3 ms·

Reporting on union organizing is not the same thing as issuing death threats. You're working really hard to blur the clear line between these two things, why?

falcolas 7y ago
Tell that to the union organizers who were killed because of those reports. So no, the line isn't that clear. It's worth remembering that at that point in time, the anti-union faction was strong and brutally violent.
- omegaworks 7y ago
  You're talking about a totally separate thing here. Death threats are still not the same as reporting intended to expose organizers personally and potentially make them more likely to experience violent retribution. The issue you're grappling with is something that has no clear cut answer, namely: the question of whether doxxing is ever appropriate, and which major publications still face intense heat over. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/reader-center/whistle-blower-identity.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/reader-center/whistle-blo...
  - falcolas 7y ago
    Death threats are a psychological attack which does have significant consequences, though they rarely evolve into actual physical violence. While I don't want to downplay the potential psychological impact of a death threat, I also don't want to see the union busting activities shrugged off as mere "doxxing" (which, as an aside, has its own psychological harm). We in the modern US simply do not have a frame of reference for how brutal these activities were. Being outed as a union contributor in many cases was equivalent to a death sentence. A small excerpt from when a union activity was "doxxed" to the union busters: >>> More than 200 vigilantes or "citizen deputies", under the ostensible authority of Snohomish County Sheriff McRae, met in order to repel the "anarchists." As the Verona drew into the dock, and someone on board threw a line over a bollard, McRae stepped forward and called out "Boys, who's your leader?" The IWW men laughed and jeered, replying "We're all leaders," and they started to swing out the gang plank. McRae drew his pistol, told them he was the sheriff, he was enforcing the law, and they couldn't land here. There was a silence, then a Wobbly came up to the front and yelled out "the hell we can't."[4] Just then a single shot rang out, followed by about ten minutes of intense gunfire. Most of it came from the vigilantes on the dock, but some fire came from the Verona, although the majority of the passengers were unarmed.[5] Whether the first shot came from boat or dock was never determined. Passengers aboard the Verona rushed to the opposite side of the ship, nearly capsizing the vessel. The ship's rail broke as a result and a number of passengers were ejected into the water, some drowned as a result but how many is not known, or whether persons who'd been shot also went overboard.[6] Over 175 bullets pierced the pilot house alone, and the captain of the Verona, Chance Wiman, was only able to avoid being shot by ducking behind the ship's safe.[5] <<< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States#Physical_attacks_against_unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...
apostacy 7y ago
Um, from the point of view of the telegraph/coal company, they probably would have said that they were protecting people from dangerous agitators and keeping the peace. But really, by your logic, they have no right to report on union organizing, because it's a private company and they should be allowed to cover up human rights abuses, because the first amendment does not protect it, or something.
- omegaworks 7y ago
  >But really, by your logic, they have no right to report on union organizing, because it's a private company and they should be allowed to cover up human rights abuses, because the first amendment does not protect it, or something. You're really getting the power dynamic wrong here, carelessly swapping between powerful institutional actors and individual actors as though they were interchangeable and pretending I made a value judgement about a strawman you constructed. My point is that the issue is complicated and deserves more care. The ideologues claiming to champion a distorted, unbounded "free speech" flatten every issue and refuse to engage with the complexities of harm. They employ a technique that allows them to lazily wave away every piece of evidence we have about what is necessary to foster healthy, constructive, inclusive communities online and offline.

falcolas 7y ago

Tell that to the union organizers who were killed because of those reports. So no, the line isn't that clear. It's worth remembering that at that point in time, the anti-union faction was strong and brutally violent.

omegaworks 7y ago
You're talking about a totally separate thing here. Death threats are still not the same as reporting intended to expose organizers personally and potentially make them more likely to experience violent retribution. The issue you're grappling with is something that has no clear cut answer, namely: the question of whether doxxing is ever appropriate, and which major publications still face intense heat over. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/reader-center/whistle-blower-identity.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/26/reader-center/whistle-blo...
- falcolas 7y ago
  Death threats are a psychological attack which does have significant consequences, though they rarely evolve into actual physical violence. While I don't want to downplay the potential psychological impact of a death threat, I also don't want to see the union busting activities shrugged off as mere "doxxing" (which, as an aside, has its own psychological harm). We in the modern US simply do not have a frame of reference for how brutal these activities were. Being outed as a union contributor in many cases was equivalent to a death sentence. A small excerpt from when a union activity was "doxxed" to the union busters: >>> More than 200 vigilantes or "citizen deputies", under the ostensible authority of Snohomish County Sheriff McRae, met in order to repel the "anarchists." As the Verona drew into the dock, and someone on board threw a line over a bollard, McRae stepped forward and called out "Boys, who's your leader?" The IWW men laughed and jeered, replying "We're all leaders," and they started to swing out the gang plank. McRae drew his pistol, told them he was the sheriff, he was enforcing the law, and they couldn't land here. There was a silence, then a Wobbly came up to the front and yelled out "the hell we can't."[4] Just then a single shot rang out, followed by about ten minutes of intense gunfire. Most of it came from the vigilantes on the dock, but some fire came from the Verona, although the majority of the passengers were unarmed.[5] Whether the first shot came from boat or dock was never determined. Passengers aboard the Verona rushed to the opposite side of the ship, nearly capsizing the vessel. The ship's rail broke as a result and a number of passengers were ejected into the water, some drowned as a result but how many is not known, or whether persons who'd been shot also went overboard.[6] Over 175 bullets pierced the pilot house alone, and the captain of the Verona, Chance Wiman, was only able to avoid being shot by ducking behind the ship's safe.[5] <<< https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_the_United_States#Physical_attacks_against_unions https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_union_busting_in_th...

apostacy 7y ago

Um, from the point of view of the telegraph/coal company, they probably would have said that they were protecting people from dangerous agitators and keeping the peace. But really, by your logic, they have no right to report on union organizing, because it's a private company and they should be allowed to cover up human rights abuses, because the first amendment does not protect it, or something.

omegaworks 7y ago
>But really, by your logic, they have no right to report on union organizing, because it's a private company and they should be allowed to cover up human rights abuses, because the first amendment does not protect it, or something. You're really getting the power dynamic wrong here, carelessly swapping between powerful institutional actors and individual actors as though they were interchangeable and pretending I made a value judgement about a strawman you constructed. My point is that the issue is complicated and deserves more care. The ideologues claiming to champion a distorted, unbounded "free speech" flatten every issue and refuse to engage with the complexities of harm. They employ a technique that allows them to lazily wave away every piece of evidence we have about what is necessary to foster healthy, constructive, inclusive communities online and offline.