Marc:

I would expect no less flare from you. Well stated. I agree, specifically, with your last statement. One thing to consider is how people view their identity. Some women identify themselves as females first, most likely because of their biology; others might identify with their sexuality first or their spirituality or profession, perhaps motherhood AS THE main identity upon which they create a life. The same would apply to men.

Biologically I think our life is based solely on gender. However, I think the mind is gender-neutral and the anonymity in chat-rooms may trigger the “anonymity” – gender-neutralness of the mind. Meaning, the intent isn’t to harass a male or female via their gender. The intent is to harass another person who just happens to be female in this case and attacking the sexuality of a female is the easiest way to go.

When a woman wants to attack a man, well, any smart dad will teach a girl to hit those balls, and we do. It works. The same applies to the verbal sexual abuse towards women. It works and this debate proves it.

What I wonder is, if a woman identifies herself via sexuality first (based on biology) then what would drive one woman (A) to call this type of harassment against women and another (B) to say it’s an attack towards another human being, therefore requiring a different type of discourse? An answer might lie in the way each woman identifies herself on the comprehensive or narrow view held in the area of female sexuality, individual and as a group. I suspect woman A might feel enslaved to a biology she cannot control and from personal experience, the entire reproductive system and the vagina do in fact create an enslavement of sorts for the roles females play. It is frustrating and from a purely female perspective, I find this harassment to be against women. However, looking at it sans biology and strictly from the gender-neutral place of logic, feminism needs a modern spin on its philosophy. This case is a stupid boys grow up to be stupid men scenerio. Have mother’s failed their sons?

What women really need is education on female sexuality and the way it can empower them rather than continuing this fight that’s just making women look like a bunch of cry babies to men. Cyber-harassment is not okay yet why is the attack always on women via sexuality? Because it’s the weak point for women.

What many women don’t keep in mind – just a guess from life experience – is that male talk is derogatory. They use trashy language amongst themselves in a group and in chat rooms. Look at your (Randazza’s) word choice of “douche”. Point is, men are like that so what do women do, change men? Ha! Good luck. Maybe women can take males’ crappy lingo with a grain of salt because most often, *that’s* how it’s meant to be taken. This doesn’t diminish the inappropriateness of the cyber-harassment in this case but to consider violating free speech simply because some women can’t handle the real world is asinine and completely un-American. This is high school taken into adulthood!

Could it be that modern women have become sexually confused because of the conflicting messages they’ve been given about sex from the onset of 2nd wave feminism? Clearly the new generation is sexually oppressed while violence is glorified for them. It is a wonder sexual harassment occurs in the only non-real place of existence where nobody knows your name? Isn’t it crazy that a recent poll discovered more teens thought Rihanna “asked for” a beating than not? Here we have 2nd wave feminists cat fighting about how women don’t have equality and are being sexually harassed and yet the young generation accepts that violence and fear are a norm yet they’ve gone hog wile in their sexuality? Who actually guided the youth? Perhaps we ought to lighten up on the sex thing and concentrate on the violence a bit more. Creating healthy attitude about sexuality can only empower us, men and women. Violence is never healthy.

The only crime here is that the guys were guilty of being total assholes. I know a few of those. Too bad we can’t criminalize assholeness. Count me in as a supporter if it ever comes to be. I’m rather tired of yet another debate about how a woman was a victim. I’ve been a victim so many times it just rolls off of me now. It doesn’t mean I didn’t cry or that I didn’t feel attacked, helpless, fearful or angry. It means I found self-empowerment through it. Life is tough so get tough and one way to toughen up is to not allow stupid and/or cruel verbal sexual attacks to bring women down.

By screaming feminist attack, it merely gives men more power over that kind of abuse and I have yet to meet one man who doesn’t possess some sort of wall with the word feminism. The average person has no clue what 1st, 2nd or 3rd feminist waves are. The average “Joe” groups them together and they equal in meaning 2nd wave simply because that’s what they’ve grown up with, they’re the women who have shaped what is the status-quo.

Men are sexually confused too. America needs Dr. Marty Klein and those like him. We’re simply at the verge of a new sexual revolution being driven by youth and too many of us “oldies” think that’s a scary thought. Stop the bickering. The key to modern feminism is female sexual empowerment. Who’s teaching that to our youth? It’s not women who feel their sexuality belongs to men that’s for sure. Everybody has been abused or in some dysfunctional situation or another. We all have a story. Here’s a tissue. I want to hear about how women found ways to make their sad stories successful ones because those women didn’t allow men’s assumed power to destroy them. That’s how I define a feminist.

