”, but of course, the shit done to us and others, that’s not harassment, oh no.
cm:
That would be because my nym is Caine, Fleur du mal, you fuckwit.
davideddy,
If someone says something untrue about me on a blog I have never visited then that remains on the record. It has the potential to harm me even if I never become aware of its existence.
If someone comes here, where I will be very likely to see it then, even though I am not PZ but merely a commentator here, there may be some intention to hurt me or to discredit me among my friends. I cannot prove that there is that intention but I am entitled to ask.
If, over the course of several weeks, either that individual returns to repeat the same slur, for which never having met me he has no evidence, then that is harassment, as it trotting about to yet more spaces to repeat the same story. – a pattern of behaviour which which is not accidental and which is designed to harm either me or some project which matters to me. Just the same if he send his friends along to do the same.
Why on earth would someone engage in that behaviour without motive? Why would someone, even someone as stupid and as obstructive as you are, claim that I have no right even to notice that this is happening?
Grow up, man! We are not in kindergarten.
It’s harassment in a functional sense of the word, as in chilly climate. It causes the targets of harassment, as a class, to be less likely to participate and less likely to gain recognition and respect.
—
Obviously davideddy should call the police and tell them to moderate PZ’s blog. That’ll go over well I’m sure.
Mr. FancyPants:
Along with the host of Mr. Eddy’s other problems, I suspect he’s one of those insufferable assholes who simply cannot be arsed to click a link and read, nor manage that incredibly difficult search engine business.
Seriously. It must have taken longer to type his affronted response than to just google the term.
This isn’t rocket science, davideddy.
Pteryxx:
Hahahahahahahahahaha. Oh, I’d pay cold, hard cash to see that.
Irrelevant. You choose to be involved in this other post, so by PZ Myers definition above that is NOT HARASSMENT!! PZ Myers spells this out in comment 81, and as he says “Is all this difficult for you to comprehend?”. Is this difficult for you to comprehend Sally?
That is a false conclusion and does not stand up to any scrutiny. Sorry but that is just stupid to say that.
ok, so are you saying that this person Tf00t has to follow PZ’s policy. That makes no sense. He has his own policy. You see this right? What you said here was just weird, sort of wooly.
It has everything to do with it. People do things like this. If someone accuses you of this, then it’s quite possible that this is true. Personally, I believe you, but that’s just my opinion. Another person has another opinion and that’s up to them. That’s not a lie, it’s an assertion.
You know as well as I do that this is an assertion. You are the stupidest tool in the toolbox if you are incapable of grasping this simple truth.
again, while I believe you didn’t do that thing, you have to be a really dumb as a block of wood to believe that by mentioning this assertion he’s done anything wrong.
THEN PROSECUTE HIM!!! (I think this brings us back to the point about you being the thickest piece of wood in the woodshed right?).
THEN PROSECUTE HIM!!!!!!
Seriously, you don’t have a leg to stand on here. My God, if I’m ever so so wrong as this, I usually back down way before this point. You’ve got yourself into a really daft position here. wow.
THEN PROSECUTE HIM! This is getting hilarious about now. Hard to type when I’m laughing so hard. At you.
No twisting of truth, I don’t know what the CFI is. I just looked it up and do now, but yeah, that’s a third party, I dunno who these people are.
What the hell has that got to do with the above? This part is 100% non-sequitor.
No, it’s not (“fuckface” you sound like a pathetic angry fool ranting. Insulting people won’t make you right, it just makes you look more and more stupid).
Did the person make the rape comment as a result of you being a feminist? (I don’t know what happened, maybe you can point me at the post where this happened at this Tf00t site?). Again, I think it’s a horrible thing that was said to you, but it’s hard to have sympathy for a person that insults me over and over as if you’re some petulat child having a temper tantrum.
I just don’t think that’s clear Sally. Maybe he did intend to do this, but it seems quite far-fetched don’t you think? It seems doubtful that the head of an organisation would specifically decide to do this personally to you. As I say, it might be true, but how likely is it that this Ron Lindsay would picking on you specifically?
More insults. Sure, should I go over there, are they are rude as you (I’ve not seen many people as rude as you).
