6 ms·

> “When it was happening to black students, it was a matter of free speech,” he said. “Now that it’s happening to white, Jewish students, it’s something else. T

> “When it was happening to black students, it was a matter of free speech,” he said. “Now that it’s happening to white, Jewish students, it’s something else. There seems to be no conflation of hate speech and free speech now.” While I disagree with the calls to remove signs of our past like the ridiculous calls "for the removal of President Woodrow Wilson’s name from the campus because of his racist positions", I think that Asanni York has a point that free speech is free speech. The race/gender/whatever of the accused should not matter. I'd like to draw attention to the "white only" sign on a bathroom door in SUNY. Because it was a black female who did it, it was called art. Had it been a white male, it would have been called hate crime. We can clearly do better than this. As far as unauthorized use of campus resources, I think the university would be better served by suing AT&T for failing to adequately protect its network. > Mr. Auernheimer said he did not hack into the printers, but activated them using remote access. Or maybe universities and organizations could teach their employees to handle network security better. I don't think this is grounds for a criminal case. Oh, on what I hope is an unrelated note we should use this opportunity to voice our dissent against the CFAA and judicial reform especially when it comes to selectively overzealous prosecution.

afreak 11y ago
> As far as unauthorized use of campus resources, I think the university would be better served by suing AT&T for failing to adequately protect its network. It is not the responsibility of a network service provider to protect the assets of a customer. If you're given a network link and an allocation of IP addresses, it is your responsibility to use them wisely and securely. > Or maybe universities and organizations could teach their employees to handle network security better. This is more sane thinking.
21 11y ago
>> Mr. Auernheimer said he did not hack into the printers, but activated them using remote access. > Or maybe universities and organizations could teach their employees to handle network security better. I don't think this is grounds for a criminal case. Actually it is. If you try my car/house door and it's unlocked it doesn't mean you can enter it. That being said, a fine would be appropriate in this case since minimal harm was done.
- newjersey 11y ago
  > If you try my car/house door and it's unlocked it doesn't mean you can enter it. I'd say breaking into a computer is more like breaking into someone's mind (something like inception if it exists) rather than breaking into their home. I know it sounds counterproductive to the case in hand but that's because I have no intention of defending weev. I just want us to get out of this idea that we have to somehow tie everything in computers with an analogy like breaking and entering a house.
- waterlesscloud 11y ago
  Here's what I consider a balanced response- prosecute him for some kind of hacking crime, and at the same time fire the system administrators for gross incompetence.
  - jessaustin 11y ago
    Apparently this happened many times in many places. You can't fire that many people. Who would replace them?
    - waterlesscloud 11y ago
      Start firing people for screwing up and their peers will learn not to screw up.
      - Karunamon 11y ago
        Even the most careful, thoughtful, and professional person will screw up at their job sometimes. It's only if the same screwup is made twice that jobs should be on the line. The first time is a learning experience, the second time is a demonstration of incompetence. If you can all your competent people the first time they make a mistake, suddenly you won't have competent people anymore in your misguided quest for perfection.
      - kndyry 11y ago
        Their peers will learn that 'screw ups' on whatever arbitrary scale, which are as common as human, will be punished by loss of employment, plus all of the negatives that status carries. This will teach them to become militantly risk averse and, by proxy, utterly afraid of and resistant to change. Meanwhile, the folks you let go, the ones who truly learned the lesson, end up using their newfound experience to improve processes elsewhere.
nmrm2 11y ago
> I'd like to draw attention to the "white only" sign on a bathroom door in SUNY. Because it was a black female who did it, it was called art. Had it been a white male, it would have been called hate crime. We can clearly do better than this. It was called art because that was its intention. Context matters. Pretending that all words should always mean the same thing regardless of context is a woefully inadequate approach toward understanding human speech. And yes, the person speaking and their intention is part of context. Surely you don't take people literally when they speak to you in an ironic or satirical tone?!
- whatok 11y ago
  Context is removed when something like that is placed in a public area. I have no doubt in my mind the art defense would not pass if the person was a white male.
  - 7Z7 11y ago
    I don't think that's true. If the male artist had the vocabulary to express the intended sentiment, in the same way that the female artist in question was able to, I don't think there would have been the issue you raise. There may indeed have been a different issue, of appropriateness of voice, but I don't think it would have been the hate crime you claim.
    - whatok 11y ago
      I did not claim anything about hate crimes. Only that a black female will get treated much differently than a white male in a situation like this given the art defense. Art should be consumed independently of its creator imo.
  - nmrm2 11y ago
    > Context is removed when something like that is placed in a public area And then re-inserted again when the author and his/her intent is identified... > I have no doubt in my mind the art defense would not pass if the person was a white male. That would almost certainly depend on the underlying intent and message. I think you're completely wrong about how improtant identity is in this case, especially if we're trying to determine whether most people would view something as hate speech. The only thing special about a black female is that her underlying intent and message is obivous in context... which, yeah, context matters. Fact Of Human Communication. If the message were the same as the black female's, it would maybe be identified as "problematic" by some people, but I doubt anyone would call it hate speech. NOTE: This was EXACTLY the response when the black female posted the signs! There was plenty of criticism about tactics even though she was a black female. See https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/18/suny-buffalo-roiled-art-project-whites-only-posters-around-campus https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/18/suny-buffalo-... If the message were something like "free speech is important", I doubt most people would be sympathetic. Especially mature and thoughtful free-speech activists (even as they defended his right to express those opinions in non-graffiti settings). There are just much better ways of communicating that message. But in any case this almost certainly would not -- de jure -- be considered hate speech. If it were a professed white nationalist -- as it is in this case -- then it might be considered hate speech and maybe even a hate crime b/c it was graffiti (or, in the case of the article, possibly unauthorized access) (edit: holy shit a -2 mod on a comment pointing out that context is important to interpreting a message... LOL)
mc32 11y ago
I'm all for free speech. People should be able to offer their thoughts as odious as they might be, so long as they are not threatening, or harming anyone in doing so. So I'm a bit baffled how people could find it offensive for urban Congo to perform in loincloths. It's a university. I know I saw really strange behavior, and loincloths seem mild. What makes students so sensitive? It's incredible.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  Probably the same thing that makes you so sensitive about students at a place you have very little stake in being too sensitive? I mean tink about it. The things that a very miniscule portion of Princeton students choose to complain about can't possibly have any impact on your life unless you choose to care about it. Clearly, people get offended at all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons all the time. Students aren't a special exception and this is hardly a new phenomenon (even if the Internet makes it more observable). If you don't believe me go read the 1 star reviews on Yelp and co. or the comments on your local newspaper's website. Or read your own comment. The only difference between the inanity of every-day outrage/argument and students at universities complaining about something like cultural appropriate is that it's young liberals at universities complaining. People love complaining about each of those things individually, so their confluence is click-bait heaven. To flip the table: what makes people who complain about young liberals at universities being too sensitive so sensitive? It's incredible. It's not so much that I disagree with the concrete free-speech-promoting policies associated with your position on this issue. But complaining about over-sensitivity is just so silly; it's as if the irony of complaining about complaining is completely lost on everyone who talks about this topic.
  - newjersey 11y ago
    Our actions have consequences. I like to ask people what they think about people blocking highways to protest against Donald Trump. People doing dumb things like blocking highways in protest of Trump or pulling his leg in a really makes it easy for his campaign to lump everyone who says he is not fit for office into one group. Similarly, people who are sensitive about stupid stuff makes it easy for people to lump everyone who has a grievance together into "them" and dismiss their grievances at once. Think the boy who cried wolf but rather than just that one boy getting mauled, it is every single shepherd boy who gets mauled.