“…all else being equal, framing the issue as a women’s issue, as opposed to a social order issue, will result in greater visibility within the academy (marginally higher likelihood of publication, higher readership, etc…”

JP- excellent. I rather more and more enjoy that I’m not part of academic molding but simultaneously, I don’t then think about the point you brought up. If I understand correctly, what you’re saying is that framing it as a woman’s issue creates greater potential for *mainstreaming* the information, be it via discourse or generally education onto others about its occurrence. Is this a correct interpretation?

If so, on the surface it would appear to benefit women; however, deeper I think it becomes the type of complaint Randazza illustrates. I do agree it ought to be discussed but in a humanist form.

-Tatiana

So, world of warcraft, right? just wondering.

As for the larger conversation, 1) sorry you and your friend had to deal with that stuff. 2) its interesting that then blizzard decided from a customer service POV to fix the problem. no need for legislation. Of course, if we are talking about WOW, we are talking about a (relatively) small and controllable evironment. But there is a good example of how we can control this without resorting to government intervention.

I know many would trivialize my own experience, because it occurred within an online game, but all I can say to that is it was no less unnerving.

The harassment started as an apparent attempt to coerce me into divulging a female friend’s personal information. As our friendship was entirely within this game I had no such information, so even if I was stupid enough to answer the aggressor, I couldn’t have satisfied his requests.

But the true motive of this idiot became clear as the stalking and harassment continued. He may well want this information, so he can then harass my friend, but he was also jealous of our friendship.

The pattern was simple. I would be threatened and harassed and told to stop talking to my friend. I would then report him to the game’s developers and they would ban the account. Unfortunately he was adept at hacking accounts and the harassment would start up again the following day. I have no idea how many innocent people’s accounts were shut down, but certainly no less than a dozen.

Eventually Blizzard allowed me to rename my account for free, and since then the harassment has stopped.

But the moral here is although I was the one being stalked and harassed, the real object of this person’s assault was my female friend.

I did tell her about the first incident because I was worried. It appeared as though someone was trying to get her information to harass her in a far worse manner than my experience. Fortunately she’s not naive and as a rule does not give out any information that could identify her, even to good friends. You really can’t tell who you’re talking with online, and someone who one day appears to be a great pal, could the next be a twisted individual.

The follow up attacks I kept to myself. I saw no reason to burden her with this, it was my problem not hers. The guy was jealous of our friendship and was trying to end it. However it looks like he’ll be regretting this intensely in the near future.

Blizzard have told me they have taken this issue very seriously. They have the person’s IP address, I’ve sent them screen shots of the harassment, including the requests for information, and they are going to involve the police.

Hopefully this is one less stalker taken from the internet, and if he needs real psychological help, perhaps he’ll get that too.

This is a fantastic idea. I’ve experimented with this myself. If you go over to BigLawBoard, you’ll find some still juvenile behavior. However, I’ve started posting there and I haven’t been afraid to informally use my social influence to ask for greater civility. Aside from becoming the butt of a few good natured jokes myself, it has been pretty much a success.

C.L., what you are suggesting is actually getting in there and participating in the marketplace of ideas — instead of crying to the government to intervene or to create intervention mechanisms for individuals to abuse. Fabulous idea. Keep spreading it!

Thank you for your posts on cyberbullying. As a young female who grew up glued 5-6 hours per day to the internet and early forums, I have personal experience with these attacks on females. I, many times, had to create new identities when forums found out that I am female, simply because the harassment was extreme.

From my experience, men who involve themselves in these types of forums expect the environment to be a safe haven for male juvenile behavior. When a female is discovered, they oust her. However, they try to scare females away by making an example of those females who participate, for example, by making very real threats of rape and destroying her offline identity.

I agree that this is a problem of culture. Much like feminism in the real world needed the support of men for other men to accept it widely, so cyberbullying against females (and the minority which is against males) can be stopped when prominent members of forums refuse to condone the behavior. This is why I would suggest having an honorary moderator system, meaning users who frequently post productive comments (as judged by the site’s owners and current moderators) receive honors in the community which allow them to in turn judge the comments of others up or down. This creates a respected role-model of sorts in the community and can in turn prevent harassment and the horrible attacks discussed in your article here.

No, just the laws you like.

> observing the phenomenon DOES change it.

Really. And how exactly did those “scientists” observe non observance? The concept that observation changes things is interesting as theology, but it is not science. They can call themselves scientists all they want, and I can call myself a peacock, too, or the queen of England. That doesn’t make me either of those things. But claiming to have any idea what happens in the situation of nonobservance is silly. By definition, non observance is unobservable. It is really unbelievable the crap that passes for science these days.

> But I never said it, and I never believed it.

That is precisely what you are saying when you say that people will take freedom of speech as a cue to engage in unlawful action, thinking “hey if I am free to say I would like to rape someone, I guess I can get away with actually doing it.”

> You’ve repeatedly ascribed to me the belief that people who are unaware of danger are therefore not in danger.

When you argue that keeping people in the dark reduces danger, that is exactly what you are saying.