Huh? So, PZ Myers posts about Free Speech and what it does and does not allow. He then clarifies this by pointing out that if a person GOES to another site and gets insults, then that is NOT harassment. So by PZ Myers definition you were not harassed. I think that’s clear: you are wrong, or PZ Myers is wrong. You can’t have it both ways. So, are you saying that PZ Myers is an idiot SallyStrange?
And Jesus wept …
No, I don’t feel like taking that shit to court. And yet it’s still wrong and ought to stop. Can you process that? Or are you just another tool using the “prosecute it or STFU” false dichotomy?
Oh noes, SallyStrange is rude. Someone get davideddy a fainting couch and smelling salts ASAP!
Free speech is not absolute. You’re stupid if you think otherwise. What a hypocrite you are.
She was because it CONTINUED PAST THE INCIDENT DATE. That changes it from a one time occurrence to harassment. Your deliberate stupidity on that point is telling. You are an MRA fuckwit. You quack, you waddle, and you swim. Which is why you won’t get anywhere here. We have your number, and it is pro-harassing women.
@davideddy Calling you fuckface was kind.
Pteryxx: “Obviously davideddy should call the police and tell them to moderate PZ’s blog. That’ll go over well I’m sure.”
wow. That’s pretty stupid doesn’t follow from what I said. ok, have to try and remember that I’m talking to an uneducated person. So I’m arguing that if you insult me, then that’s NOT harassment, see? So that’s what I’m saying, it’s NOT harassment. geddit? So I wouldn’t call the police on PZ’s blog as there’s no harassment. I could go around saying I was harassed, but that would be idiotic. To go to a site and then say the “harassed” you, that would be IDIOTIC. There you go, you’re beginning to understand! Or maybe not, up is down, left is right etc. Ok, another attempt: if you call me some “name”, some silly “insult”, that’s NOT harassment, see also PZ Myers’ point on this in comment 81. wow. It’s hard to believe that a person can say things as stupid as what you just said.
Tell us more about how it’s not lying to say I faked a rape threat against myself, eh davideddy?
No, it’s not. Your ‘nym is Caine (what you’re calling yourself today).
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2013/04/08/i-cant-imagine-living-in-an-abusive-relationship/comment-page-1/#comment-598739
https://proxy.freethought.online/pharyngula/2012/04/13/why-privacy-matters/comment-page-1/#comment-310866
The consistent part is Caine. (As mine is cm.)
No, you’re talking like an uneducated person. Get with the program.
No, you don’t get it. Insulting you once or through one days posting here isn’t harassment. Continued insulting over many forums and methods and times is. You are deliberately stupid. Which is why I call you uneducated. An educated person wouldn’t lie so blatantly.
based on your level of cluelessness, I wouldn’t be half surprised to see you try though.
seriously, you apparently haven’t the slightest clue what this post is about, what harrasment is from either a popular or legal standpoint, and have no intention of learning either.
that leaves you here, trolling.
Let the record also show that I’ve never frequented the Slymepit, yet that is nevertheless the primary source, over a year later, of the continuing lies that attack my character.
Eh, whatevs.
Do not twist my words and use what I said to support your idiocy.
If the insults were confined to the slymepit or a set of blogs, no problem. I’ve had that kind of crap going on for years, with people setting up bizarre attack blogs and yelling within forums about me. I don’t care, that doesn’t bother me.
It is not so confined, however.
Look on social media. These clowns crash the hashtag of all the conferences I attend. I’ve had some email my colleagues at work. They email me threats and pornographic images. They use their forum to make plans for personal assaults — Franc Hoggle threatened to accost me or slip objects into my pockets at the GAC.
Every time a new blog appears here on FtB, the usual suspects from the slymepit immediately start probing the comments, pushing the boundaries for the new person, trying to find some way to peddle their lies here.
Youtube comments on my videos had to be disabled because they so thoroughly trash the discussion — even the most innocuous videos get a flood of hate.
They try to intimidate my friends. Jen McCreight has been hounded out of blogging by these assholes. Natalie Reed has likewise left. Why? Because they get nonstop accusations and lies and insults. Not elsewhere — on their blogs, their email, on twitter.
That is harassment.
And I get a mild version of it compared to people like Ophelia Benson and Rebecca Watson.
Yet here you are, whining and rules lawyering and trying to find rationalizations for their kind of games.