afreak 11y ago

> As far as unauthorized use of campus resources, I think the university would be better served by suing AT&T for failing to adequately protect its network. It is not the responsibility of a network service provider to protect the assets of a customer. If you're given a network link and an allocation of IP addresses, it is your responsibility to use them wisely and securely. > Or maybe universities and organizations could teach their employees to handle network security better. This is more sane thinking.

21 11y ago

>> Mr. Auernheimer said he did not hack into the printers, but activated them using remote access. > Or maybe universities and organizations could teach their employees to handle network security better. I don't think this is grounds for a criminal case. Actually it is. If you try my car/house door and it's unlocked it doesn't mean you can enter it. That being said, a fine would be appropriate in this case since minimal harm was done.

newjersey 11y ago
> If you try my car/house door and it's unlocked it doesn't mean you can enter it. I'd say breaking into a computer is more like breaking into someone's mind (something like inception if it exists) rather than breaking into their home. I know it sounds counterproductive to the case in hand but that's because I have no intention of defending weev. I just want us to get out of this idea that we have to somehow tie everything in computers with an analogy like breaking and entering a house.
waterlesscloud 11y ago
Here's what I consider a balanced response- prosecute him for some kind of hacking crime, and at the same time fire the system administrators for gross incompetence.
- jessaustin 11y ago
  Apparently this happened many times in many places. You can't fire that many people. Who would replace them?
  - waterlesscloud 11y ago
    Start firing people for screwing up and their peers will learn not to screw up.
    - Karunamon 11y ago
      Even the most careful, thoughtful, and professional person will screw up at their job sometimes. It's only if the same screwup is made twice that jobs should be on the line. The first time is a learning experience, the second time is a demonstration of incompetence. If you can all your competent people the first time they make a mistake, suddenly you won't have competent people anymore in your misguided quest for perfection.
    - kndyry 11y ago
      Their peers will learn that 'screw ups' on whatever arbitrary scale, which are as common as human, will be punished by loss of employment, plus all of the negatives that status carries. This will teach them to become militantly risk averse and, by proxy, utterly afraid of and resistant to change. Meanwhile, the folks you let go, the ones who truly learned the lesson, end up using their newfound experience to improve processes elsewhere.