> Also, the belief that if we force people not to talk about something, they will simply never think those thoughts, and will suddenly become good citizens.

What else am I supposed to make of your silly “broken windows” theory? You were talking about speech translating into action, and limiting speech limiting action.

And notice that you didn’t even contradict me on the terrorism thing; even you realize on second thought, that was pretty lame.

Look, if you don’t want to own your dubious beliefs, that is fine. But don’t pretend you didn’t say it.

(And let’s all note for the record the mocking last line. i guess mockery IS an appropriate argumentation technique.)

I never said that people should be jailed for talking about breaking the law.

That’s something you’ve “disagreed” with me about over and over and over again. It’s almost the straw man fallacy, except in this case, you weren’t framing my argument in a negative light, you were arguing against something I never said at all. And well done, I might add.

An interesting note about Schrodinger, since I’ve dabbled in quantum physics. His experiment had the OPPOSITE effect of what he intended. The thought experiment baffled the physicists, until they discovered the Heisenberg Uncertainty principle and realized that yes, observing the phenomenon DOES change it.

I’m not saying it affects this argument, I just find it funny that you twice mentioned Schrodinger, and got it backwards.

Also about Jonathan Swift. I believe that if someone were to engage him in a debate, he would not have begun mocking them, he would be able to engage them in educated discourse. He wrote a treatise mocking an absurd version of his opponents arguments.

You’ve repeatedly said of me that I believe that “people are too stupid to distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom of action”.

Again, it’s a ridiculous idea worthy of belittlement. And you did a very good job of mocking me for it. But I never said it, and I never believed it.

You’ve repeatedly ascribed to me the belief that people who are unaware of danger are therefore not in danger. Surely that also would be a dumb assertion. Which is why I never made it.

Also, the belief that if we force people not to talk about something, they will simply never think those thoughts, and will suddenly become good citizens. That would be a beautiful, optimistic utopia. One that only a fool would believe in. Once again, you masterfully highlighted a ridiculous idea as being ridiculous. And I appreciate that because I never knew that I believed it until you told me I did.

You’ve mentioned that I’m trying to create a fascist utopia. I guess you caught me.

If this response seems less civil than my earlier attempts, that’s because it is. I appreciate debate between disagreeing but respectful parties, but it has become clear that you don’t respect me, and I no longer respect your opinions, although I respect your right to have them. Real world problems deserve serious consideration, and your trivializing mockery shows that you’re no longer willing to engage with real ideas, instead choosing to just oppose whatever I say.

You disagreed with me even at the times I was agreeing with you. Masterful.

-Devin

Some ideas are best responded to, by mockery. in the debate over the fugitive slave act of 1850, Thaddeus Stevens constructed a brilliant satire of the claim that slaves were happy, arguing that if they were so happy, then it was a discrimination against white people to exclude them from enjoying this happy condition. He then goes on, in a very Swiftian way, to describe how white people could be enslaved, in a way that both affirms his belief that there was no difference between the races (yes, he actually thought that way back in 1850), and also to strike fear in whites that the slaveholders might start enslaving white people next.

The example of Schrodinger I already gave is another example of how ridicule can be appropriate as a method of argumentation.

the idea that a person is safer not knowing of the dangers in life is absurd. The idea that a woman is less likely to be raped without a gun than with one, is absurd. And ignorance may be blissful, unless suddenly reality whacks you with a two-by-four that maybe you could have avoided if you were not so ignorant. And sheesh, calling a bunch of guys saying piggish crap in a chatroom are terrorists, c’mon, that is BEGGING to be mocked.

If you don’t want to be ridiculed, try being less ridiculous, especially as you advocate that we pee all over my first amendment. I bluntly can’t believe that a man from Canada would look with clear eyes on what is going on in the name of “human rights” and the right not to be offended and think that this is a good idea that ought to be imported south.

It seems to me that your last post was simply mocking my own.

You even mocked my “I 100% agree” comment, and took it to mean that I don’t understand you.

I could go point by point to respond to you, but since your responses are glibness wrapped around your point, I would only responding to the glib facade in front of your arguments, while trying to extrapolate your core argument. And since we have both repeatedly misinterpreted the other person, I’m not going to try and unshroud your explicit meaning.

If you’re going to mock and condescend my opinions instead of respond to them, then I’m afraid our conversation has drawn to it’s close.

-Devin

> I’m going to characterize the forum posters as terrorists.

So we should throw them in Gitmo? Don’t cheapen the term.

> Regardless of if they were trying to harm this woman, they WERE trying to attack her sense of self and her ability to live her life on her own terms.

Gee, I thought they were being pigs and then lashed out when called on it. But who knew, this was a conspiracy to harm her personhood. *rolls eyes*

> The goal of a terrorist is not necessarily to kill all their enemies.