You, sir, are a classic shithead. You’re done here. Persist, you will be banned.
I was going to write something for one final try to get the point through to davideddy, but you know what, fuckit. Commenters here have already done the job, and far better than I could have. He’s just being deliberately obtuse.
Something’s wrong with the empathy lobe in your brain, davideddy. That’s far more troubling, or should be to you, than your failure to take in the context of what’s been happening in this community over the last two years and understand how the tools of social media are being used to attempt to silence and marginalize people like Ophelia Benson, Stephanie Szvan, Rebecca Watson, and plenty of others. It’s a concerted campaign, and it’s fucking shitty & wrong.
For clarification, #148 was follow-on to #144.
[You were warned. Bye. –pzm]
Saw the deleted post before the modhammer.
davideddy, you are now obviously tone trolling. Rule of thumb…act like a dipshit and you’ll probably get treated like a dipshit. This is also true in the real world, so acting as if this is some big goddamn mystery is juvenile at best, dishonest at worst.
If anyone’s interested (not likely), davideddy’s last post was one big block where he basically conceded that what happened to SallyStrange wasn’t nice, but he didn’t want to call it “harassment.” He just wanted to call it something else. This is douchenozzle behavior: whine about how people are using a term improperly only to assign it your own arbitrary definition like you’re some major fuckin’ authority on the matter.
This was followed by a block of whining that people treated him poorly. It was in the style of creationist rhetoric: “do you always treat [innocent] new members this poorly?”
In regards to all this “prosecute blah blah blah” shit that has been going around . . .
Only someone who is either a) a disingenuous asshole or b) completely unfamiliar with the particulars of taking someone to court c) both would spout this. Taking someone to court is stressful, time consuming, expensive, and not guaranteed to result in the enforcement of actual law. Women who are raped on videotape still get shit for prosecuting their attackers, and the attackers often receive what amounts to a slap on the wrist. But somehow the outcome is supposed to be better when it involves a group of anonymous people who are spreading lies about a situation involving a rape threat? That makes no sense.
“Prosecute them” in this situation is a silencing tactic. It says, “If you aren’t willing to spend endless time, money, energy, and resources going through a system that’s almost certain to dismiss even people who have experienced trauma that is more severe and more easily proven then your own, then stop talking about it.” And that’s fucked.
Oh, posts were unhidden. I re-post.
For clarification, #150 was follow-on to #146.
Classic. Jump into a forum and start pulling triggers all over, and then become petulant at the resulting firestorm.
There should be a minimum two-year comment-threads-lurking requirement here.
davideddy is gone, but I wanted to reply to this in #54 for the record:
When PZ asked me to come on board here, the deal was that I would write some stuff and he would share some of the blog’s income.
Ergo, this is a workplace. And even though only a minor amount of the shit that gets flung here is aimed at me, abuse aimed at others is widely accepted as contributing to an unsafe or hostile workplace environment.
Just trying to read over these comments is giving me a headache. I’m not really sure why people are getting worked up between the borderline semantic debate of “harassment vs. non-harassment” to cover specific circumstances. Comments can still be wrong, stupid, or hurtful even if they’re not “harassment” under most people’s definitions, and in some contexts even conduct that would usually qualify as “harassment” may be fully morally justified (e.g., picket lines and protests).
Also, I just wanted to link to Ken White’s great take down of the free speech is censorship trope. (and here’s another good one)
So, my take on the last 160 Posts:
Assholes: FUCK YOU FREEZE PEACH C***C***C***C***C***
PZM: Yeah no. Fuck off
Assholes: ERMAHGERD CENSORSHIP LAWSUIT EDWARD GEMMER IS MAI HERO!
PZM: *banhammer*
Assholes: *retreat to pit to plot anew*
so standard circle of slyme?
This. Harassment in the sense of repeatedly communicating with someone in a manner intended to annoy or alarm them is indeed illegal almost everywhere that I know of in the USA, despite what davideddy’s fevered imagination thought. And “cyberharassment” includes setting up defamatory or hateful web sites about someone. But be that as it may, good luck trying to get the laws enforced, especially with anonymous sock puppets and ever-changing pseudonyms.