nmrm2 11y ago

> I'd like to draw attention to the "white only" sign on a bathroom door in SUNY. Because it was a black female who did it, it was called art. Had it been a white male, it would have been called hate crime. We can clearly do better than this. It was called art because that was its intention. Context matters. Pretending that all words should always mean the same thing regardless of context is a woefully inadequate approach toward understanding human speech. And yes, the person speaking and their intention is part of context. Surely you don't take people literally when they speak to you in an ironic or satirical tone?!

whatok 11y ago
Context is removed when something like that is placed in a public area. I have no doubt in my mind the art defense would not pass if the person was a white male.
- 7Z7 11y ago
  I don't think that's true. If the male artist had the vocabulary to express the intended sentiment, in the same way that the female artist in question was able to, I don't think there would have been the issue you raise. There may indeed have been a different issue, of appropriateness of voice, but I don't think it would have been the hate crime you claim.
  - whatok 11y ago
    I did not claim anything about hate crimes. Only that a black female will get treated much differently than a white male in a situation like this given the art defense. Art should be consumed independently of its creator imo.
- nmrm2 11y ago
  > Context is removed when something like that is placed in a public area And then re-inserted again when the author and his/her intent is identified... > I have no doubt in my mind the art defense would not pass if the person was a white male. That would almost certainly depend on the underlying intent and message. I think you're completely wrong about how improtant identity is in this case, especially if we're trying to determine whether most people would view something as hate speech. The only thing special about a black female is that her underlying intent and message is obivous in context... which, yeah, context matters. Fact Of Human Communication. If the message were the same as the black female's, it would maybe be identified as "problematic" by some people, but I doubt anyone would call it hate speech. NOTE: This was EXACTLY the response when the black female posted the signs! There was plenty of criticism about tactics even though she was a black female. See https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/18/suny-buffalo-roiled-art-project-whites-only-posters-around-campus https://www.insidehighered.com/news/2015/09/18/suny-buffalo-... If the message were something like "free speech is important", I doubt most people would be sympathetic. Especially mature and thoughtful free-speech activists (even as they defended his right to express those opinions in non-graffiti settings). There are just much better ways of communicating that message. But in any case this almost certainly would not -- de jure -- be considered hate speech. If it were a professed white nationalist -- as it is in this case -- then it might be considered hate speech and maybe even a hate crime b/c it was graffiti (or, in the case of the article, possibly unauthorized access) (edit: holy shit a -2 mod on a comment pointing out that context is important to interpreting a message... LOL)

mc32 11y ago

I'm all for free speech. People should be able to offer their thoughts as odious as they might be, so long as they are not threatening, or harming anyone in doing so. So I'm a bit baffled how people could find it offensive for urban Congo to perform in loincloths. It's a university. I know I saw really strange behavior, and loincloths seem mild. What makes students so sensitive? It's incredible.

nmrm2 11y ago
Probably the same thing that makes you so sensitive about students at a place you have very little stake in being too sensitive? I mean tink about it. The things that a very miniscule portion of Princeton students choose to complain about can't possibly have any impact on your life unless you choose to care about it. Clearly, people get offended at all sorts of things for all sorts of reasons all the time. Students aren't a special exception and this is hardly a new phenomenon (even if the Internet makes it more observable). If you don't believe me go read the 1 star reviews on Yelp and co. or the comments on your local newspaper's website. Or read your own comment. The only difference between the inanity of every-day outrage/argument and students at universities complaining about something like cultural appropriate is that it's young liberals at universities complaining. People love complaining about each of those things individually, so their confluence is click-bait heaven. To flip the table: what makes people who complain about young liberals at universities being too sensitive so sensitive? It's incredible. It's not so much that I disagree with the concrete free-speech-promoting policies associated with your position on this issue. But complaining about over-sensitivity is just so silly; it's as if the irony of complaining about complaining is completely lost on everyone who talks about this topic.
- newjersey 11y ago
  Our actions have consequences. I like to ask people what they think about people blocking highways to protest against Donald Trump. People doing dumb things like blocking highways in protest of Trump or pulling his leg in a really makes it easy for his campaign to lump everyone who says he is not fit for office into one group. Similarly, people who are sensitive about stupid stuff makes it easy for people to lump everyone who has a grievance together into "them" and dismiss their grievances at once. Think the boy who cried wolf but rather than just that one boy getting mauled, it is every single shepherd boy who gets mauled.