Gee, I found that argument persuasive until, around, say, 9-10-01. But overwhelmingly the terrorists who merely want me to feel fear don’t bother me so much as the ones who want to kill all infidels, starting with the Israelis.

> Once she is carrying the gun on her hip, her life is changed, she is characterized by her NEED to protect herself.

You seem to be under the impression that you can wish away the dangers in life. You seem to think that, just as Schrodinger’s cat is not dead or alive until you look and find out, that if she is only shielded from the knowledge of the danger that somehow it won’t exist. But Schrodinger made up his example to mock this frankly religious view of quantum physics, because it is, in the end, unscientific crap. (because science is precisely about what you can observe; so how exactly can you observe a lack of observation?) Schrodinger’s point was in fact the cat was either alive or dead, and our lack of knowledge of that fact didn’t change the facts.

But then again, I am a fervent believer in murphy’s law, so there is that.

> I’m curious as to what the studies would show about a criminal who also had a gun? Would it cause the situation to escalate? (I’m asking because I don’t know)

So instead she should remain completely vulnerable, rather than having a fighting chance. Okay.

> Back to the terrorism issue, if she is forced to become a single issue voter, then those forum posters have stolen her democratic rights.

Again, you seem to think that if you don’t know about the danger, it doesn’t exist.

> I 100% agree.

But you don’t seem to understand how to apply that to the facts.

> The analogy (to be more clear) is that in environments where people believe such behaviour is acceptable, then they will be more likely to act in such a way.

If all you mean is if people think they are free to speak, then they will speak freely, then, well, no duh. But you don’t mean that. you think that people are so stupid that they can’t distinguish between freedom of speech and freedom of action.

I suppose I should be arrested for playing grand theft auto, then. I mean, in that gane I can be pretty viscious. I have killed probably about 500 people in the latest game alone, and if a cop gets in my way, I happily take him down. Gosh, I am just a mass murderer in waiting… Orrr, we might all recognize that those pixilated people AREN’T REAL and therefore no one is really hurt.

> Side note, I completely, wholeheartedly, and totally support gay marriage in all it’s forms. I feel strongly enough about it to break up the flow of my argument

So then you surely don’t think Mr. Sulu (George Takai) should be arrested merely for saying he would like to marry a man, right? Even if the thought of gay marriage makes, say, Jerry Fallwell pee his pants?

> The fact is, every new law takes away a little bit of freedom, and shifts us a minuscule amount towards fascism.

Any law that bans speech as speech, or bans particular subjects of speech is not just a small step for fascism, but one giant leap in its direction. Freedom of speech is one of the cores that uphold our democracy. If there is no freedom of speech, a nation cannot be said to be a democracy.

> Their goal was to use freedom of speech as a tool to hurt her, and they did. A bank is not robbed by saying “We should rob a bank”, but a person can be terrorized by the words “I want to rape you”.

Except your hypothetical doesn’t even line up with reality. And let’s not forget that OJ can be terrorized in my example, and so forth and so on. And I remember once an emailer to Bill O’Reilly said that when she found out that NAMBLA existed, she literally burst into tears that anyone could be so evil. Freedom of speech hurts. Like all freedoms, there is a price, and gosh, it might even have a disparate impact, too. There is no way to excise the hurt without excising the freedom.

> I feel first of all that my benign statement does not say what you say.

No, it is exceedingly clear that this is exactly what you mean. That if we just stop people from talking about it, the danger doesn’t exist. If you didn’t mean it with those particular words, that appears to be your philosophy overall: ignorance is bliss.

> Second of all, I’m saying that when people say malicious, terrorizing, threatening things, we must not hide behind freedom of speech and let them get away with it. we must BRANDISH freedom of speech (as Marc does) and bring the mountain down on them.

You have been talking about a little more than just that. otherwise you wouldn’t bother to disagree with me. I have always made it clear that I was perfectly happy with Marc’s good speech v. bad speech approach. what I was objecting to is Danielle’s willingness to outlaw that conduct.

> Also, you say “stop a man from talking about his desires” and as I’ve characterized in my terrorism thread, in this case, the man can accomplish his desires through speech. Freedom of speech does not protect the man who asks another man to kill for him. Freedom of speech should not protect those who are using the words to carry out their harm.

What complete drivel. So basically you are free to speak as long as you don’t “hurt anyone” including harms that are purely emotional. So if I call black people bad names and make a few black people cry, I should be arrested? If I speak out against gay marriage, same problem.

(And as a point of fact, contract killing is dealt with under the doctrine of verbal acts.)

Gee, you are talking in such fascistic terms, I am frankly a little scared and crying. So I will go find you in Cannuckistan and carry out a citizen’s arrest for “harming” me. /sarcasm

And though you claimed my last point was well written, you didn’t address it at all. Can you really argue that you know your strategies will work? And if not, then how can you justify this “minimal” intrusion on freedom of speech?

