6 ms·

> In November 2015 60 emails and phone calls called for her to be expelled. The emails went to the dean of the law school, and to the head of the student body w

> In November 2015 60 emails and phone calls called for her to be expelled. The emails went to the dean of the law school, and to the head of the student body with links to the video. What kind of evil person does this? Is there anything these monsters can be prosecuted for? At least the people who made the movies had a motive in greed. The people who sent these emails wouldn't even gain anything. They are clearly nothing but malicious, bigoted and evil.

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago
That part made me sick to my stomach. I’m glad these women received some financial redress, but there’s nothing that will make up for their experience. Before the internet people had so much more room to make mistakes. It’s a tough time for young people to slip up.
- chopchopgoodbye 7y ago
  "Before the internet people had so much more room to make mistakes. It’s a tough time for young people to slip up." I hope we as a society can at some point adjust our expectations of young people - or people in general - based on this fact.
jariel 7y ago
Obviously these women were victimised, but this is a completely separate issue from those 'sending emails' as those who were doing that would have been completely unaware of the mitigating circumstances and therefore operating under the assumption said women were simply 'making porn'. You're essentially insinuating that it's 'evil' to consider that 'doing porn' is possibly inconsistent with the values of an institution of higher learning or some other org.. I hate to break it to you but such super liberal ideals are not normative, and you don't really have a right to condemn any group which concludes that 'porn' is unbecoming of someone within their own organisation. I suggest if said 'emailers' were aware of the mitigating circumstances, they'd feel differently about it; they couldn't have known they were moralising on actual victims.
- scotty79 7y ago
  Sending emails (and any other reaction to public availability of the videos) was what actually did the lasting harm. If you did harm then being motivated by your morality or religion doesn't justify what you did. It just explains why you did wrong and why you behaved evil.
  - elfexec 7y ago
    > If you did harm then being motivated by your morality or religion doesn't justify what you did. All morality results in harm. Good does harm to evil - that's the point. Now what is good and what is evil? It's different from people to people, culture to culture. Not only that, it changes with time.
    - scotty79 7y ago
      > All morality results in harm. Absolutely not. Helping others is a moral action and results in no harm (when done properly). > Good does harm to evil - that's the point. No. The point of mortality is to prevent harm done by evil and prevent proliferation or even existance of evil. Harming evil is just a tool to deter it. Not particularly effective tool strategically. > Now what is good and what is evil? It's different from people to people, culture to culture. Not only that, it changes with time. Also tools used by good and evil change with time. Even some tools switch sides. Shaming prostitutes was probably effective tool of good when your village of 100 people was threatened by spread of incurable, untreatable, debilitating sexually transmitted disease. Shaming nowadays is mostly a tool of evil bigotery.
  - wruza 7y ago
    Nope. Public relation to this did it. Sending emails did nothing, just like a person who calls the police doesn’t imprison or even judge a potential suspect.
    - scotty79 7y ago
      What about citizens outing gays in countries where homosexuality is a crime? Don't they judge and imprison their neighbours in some sense?
FDSGSG 7y ago
> Is there anything these monsters can be prosecuted for? Quite possibly the federal cyberstalking statute.
kikim0ra 7y ago
Can you be more specific on why you think the people who sent emails are "evil" and deserve to be judged? And I'm talking about moral aspect here, not legal. > They are clearly nothing but malicious, bigoted and evil. Try to look at it this way. Jane Doe lived in a society (family, coworkers, friends) where she was respected and was considered to be good, ethical and honourable person. At the same time she wanted to play in porn. Maybe because she was just curious, or being filmed during sex was her secret fantasy (you know, it can be a big turn-on to imagine other people watch your sex), or she wanted some quick money, or something else. The problem was that playing in porn was unacceptable in her society. We don't know why they thought so, maybe their perception of sex was different from hers and they didn't like people to to it publicly, or they also had this fantasy of playing in porn but never had courage to actually do it, or something else. Whatever were the reasons of the society and of Jane, I don't judge them. So Jane encountered this dilemma. She wants to keep the respect she has in the society, and she wants to play in porn -- two wishes are incompatible. Jane is smart, and she decides to play in porn making sure the society never finds out. It looks like a win-win sutuation for her. I hope, she realizes that there's a risk of being caught at this point. People who film the porn promise Jane not to publish the videos online. And they break their promise. This is obviously a "bad", "evil" and immoral thing to do. I think we all agree that not keeping our promises is immoral. Someone encounters Jane's video online, and assumes that the society Jane lives in is very likely to consider this immoral, and Jane has probably played in the video secretly. And this person has the choice: to report Jane and act in the society's interest, or not report Jane and act in her interest. I don't think we should be concerned here with only Jane's interests, people around also have their wishes and feelings. If she's a teacher, her students parents may not want a porn actor to teach their children, and that's their preference which, I think, we should respect too. Her parents may be traditionalists and they may want to know if their daughter is doing something that they consider immoral. Jane is not the only person who has feelings here. So why shouldn't the person email Jane's friends and parents and tell them that she's lying to them? -- You might notice that I'm writing this comment from an account I just created. When I did this I also had a choice similar to Jane's. Most of the people around me now are strongly liberal. And when we discuss something related to women, sex and slut shaming, it's not very favorable to express anything except sorrow for women and judgement for anyone who caused them trouble. But I have many other thoughts on this subject (like the ones I expressed above about Jane), and I'm afraid my friends will not like this. So I did the same choice Jane did, I decided to do what I want secretly and anonymously. And if somebody finds out my real name and decides to inform people I know about this terrible sexist pig they invite to parties and spend time with, I won't judge that person. They're just acting in other people's interests, not mine.
friendly_fren 7y ago
They see something they disapprove of, it goes against their values. So they spread awareness of what happened.
- Jamwinner 7y ago
  With little or no thought or concern for what happens next.
  - chillacy 7y ago
    I'm pretty sure they see what happens next as justice. Not that I agree with it but I imagine they feel pretty okay with the outcome given their moral beliefs.
    - jariel 7y ago
      I would take umbrage with this because I think most people would see a big distinction between 'a teen doing porn for easy cash' and 'a teen coerced into porn'. Those are miles apart in any basic value system. Though surely there are people who won't make the distinction ... I'd be pretty curious to see a data set on that one ...
    - nswest23 7y ago
      imagine believe that its your personal prerogative to act as judge and jury to everyone else around you.
hansdieter1337 7y ago
welcome to 4chan/b

