I’ve posted a lot this week about pseudonymity in the blogosphere and the various epithets that get thrown my way. But it seems that not everyone handles cyber nastiness the same way. Ann Bartow, the Feminist Law Professor, is now threatening to sue Zuzu of Feministe for cyber defamation. She’s also threatening to "out" Zuzu by revealing her real identity. Read more here; it’s led to Zuzu taking a hiatus from blogging.
Ann has been very vocally critical of those who don’t blog under their own names. Like me, she’s a tenured professor with more security than most. Unlike me, she seems to think that those who don’t share her job security should still always blog publicly.
Let me be very blunt about two things:
I want to make it absolutely clear that I understand completely why those who wish to blog anonymously do so. Though I choose to blog under my own name, that is based on lack of imagination rather than conviction; no inference should be made that I disapprove of pseudonymous or anonymous blogging, commenting, or posting in the blogosphere.
Second of all, to even consider suing for defamation (regardless of what was or wasn’t said) is poor show. I’ve been called a pedophile; I’ve been called a self-hating manipulator; I’ve been called just about every name in the book. And though I reserve the right to delete hateful comments from my own blog, I am committed to the principle that even the threat of censorship is always and invariably more harmful than the damage even the ugliest forms of speech could cause. (Voltaire is my homeboy, as we say in Carmel by-the-Sea.)
Oh, and for what it’s worth, suing anyone for any reason other than a very complicated property transaction is, well, very NOKOP. OKOP rise above.
UPDATE: Lynn points me to this comment from Ann that may clear things up.
Actually, Hugo, the “suck it up and don’t sue” mentality is far more a marker of being working-class than upper-class. Sad to see you still using ‘OKOP’ seriously while pretending irony, though.
Suing for defamation (not “cyber defamation”, sheesh)–well, if Professor Bartow knows who zuzu is, why is she going through Jill or asking her ‘First Amendment specialist’ to talk to zuzu? I’d expect somebody actually suing to just have her lawyer send the darn letter asking for a public apology, and then filing suit.
Whoops. I was using it ironically while pretending seriousness. Sigh.
Yes, and one of your original posts on the OKOP/NOKOP thing was about how you had used it “jokingly” and “ironically”, but how you eventually recognized you were in fact using it seriously.
I think the phrase you’re looking for, Hugo, is kidding on the square.
Ann Bartow commented at Feministe; it turns out that the whole thing is a series of Internet misunderstandings and miscommunications, and she isn’t really threatening to sue or out zuzu (to my great relief, since the alternative would have been freaky and bizarre).
By Hugo: I’ve been called a pedophile; I’ve been called a self-hating manipulator; I’ve been called just about every name in the book. And though I reserve the right to delete hateful comments from my own blog, I am committed to the principle that even the threat of censorship is always and invariably more harmful than the damage even the ugliest forms of speech could cause.
========================================================================
Hugo,
I am surprised to read this comment above from YOU - as far as I have seen, there is not even one feminist site on the net, including your one, which is not into deleting, editing or banning - if the comment from ‘the other side’- reasonable polite or hateful does not matter - is not fitting the personal opinion of the moderator, it will be deleted.
This is, what I am calling censorship.
I myself, clearly on the MRA site, do my postings in my own name, as I am not living within the USA and I am not an US-citizen. This does not prevent feminist-minded moderators to delete and edit my comments up to out of context and it does not help me to protect me against rude and vulgar replies from feminists, who are on a ‘free ride’ as they never will be banned while breaking the rules.
If somebody calls you pedophile, then I let you know, that feminists are calling me openly a pedophile pervert and much much more as I am married with an Asian woman since 30 years, who is smaller than me. And? Why should I care?
Finally, I am not a native English speaker and I am posting also in other forums using different languages.
I found this way of expression - called ‘truck driver vocabulary’ style - of doing hateful postings ONLY in English-speaking forums and the most vulgar postings were done by men and women living in the USA.
Just my observation,
Regards,
Yohan
Yohan,
I am not sure if this was Hugo’s intention, but I would note that perhaps you are misperceiving the concept of censorship. It is not really censorship if Hugo deletes comments from his own blog, because, under the principles of free speech, he has a right to publish or not publish whatever he wants on his own forum. Censorship relates to preventing people from publishing what they want on their own space.
THF has the concept of censorshipt essentially correct; what we see at feminist sites is manipulative, deceitful and controlling behavior, not censorship per se.
As for Bartow - wow, what a dweeb. Meow!
Yohan, in every thread on this site with more than, say, a dozen posts, you can find plenty of anti-feminist criticism and rhetoric. It’s also easy to find spectacularly vicious attacks on Hugo himself. I don’t believe you’ve been commenting here very long; if you had, you’d realize that it takes something pretty spectacular for Hugo to even consider banning someone, and he’s both temporarily and permanently banned both feminists and anti-feminists. (Indeed, there’s a small but vocal corner of the feminist blogosphere that routinely denounces Hugo for not displaying the sort of partiality you attribute to him. It’s the same way with Ampersand of Alas, A Blog.)