This is a literal fact.

If you see a sign (that you believe) that says “minefield” then you are less likely to walk there. If no such sign exists, and you do not already know it’s a minefield, then the fact that it IS a minefield will have no effect on your behaviour.

If she buys a gun, and no one knows about it, then the ‘deterrence’ argument cannot be made.

AW did successfully argue for deterrence when he mentioned brandishing, or firing a warning shot. In those cases, she is publishing her deterrence. That is why, a dog stops intruders who trespass, and “beware of dog” discourages people from trespassing at all. So if your argument is that having a gun will be a deterrent in the short case, where she is required to show her attacker, then I’ll agree. If you think it will make her better off in general, then you’ll have to allow me to respectfully disagree. If you believe that having a concealed weapon will act as a deterrent by it’s unknown presence, then that is factually incorrect.

“Once she is carrying the gun on her hip, her life is changed…”

“Again, well, no; I know people who openly carry tools of various sorts on the hip, and no, that doesn’t characterize them, and no, the weight is not that big a deal.”

I was not talking about literal weight. I feel like a simple symbolic statement shouldn’t need extra clarification, but you are correct that in such a long and careful argument, I should have articulated myself better.

I meant what it represents. A person who carries a toolbelt isn’t characterized by their tools unless they allow themselves to be. I have to carry my work phone with me, which constantly reminds me that I’m working, even when I’m ‘off-duty’. In her case, the gun on her hip means that she is constantly aware of her own fear. Of the fact that she NEEDS the gun to feel safe, or the fact that she CAN’T feel safe without it. She must strap it on every day and view all the people with shadowed faces as a possible attacker. This gun was forced upon her.

To clarify that last statement, lest it be interpreted literally.

She did not carry the gun until she felt threatened enough to buy one. It was not on her own terms, it was on the terms of the anonymous posters, they made her feel threatened.

Cheers,

-Devin

Well, no. Deterrence doesn’t require knowledge; it requires fear. In this case, it’s demonstrable (and it’s been downright, err, demonstered) that the fear of being shot by an erstwhile victim and and does (not always, of course) deter certain kinds of misbehavior.

And: Once she is carrying the gun on her hip, her life is changed, she is characterized by her NEED to protect herself. Even if those men never go near her, the constant weight on her hip reminds her that she can’t feel safe anymore.

Again, well, no; I know people who openly carry tools of various sorts on the hip, and no, that doesn’t characterize them, and no, the weight is not that big a deal.

BA HA HA HA! You didn’t REALLY think that of the Left, did you?

No, the Right wants to repeal the First Amendment. The Left wants to simply change what every fuckin word in it means until it doesn’t mean anything anymore — all in the name of making sure that nobody ever feels offended again, because in Left Wing Academia World, the right to never have your widdle feewings hurt and the right to never feel offended trumps the right to Free Speech.

Au contraire, sir. It makes me think infinitely more of you.

Well said, as always. My name is Devin Bialo, and I’m actually not in academia, I’m a computer programmer. I hope that doesn’t make you think less of me.

Another thing you noted is “So, how do we beat the trolls while simultaneously holding back the academic/left-wing/censorship hordes?”

If you’ll allow me a moment to take your comment and change it. I thought that Left Wing is generally regarded as the Liberal sect, who are fans of freedom of speech in every way shape or form.

A key tenet of freedom of speech is that I’m allowed to voice my (apparently unpopular) opinions about it, without rebuke. However, it is NECESSARY to have a devil’s advocate. Even though in this case, I am espousing my own position, I think that all debate is heightened by having someone argue the other side.

The people like me, who are in favour of tempering freedom of speech, and not given free reign to… damage… (I’ll refrain from your imagery) the constitution, whilst the balance is held in check so that the people like (an exaggerated version of) you are not able to include all speech in freedom of speech (I.E. blackmail is legal because it’s just speech).

Balance is only possible through compromise, not by brow-beating your opposition.

That’s why I appreciate all your opinions (not just Marc, but everyone) because it gives me some perspective so I can temper and clarify my own beliefs.

@JR

I echo your appreciation for Marc’s comment, and I apologize if anyone feels I was even uncivil.

On the other note, if you could quote my factually incorrect statement about firearms, I’d appreciate it. Because I only stated my beliefs. And the reason I said I didn’t want to make it a discussion about guns is because I don’t share your beliefs, and I haven’t shared your experiences, and although I’ll voice my disagreement when I disagree, I don’t want to talk about it, because we’ll simply continue to disagree, and no headway will be made. I never meant to be unfair to you. If you want to get into a long-winded discussion about gun philosophies, I’ll be happy to do it, but I admit I would be thin on facts until I studied, and so I try to avoid stating those facts that I don’t have.