SallyStrange adequately illustrated why even a forum that you never visit can be considered a harassing forum. Every bullied high school student with a facebook page knows this. Kids are killing themselves over facebook harassment campaigns in which other kids just make wall posts on their own pages, ridiculing them. But in davideddy’s world, that’s not harassment, because the victims don’t have to visit those pages.
davideddy:
What. An. Idiot.
MrFancyPants:
Yes, because it’s known that everyone logs onto the ‘net, goes directly to one site and one site only. If you go and surf *gasp*, well, that’s your fault.
Nothing screams “I’M GUILTY OF HARASSING PEOPLE ON THE INTERNET!” like some good ol’ fashioned rules lawyering.
Chris:
Yes, it is. I noted this in #92. I work through the ‘net myself, along with many lots* of people. That was another disconnect of davideddy’s, placing the ‘net in the sphere of “hey, it’s the internet, you know, not real.”
Discworld Troll counting.
Just for the heck of it, I entered “Caine, Fleur du mal” into four different search engines. On two of them, the “lying hag” thread was hit #3, on another it was #4. The only search engine that had it on the second page of entries was Bing. Which may be the first reason I’ve had to recommend Bing.
I had to stop at davideddy’s #109 and scroll to the end to see if that arrogant, sexist, mansplaining assclown was banned.
I am thoroughly appalled at his dismissal of the harassment SallyStrange has gone through. How dare he sit there and tell her she was wrong to think she was harassed and then proceed to correct her.
Thanks for banning that douchebag.
****
Caine:
So now he’s going to run to the pit to get his stars and talk with the other brave heroes about how oppressed and silenced they all are.
Ha! I thought the same thing. Let the celebration of confirmation bias begin.
Just read this whole thread, I always get this weird “vibe” from these guys like something is broken in their head. They can not seem to comprehend context or nuance very well.
I get this feeling they don’t understand how if one bad action is not harassment how can the same action just repeated a thousand times be harassment. Its like talking to Bizarro Superman or a robot from the original Star Trek series.
@ MrFancyPants:
Is it still confirmation bias if you systematically skew the data beforehand? There has to be another term for people who shit in the fountain and then complain the water looks brown.
“Self-fulfilling prophecy” came to mind more than “confirmation bias” but I’m sure there could be a more applicable existing term or a more hilarious neologism that could be concocted to describe it. I think “Texas Shitstirrer Bias” comes close, but just short of the mark (so to speak).
139
davideddy
Yeah, because rape threats and harassment is totally okay when the victim is “bitchy”‘ and “uppity”.
Fucking A. He deserved banning for this alone.
A lot of internet discussion is horribly abusive, full of aggressive language and personal insults. Sometimes even the posts of those whom I actually agree with. Soft skinned as I am, I have a hard time with it and often can’t take part even if the topic is interesting.
As long as this abusive content is confined to a specific forum which a person can choose to ignore and it doesn’t include threats of violence against a specific person or incitement of such against a group of people, it probably isn’t a problem.
But for instance the online threats Rebecca Watson apparently keeps getting clearly cross the line. I admire the thick skin she, among many others, has developed for herself. Still, I think these threats should be reported as crimes.
So, my question is this: Is the protection of free speech so absolute in the US that these violent online threats are legal there? Are there no laws protecting people from e.g. direct threats of rape and violence? Of course, it is up to the legal authorities to eventually decide if they are able to prosecute, but at least the police should have the obligation to investigate, shouldn’ it?
I believe they actually do, but without a solid enforcement mechanism (many police departments consider internet harassment a waste to investigate; not a US example, but check out how long it took Dennis Markuze to face any kind of consequences for his years upon years of continuous, documented, and reported harassment), nothing stops them from just looking at the post/comment in question and hand-waving it away.
David Eddy sounded very similar to David Jones / Metaburbia who got his line of crap from reading the Slymepit … Pushing the same if its not reported to the police then its not harassment line of bullshit. Probably been hanging out at the pit already, lurking, then pops over here for a ban cookie to take back home.
BTW if you haven’t seen David Jones / Mataburbia yet you surely will, not seen a worse case of Watson derangement syndrome since Hoggle.
There is always a time-lag between between change and the ability of the law – as written or as practiced by your village bobby – to catch up.