Mr Bad, what sort of instances of manipulative, deceitful, and controlling behavior do you have in mind? “Getting mad and saying mean things” doesn’t count, and neither does “making a sloppy argument”. Nor does “making a very clever and subtle argument that can’t be easily answered”. I’m actually having trouble imagining how anyone’s behaviour in a forum like this could possibly count as manipulative or controlling; deceitful’s a little more plausible, but I still don’t know what instances you might be thinking of.
Noumena,
I was responding to Yohan, who observed: ‘This does not prevent feminist-minded moderators to delete and edit my comments up to out of context and it does not help me to protect me against rude and vulgar replies from feminists, who are on a ‘free ride’ as they never will be banned while breaking the rules.”
Manipulative in the sense of editing another person’s post; decietful because such behavior changes the meaning of the post and indeed the entire thread; and controlling because, well, such behavior is also controlling.
It seems to me that redaction without consent (and, in some cases, even with consent) is a form of censorship.
The question is, then, who’s engaged in such redaction? Amanda? Hugo? Amp? Twisty? The women of Feministing or Feministe? I know the internet equivalent of little red pen-ing a critical post into gibberish is one of Dawn Eden’s favourite hobbies, but she hardly qualifies as a feminist. I can only recall Hugo redacting a few comments, and those usually because the commentor was doing something he considered grossly immoral, eg, using racist or sexist slurs.
I’d expect somebody actually suing to just have her lawyer send the darn letter asking for a public apology, and then filing suit.
It was probably said more for impact rather than intent. It certainly achieved its purpose. Ann wanted zuzu to stop comment and–lo! and behold–that happened. If I listed all the names I have been called, it would probably fill three of four pages and angels would at the mere utterance of the words. Never, though, has it crossed my mind to sue any of those people, and I live with a lawyer. How sad that people resort to this kind of tactic.
I’ve been called a pedophile; I’ve been called a self-hating manipulator; I’ve been called just about every name in the book. And though I reserve the right to delete hateful comments from my own blog, I am committed to the principle that even the threat of censorship is always and invariably more harmful than the damage even the ugliest forms of speech could cause.
Easy for you to say, since you seem to revel in the insults.
It’s so weird to me that Ann just can’t seem to wrap her mind around all the obvious reasons some people might have very good reasons to remain anonymous in the blogosphere. It’s really not that complicated of an argument. Everyone’s workplace and employment status are not like her own.
I do quite like her blog (hell, I actually more or less agreed with her, as opposed to virtually all my favorite feminist bloggers, on Go Fug Yourself) but if I get a whiff of anything like this again it’s off my reading list for good. Even with the explanation provided, her bevahior is just weird and ridiculous. If I accidently found out the identity of an anonymous blogger, I’d simply send them (personally, not through and intermediary) a quick and very private note saying, “Hey, don’t worry, your secret is entirely safe with me, but just FYI your identity is showing, and here’s how…” How Ann went about it is all kinds of bad form, even without a lawsuit.
Thank you, Noumena, I couldn’t recall any particular label for that behavior that fit.
I object to Mr. Bad saying “meow”. This was a misunderstanding, yes, and it was slightly petty, but implying that it’s catty is minimizing and gendered (when was the last time you heard a guy being called “catty”?)
Yohan,
I am not sure if this was Hugo’s intention, but I would note that perhaps you are misperceiving the concept of censorship. It is not really censorship if Hugo deletes comments from his own blog, because, under the principles of free speech, he has a right to publish or not publish whatever he wants on his own forum. Censorship relates to preventing people from publishing what they want on their own space.
I do have to give Happy the nod here - censorship, by definition, is “prior restraint” and can only properly be practiced by a governmental entity; in the private sphere such things may be disingenuous, dishonest, intellectual cowardice and all manner of otgher epithet, but censorship cannot be practiced by a private entity who has actual ownership of a medium of communication. If the government says “You may not speak from your soapbox” then they are censoring you, if I say “Don’t put it up in my yard” I am simply telling you to get lost and protecting my own private property rights.
Censorship is a badly overused and abused word. Freedom to speak also implies not having to listen, it is just as much the spirit of censorship to force someone to listen to a POV as it is to forbid them from hearing it.