Once you highlight the factually incorrect statements I’ll be happy to clarify what I meant, or recant my statement if false.

@AW

I’ll try to keep this short… probably unsuccessfully.

There is a theme in my following comments. I’m going to characterize the forum posters as terrorists. This is because I believe the shoe fits. Regardless of if they were trying to harm this woman, they WERE trying to attack her sense of self and her ability to live her life on her own terms.

The goal of a terrorist is not necessarily to kill all their enemies. Their goal is (definitionally) to terrorize people. The famous terrorists have done this through mass murder, but the goal was to have the entire country fear them. Their object was shock and awe, they wanted everyone to feel fundamentally unsafe, and they were successful in that. Residents of suburban Granville, Ohio, to Skokie, Illinois, to San Francisco, California. Everyone felt it, even the people who had a infinitesimal chance of being attacked, they were stocking up on canned goods.

I hope you’re accepting my definition of terrorist, because it’s critical to what comes next. Once the forum posters crossed the line into knowing that she was aware, and they continued to taunt and continued to threaten, they were not necessarily possible rapists, but they were using the fear or rape to exert control over her life, they were trying to feel powerful that they could anonymously harm her, and she had no recourse.

Maybe they were inadvertent, maybe not, but it’s what they were doing.

“Who said anything about it being concealed? Why not carry it on her hip?”

Once she is carrying the gun on her hip, her life is changed, she is characterized by her NEED to protect herself. Even if those men never go near her, the constant weight on her hip reminds her that she can’t feel safe anymore.

“And even when not in plain sight, studies show that in most cases one is able to defend yourself merely by brandishing it, or perhaps firing a warning shot. That works pretty well.”

In the case where she was confronted, yes. I agree.

I’m curious as to what the studies would show about a criminal who also had a gun? Would it cause the situation to escalate? (I’m asking because I don’t know)

[Politics is not clean cut]

“but 1) some people truly are single issue voters.”

Back to the terrorism issue, if she is forced to become a single issue voter, then those forum posters have stolen her democratic rights. She must now ignore all her other issues, because the only thing she can think about is safety. I would draw an analogy to the American Elections after 9/11 where issues other than Security were all shoved aside. That’s not good for democracy, and it would not be good for the person in question.

” And 2) there is no rational doubt that an informed populace is better able to govern themselves. Why should I even belabor the point?”

I 100% agree.

“And 3) even if you are not a single issue voter, it is part of your decision who to vote for.”

Yes, and I don’t believe I’ve ever advocated straying from that.

“Unless you literally don’t believe the politicians are at all responsive to the will of the people, then making sure the people is informed is a part of democracy.”

I agree, although I would like you to clarify the relevance.

[Broken Windows]

“Um, broken windows applied to physical signs of anyone being in charge. Everyone understands that if people can speak freely, it only means that the constitution exists.”

In this case, I was drawing the analogy to the broken window theory. The analogy (to be more clear) is that in environments where people believe such behaviour is acceptable, then they will be more likely to act in such a way. That is the underlying part of broken windows. I am suggesting that the prevalence of these boards where people foster such outlandish statements, makes each of the posters feel more comfortable that such things might be acceptable in the real world. I understand that you disagree, I was just trying to put different words for my argument.

“Most sane people understand the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of action. And, I might add, the man wasn’t talking about crime, but a desire to commit a crime. Evil, yes, but it is his right.”

I’ve already said that unlike Danielle who is reconciling her opinions with freedom of speech, I understand that my opinions in this case are contrary to freedom of speech. As I have mentioned before, there are already notes on what kind of speech is acceptable. There is a difference between calling someone a slut, and saying that you enjoy watching them in the shower. I am simply characterizing the comments of these forum posters as more akin to the former than the latter. And as such, I would look at what kind of consequences there would be to such things.

“Indeed your own language betrays what a complete logical fallacy that is. Yes, when it appears that there is more crime, crime is more likely to occur, not more discussion of crime.”

My own language didn’t betray a logical fallacy because there wasn’t one. An analogy is not a literal interpretation, in the same way that the broken windows theory applies to more than just windows.

“I mean, my God, what a fascist utopia you create this way.”

You then describe quite a number of different statements with varying degrees of “offensiveness”. (Side note, I completely, wholeheartedly, and totally support gay marriage in all it’s forms. I feel strongly enough about it to break up the flow of my argument)

According to reductio ad absurdum, which you used to imply that I’m a fascist (or that I support a fascist utopia), I’ll use to imply that you’re an anarchist.

Actually, I won’t. Because you’re not. The fact is, every new law takes away a little bit of freedom, and shifts us a minuscule amount towards fascism. Every repeal, on the other hand, reduces order, and moves us a bit towards anarchy. I’m defining anarchy, by the way, in the terms i understand it. In an Anarchistic society, there are no laws, and the punishment for all crime is simply enacted by the general populace without guidelines. Please correct my misunderstanding.