With technological change, such as the internet, there may well be recognition somewhere that the measures used against drunks in the main street need to be adapted to deal with bad behaviour in an entirely different context. That recognition, though, joins the bottom end of a very long list of “things we would do if only we had the resources, the time, the skill …”
As shockna has mentioned, it took a decade of Markuze persistently abusing a great number of people even to get him to court and checked out by a psychiatrist. The fact that he is back in action a very short time later suggests that either the law provides no sufficient remedy or the whole thing was not taken seriously enough.
With social change you have all those problems of resources and inertia plus people’s emotions are involved. Some averagely stupid creep who could well understand – if not like it – were he rude to me and my brother came around to thump him may find it necessary to mount a 2 or 3 year campaign and get all his little friends to join in the fun if, instead, I shout back at him loudly or from a public platform and all by myself.
I never did enough psychology to be sure exactly why but there’s fear in there somewhere – fear of going down an unlit alley and meeting a woman more articulate, more determined than youself, perhaps.
Yeah huh.
Actually he ran over to my joint first to complain in an off-topic comment that he’d been treated poorly here. Which, oddly, was the most recent banned sockpuppeteer’s decision as well.
I’m going to have to make this a sidebar post, clearly.
Re: 75 PZ Myers 8 June 2013 at 5:15 pm (UTC -5)
I would make the case that both are harassment. A single instance needs context: Are ten or a thousand of persons doing the same thing?
What is okay for one person to do isn’t okay for a hundred. And hence, if a hundred might do something then that first single step is similarly not-okay. It’s okay for me to pick a flower; it’s not okay for everyone to pick a plower lest there be no flowers; therefore I should not pick that flower.
See also microtransgressions, etc.
Re: 100 Caine, Fleur du mal 8 June 2013 at 6:15 pm (UTC -5)
No, that public spaces can be owned by private persons is tricky. Is it okay for a mall that is a town’s only public square ban all political speech it disagrees with (see also Salt Lake City)? Is it okay for someone to ban people from their house for their race? Their yard? Their street? Their restaurant?
This is tricky. Various ethical and moral systems will come up with different answers. That’s what they do. That doesn’t mean we haven’t made solutions and laws that apply fairly regularly.
re #182 Crissa
I call strawmanning. Even if an enclosed mall is the only place citizens choose to congregate at, it does not mean that that is the only public square available for free speech. Every town has a park or the steps of the courthouse or at least a sidewalk that is truly public property.
Now you are just trying to muddy the waters. Racial discrimination is NOT equivalent to enforcing reasonable behavior standards, which can include asking people to refrain from contentious speech in a place of business.
I’m still totally stunned at the “lie vs. accusation” nonsense.
Sally can most certainly know for a fact whether or not she faked a rape threat. Continuing to asset she did absent all evidence is nonfactual, i.e., lying.
You could call it libel, I suppose, but it’s not an “assertion” or an accusation after its been refuted.
…At the end, though, why must harassment require or allow criminal prosecution for it to be wrong?
Things can be agreeably right or wrong – without some authority saying so. It’s wrong to steal a pen, but that doesn’t mean you should be hauled off to court for doing so.
Re: 183 moarscienceplz 9 June 2013 at 5:38 pm (UTC -5)
I don’t think you read my post. It’s a straw man argument to point out a specific egregious incident? Since when? Who did I assert made the argument?
Yeesh. It was just a list of examples that asserts there is complexity to the issue and that while we have drawn lines, the lines are still not as bright as they could be.
Crissa, I was speaking about expectations and standards of social behaviour, which is why I used peeing in public as my example.
Crissa @ #186
Why, of course. Somehow I managed to blockquote you twice without actually reading the content.
/sarcasm
You assert that a shopping mall is/can be “a town’s only public square”. I assert that that is impossible, and therefore you are strawmanning. There is ALWAYS some sort of public space available for free speech that is not controlled by any commercial entity. You may feel that those spaces do not have the audience that would be desirable, but remember: Free Speech Does Not Entitle You To An Audience!