Thanks, Gonz. The reference to intellectual cowardice is interesting. I think that does happen. On the other hand, it is also perfectly legit to have a site that permits comments from like-minded people. For example, if you run a Christian blog, you might keep getting comments from people who say Christianity is wrong or doesn’t make any sense, etc. It would make perfect sense to delete or bar those comments so that the blog can remain devoted to discussing points of Christian doctrine without having to go back and justify the very foundations of Christianity every two seconds. That’s the idea behind deletions and bannings at a lot of feminist sites. Other feminist sites, like Hugo’s and mine, seek to build communities of believers and non-believers. Neither approach is superior to the other. They just serve different niches.
It is one thing if it is advertised as such. Those which purport to be about discussion, and edit or delete dissenting views are both dishonest and intellectually cowardly.
It is about discussion. It is to discuss feminist ideas. It should be very obvious by now that the feminist blogsphere is not a hive mind. Dissenting views are frequently allowed.
It’s merely not discussing what YOU want to discuss.
It would make perfect sense to delete or bar those comments so that the blog can remain devoted to discussing points of Christian doctrine without having to go back and justify the very foundations of Christianity every two seconds.
Or delete or bar them on a thread-specific basis. I consider my blog in general to be open to atheist/agnostic comment, but when someone put an argument against God on a prayer request thread, I deleted it and decided that, henceforth, any thread about a prayer request wouldn’t allow theological debate about whether prayer makes any sense.
There are also certain debates with people I disagree with that I’ll welcome on my blog, and certain ones (weirdly anti-Semitic conspiracy rants, for example) which I won’t.
Mainly, I think, one just needs to be open about what one’s rules actually are (even if it’s simply to openly assert that you’ll delete comments whenever you please).
Antigone said: ”I object to Mr. Bad saying “meow”. This was a misunderstanding, yes, and it was slightly petty, but implying that it’s catty is minimizing and gendered (when was the last time you heard a guy being called “catty”?)”
Aww, poor dear (sniff, sniff) - try here
That was rude, and you know it.
And she even showed that it was gendered.
Antigone said: “And she even showed that it was gendered.”
I never made any generalizations about ‘gender’ in the post you’re referring to, I simply made the (IMO correct) comment that the debate between Bartow and Zuzu et al. - as individuals - seems catty. Unlike you feminists seem to do on a regular basis, I’m not generalizing the behavior of a few boorish dweebs onto a whole class of people.
You stated “I object to Mr. Bad saying “meow”. You don’t like my comment? So noted,
But as I said: poor dear. When you start calling out people who deliberatly insult me (and who many times use far more vicious insults) then I’ll start caring.
Mr. Bad, you frequently generalize the behavior of individuals on a whole class of people. You just did it with feminists, and you frequently do it to women. So don’t even try lying, there is too much evidence against you.
The insult “Catty”, much like “hysterical” or “bitchy” is gendered. It is specific for women. You used a gendered insult to be doubly slurring.
You then were condescending and insulting to me, when I pointed this out (quite politely). I objected to the insult itself, not to the people involved (I’m not touching this one). If you were called “fag” or something, I would object to that insult as well. Otherwise, I must say I’m disinclined to come to your defense, particularily since many insults tend to be well-suited to you.
I have to say that I am not a big fan of the accusation of “cattiness.” It implies that disputes between women are far more petty than disputes between men.
In the comment, Mr. Bad linked I used the accusation of cattiness to make a point that the men referenced in Hugo’s post were engaging in behavior (i.e. calling Hugo fat) that would be considered typical female “catty” behavior if women were doing it.
Just to quibble: The Voltaire attribution isn’t Voltaire, per se. It was attributed, to him by Beatrice Hall.
It first appeared in 1906, when a book she wrote (under a pseudonym, just to make the whole thing more relevant to the present discussion), “The Friends of Voltaire” used it as a summation of his attitude.
It was the result of someone writing a tract which cast Voltaire in a poor light, but when the Dauphin revoked the right to publish, Voltaire championed the cause of the writer
People–Mr. Bad was clearly baiting you. Don’t rise to it.
Oh, c’mon djw. It’s no fun being a grown up.
Censorship is what happens when the goverment interferes with free speech. I think I have every right to shut someone hateful up as a private individual, and use it. I got in the way of an offensive, misleading and hateful anti-abortion display on my campus last week. When I see white power posters or grafitti, I take them down or cover them up. That’s not censorship, it’s basic human decency.
Ok Antigone, you’re correct - my comment was unkind, therefore I apologize to you for that. I simply found it quite ironic that 1) MRAs in general were called “catty” just last week, that 2) you apparently missed it, and 3) that you didn’t call THF out on it if you had noticed it.
Still, “poor dear” was condescending and again, I apologize for that. No excuses.
Again my use of the term “catty” was ironic — but I will say most unironically that you’re being a stand-up guy, Mr. Bad.
Very well.
Happy, I felt that you were using it ironically, but as it’s demonstrated, you should probably avoid using it because it IS gendered and it’s easy to be misinterpreted.
Thank you Mr. Bad. Accepted.