“According to your theory, then, they should not be allowed to express a desire to sleep together, either, so long as the conduct is illegal.”

You took my argument to mean that i feel speaking about breaking the law should be considered breaking the law. I hope that I didn’t actually imply that, because I certainly don’t believe it. I’m saying that the forum posters were using words as weapons to terrorize this woman. Their goal was to use freedom of speech as a tool to hurt her, and they did. A bank is not robbed by saying “We should rob a bank”, but a person can be terrorized by the words “I want to rape you”. That is the distinction I would like to make.

“”I’m a fan of fewer dangers.”"

“Again, you keep assuming that if you stop the man from talking about his desires, he will stop feeling them, or will not act on them.”

I feel first of all that my benign statement does not say what you say.

Second of all, I’m saying that when people say malicious, terrorizing, threatening things, we must not hide behind freedom of speech and let them get away with it. we must BRANDISH freedom of speech (as Marc does) and bring the mountain down on them. The conditioning (yes, conditioning) will convince these people that such words and thoughts are not within the norms. Please note, since I believe I just irked enough of you to spew fire at me for that statement, that this type of behavioural conditioning is implicit in ALL SOCIAL NORMS. That’s how we teach our children, that’s how we learn how to behave in company. If we do something and everyone laughs at us, we make a mental note not to do it. If we say something, and everyone spews venomous fire, then we must re-evaluate saying those things.

Yes, I’m saying exactly what Marc said. But I’m willing to go further, and say that there could be codified consequences.

Also, you say “stop a man from talking about his desires” and as I’ve characterized in my terrorism thread, in this case, the man can accomplish his desires through speech. Freedom of speech does not protect the man who asks another man to kill for him. Freedom of speech should not protect those who are using the words to carry out their harm.

Your last two paragraphs, which were very well written, I’ll simply paraphrase.

“New laws must be created only to serve a compelling interest.” and that we should be 100% certain (or at least very certain).

Keep in mind, I don’t believe I’m the one who should write the law, and when the law is written (or quashed) I hope there are people like you there to ensure balance. But as I’ve highlighted before, I believe that the freedom of speech banner is obscuring some issues which need to be confronted, such as terrorizing a woman and then ducking behind free speech. Freedom of Speech is the foremost right, which is why it is the most often abused.

Dingdingding. For those folks who haven’t heard that before, that’s the sound of the nail being hit on the head. The proper social sanction for somebody saying something almost preposterously creepy is to be thought of as a preposterous creep, after all.

(Oh, and Devin? While the First Amendment, hereabouts, does allow you to make factually incorrect statements about what can or can’t be done with firearms and then immediately declare the the discussion isn’t about firearms, it’s just a tad unfair to those of us who know something about the subject.)

(Applause)

Yes, we need to strive to create an environment where such incivility is met with contempt. I think a lot of A.W.’s theories about free speech are spot-on, but I also think that you guys are descending into a pot of red herring stew.

Stay focused: The way to cure this bad speech is through more speech. The way to bring about more speech is through commitment by good people to speak up. The wrong way is to, as Joel put it, screw the First Amendment with a chainsaw.

We will all be victimized if we let the Academy play its “victim studies” game by simply re-defining very important concepts like “freedom” and “free speech” and “equality” to fit their publishing agenda. We similarly are victimized when “academics” rely on lies and half-truths to do the same.

However, we all lose a little something as well when the trolls win.

So, how do we beat the trolls while simultaneously holding back the academic/left-wing/censorship hordes? That is really what should be debated here. I think that Citron’s ideas are as much a threat to online discourse as a dozen “lonelyvirgin” posters.

Smack in the middle are a few people who still believe in the First Amendment and the search for truth. It is like standing between the Hutus and the Tutsis, both of which want to hack each other to pieces, but both of them are dead wrong.

So pick up your blue helmets and come up with a solution. Be part of the solution. I’d suggest you start by posting with your real names. Of course, if you are in academia, I realize that being against the critical gender theorist is professional suicide, so perhaps you can’t. But, if you can own your words — then do so!

> Deterrence only works when people are aware of the deterrent. That is, for you to be less likely to attack someone with a gun, you have to KNOW that they have a gun.

Who said anything about it being concealed? Why not carry it on her hip?

And even when not in plain sight, studies show that in most cases one is able to defend yourself merely by brandishing it, or perhaps firing a warning shot. That works pretty well.

> But this is, once again, NOT a discussion about guns.

No, but if we are going to talk about the value of warning, then we have to talk about what they could do with that information.

> I was saying that I don’t think people should be able to say those things at all.

Which would a) end the impulse? or b) just keep him from saying it?

> First Amendment can withstand some caveats, I know that there have to be people who disagree with me, so that the country (mine, or yours) doesn’t shift wildly to a police state.