More Crissa
OK, I’ll accept your assertion that you are arguing in good faith. However, your list doesn’t support your argument because none of your examples are actually complex. If I ban someone from my home because I don’t like their race, I am acting like an ass, but I am absolutely within my rights to do so. Same goes for my yard. As for my street, well, it isn’t “my” street. It is a public thoroughfare that I have no direct control over. If my city government tried to keep the “wrong” races off it, they would be violating the 14th Amendment. And if I banned certain races from my restaurant (assuming it is open to the public and not a private club), I would be violating the 14th Amendment as well. Nothing “tricky” in any one of these cases.
Re: 188 moarscienceplz 9 June 2013 at 9:07 pm (UTC -5}
You assert nothing. Of course you disagree.
But in disagreeing, you show you didn’t even read my comment.
182 (emphasis added for you):
186 (emphasis added):
Caine, a mall can ban someone for smelling like urine – for any reason they want. The only way to fight back is to out themselves as someone who has an ADA covered reason to smell like urine. Is that really the world you think is simple? One where people have to drop trouser to prove they have a colostomy bag and aren’t just homeless?
Oh, I get it now! Crissa just doesn’t like the boundaries that two centuries of careful American jurisprudence has established for Freeze Peach, therefore the situation is “complex” and “tricky”.
Gee, smelling of urine = colostomy bag. I think somebody has an irrational bee up their headgear. Still not as complexed or nuanced as you make it out to be, with lots of precedent. Why pretend complexity where there isn’t any?
Why pretend that years of case law isn’t complex? Why pretend there aren’t still problems?
What is wrong with you that you’d take such a position that there is no where to go and the path here hasn’t been difficult?
As it is, there really is little recourse for someone who has been denied access to a public space. Maybe you can sue – but in many case, you can’t. That takes money, after all, and baring all to the public eye. In other words, you lose all privacy just to get back in a difficult, uncertain, and not simple process.
I think the most amazing thing about her post is all the men it is about demonstrating its truth in their attempts to “disprove” it.
Further more, the whole rigmarole really brings home the entitlement that is the core of the “Freeze Peach” brigade. The over-privileged horde is used to having the world be treated as revolving around them. Used to only having their life experiences and issues discussed, used to having their opinions being treated as welcome and wise in all spaces, and used to being able to dominate a space with the slightest effort.
So when someone actually does say “no” to them, actually calls them out on their shit, actually points out the life experiences of others besides them, and/or actually denies them dominance of that someone’s space, it breaks them.
Such things just don’t happen. It’s not the way of things that they are used to. And so end up sputtering and feeling like they’ve just had something terrible happen to them that seems grossly unfair, but have no ability to put it into words.
Because it’s not unfair and they are so used to the world being unfair on their behalf, the world supporting them in silencing minority voices, that fairness and genuine free speech are unrecognizable. In much the way that a true free market is completely unrecognizable to those who fetishize it.
And it also reveals that they’ve never faced anything even approaching real censorship. They’ve never had to still their tongue and accept harassment with a smile because they would lose their job otherwise. They’ve never faced unending rape threats and dedicated attempts to remove them from the internet and drive them to suicide simply because they recognized something happening in society. They’ve never tried to be themselves and faced a greater risk for assault, murder, and discrimination for it.
The worst they’ve faced is that when they try and make lives worse for other people, those other people and those who think they are human might recognize them as assholes and call them out for the first time in their lives for it.
And if they really think THAT’S the worst “censorship” a person can face, then, fuck, I’ll trade my past year with any damn one of them that’s willing.
Sorry, assholes of the world, but there’s no PC mafia. There’s no prize for being a complete fuck who doesn’t want to respect other people as human beings. It doesn’t make you brave. It doesn’t give you martyr points. It doesn’t mean your life is some brave struggle against censorship and conspiracies.
Your life is a dull defense of an abusive and oppressive status quo that makes life for people like me an unending hell it needs not be.
And I’m damn tired of those of us on the outside looking in being treated like the little dolls of your little game wear you try on the language of real oppression because you’re tired of being the bad guy.
If you’re so damn tired of it, just stop being that. Actually stand up for minority populations, counter real discrimination, censorship, and abuse and stand up against real authoritarian assholes. Take the risk, accept the minimizations, loss of social respect, and of course the death threats and stalking that will come with that.
Or accept that you are cowards playing a coward’s game and accept that we owe you nothing in aiding you to come to terms with that.