Well, I believe you said you are from Canada, so don’t look now, but your country is infringing on freedom of speech in a terrible fashion. You’ll forgive me if I don’t follow suit. And believe you me, the logic behind raking MacLeans over the coals is very similar, to the logic you are offering here.

> did spill across into the real world, and it did damage their lives, and I think there should be consequences. Even if those consequences are simply public shaming and ridicule of the perpetrators.

Well, now at least you are back in Marc’s territory: counter bad speech with good speech.

> As shocking as it is to believe, politics isn’t that clean cut.

Of course not, but 1) some people truly are single issue voters. And 2) there is no rational doubt that an informed populace is better able to govern themselves. Why should I even belabor the point? And 3) even if you are not a single issue voter, it is part of your decision who to vote for. Unless you literally don’t believe the politicians are at all responsive to the will of the people, then making sure the people is informed is a part of democracy.

> The broken window theory has shown that in areas that appear to have more crime, there WILL BE more crime. Not that there has been more crime. So, if we allow discussion of crimes to flourish, we will eventually discover that MORE CRIME has flourished.

Um, broken windows applied to physical signs of anyone being in charge. Everyone understands that if people can speak freely, it only means that the constitution exists. It doesn’t meant they are free to act however they please according to whatever evil is in their hearts. Most sane people understand the difference between freedom of speech and freedom of action. And, I might add, the man wasn’t talking about crime, but a desire to commit a crime. Evil, yes, but it is his right.

Indeed your own language betrays what a complete logical fallacy that is. Yes, when it appears that there is more crime, crime is more likely to occur, not more discussion of crime.

I mean, my God, what a fascist utopia you create this way. So “I want to rape her” is banned. Okay no sympathy for that lout.

So is, “I would love to kill OJ Simpson.” Are you feeling a little more sympathetic? What if it was Goldman who said that, maybe right after the bastard was acquitted of murdering his son? Feeling a little more sympathetic? Want to call of the jackboots?

How about, “I would like to smoke some pot.” The entire country of Jamaica is sympathetic. (kidding) How about “I have aids and I would like to smoke pot in order to treat my illness.” Now California is sympathetic, too.

How about, “I live in D.C. and I would like to own a gun for personal protection.” That is what Heller said to the court in D.C. v. Heller? Feeling sympathetic?

How about “I would like to be able to buy organs?”

How about, “I am a man and I would like to marry my boyfriend.” Or, before 1967, “I am white and I want to marry a black person.” Or just, before 1954, “I am black and I want to go to the same school as white children.” it goes on and on.

But you can’t, consistent with any freedom of speech, say that you can only advocate the crimes that don’t bother you very much or at least you don’t condemn very much. That is inevitably a restriction on content and cannot do. For instance, prior to Lawrence v. Texas, it was illegal in many states for two men to sleep together. According to your theory, then, they should not be allowed to express a desire to sleep together, either, so long as the conduct is illegal. Or would you recognize a bit of absurdity, there, that it is awful hard for gay men to try to change the law without saying they desire to do things presently illegal? But then how do you write a statute that says “Okay to mainstream gay rights groups, but not NAMBLA.” How is that not a content-based restriction?

And do you notice that by talking about the desires to do dastardly, illegal things also might come up as part of a discussion about the policy regarding whether those things should be considered dastardly, and illegal? For instance, George Takei saying he would like to marry his boyfriend can be part of the discussion of whether he should be allowed to (and actually, he already did). So quickly a claim that you cannot express a desire to commit an illegal act harms political discourse over whether the act should be illegal in the first place. NAMBLA and mainstream gay rights organizations have an equal right to agitate for legal change. The fact that NAMBLA is advocating monstrous behavior doesn’t change the fact that they have the right to do so, just as you have a right to be a klansman or a nazi (so long as your activities are peaceful and law abiding).

We are allowed to want to do illegal things. Basic concepts of privacy says you cannot jail a man for wanting to do a bad thing. I don’t see how you can say, “but you can’t express it.” give me a break.

> I’m a fan of fewer dangers.

Again, you keep assuming that if you stop the man from talking about his desires, he will stop feeling them, or will not act on them.

And the deeper point is this (and I will end with this). You can’t say with anything near 100% certainty that she will be 1) safer and 2) better off, if the jackboots come in and we throw that idiot in jail for what he said. If you are going to trash my first amendment, shouldn’t you have some assurance that it will at least accomplish your goal?

Well, in fact that is what the law says. When you infringe on a fundamental right, it must be narrowly tailored to serve a compelling interest. I don’t see how the interest of protecting women could possibly be compelling when you have no idea whether it will work. And aside from the law, isn’t that how it should be? Shouldn’t a reasonable certitude that the intrusion will succeed be a necessary condition before we curtail freedom of speech?