3fe9a03ccd14ca5 7y ago

That part made me sick to my stomach. I’m glad these women received some financial redress, but there’s nothing that will make up for their experience. Before the internet people had so much more room to make mistakes. It’s a tough time for young people to slip up.

chopchopgoodbye 7y ago
"Before the internet people had so much more room to make mistakes. It’s a tough time for young people to slip up." I hope we as a society can at some point adjust our expectations of young people - or people in general - based on this fact.

jariel 7y ago

Obviously these women were victimised, but this is a completely separate issue from those 'sending emails' as those who were doing that would have been completely unaware of the mitigating circumstances and therefore operating under the assumption said women were simply 'making porn'. You're essentially insinuating that it's 'evil' to consider that 'doing porn' is possibly inconsistent with the values of an institution of higher learning or some other org.. I hate to break it to you but such super liberal ideals are not normative, and you don't really have a right to condemn any group which concludes that 'porn' is unbecoming of someone within their own organisation. I suggest if said 'emailers' were aware of the mitigating circumstances, they'd feel differently about it; they couldn't have known they were moralising on actual victims.

scotty79 7y ago
Sending emails (and any other reaction to public availability of the videos) was what actually did the lasting harm. If you did harm then being motivated by your morality or religion doesn't justify what you did. It just explains why you did wrong and why you behaved evil.
- elfexec 7y ago
  > If you did harm then being motivated by your morality or religion doesn't justify what you did. All morality results in harm. Good does harm to evil - that's the point. Now what is good and what is evil? It's different from people to people, culture to culture. Not only that, it changes with time.
  - scotty79 7y ago
    > All morality results in harm. Absolutely not. Helping others is a moral action and results in no harm (when done properly). > Good does harm to evil - that's the point. No. The point of mortality is to prevent harm done by evil and prevent proliferation or even existance of evil. Harming evil is just a tool to deter it. Not particularly effective tool strategically. > Now what is good and what is evil? It's different from people to people, culture to culture. Not only that, it changes with time. Also tools used by good and evil change with time. Even some tools switch sides. Shaming prostitutes was probably effective tool of good when your village of 100 people was threatened by spread of incurable, untreatable, debilitating sexually transmitted disease. Shaming nowadays is mostly a tool of evil bigotery.
- wruza 7y ago
  Nope. Public relation to this did it. Sending emails did nothing, just like a person who calls the police doesn’t imprison or even judge a potential suspect.
  - scotty79 7y ago
    What about citizens outing gays in countries where homosexuality is a crime? Don't they judge and imprison their neighbours in some sense?

FDSGSG 7y ago

> Is there anything these monsters can be prosecuted for? Quite possibly the federal cyberstalking statute.

kikim0ra 7y ago

Can you be more specific on why you think the people who sent emails are "evil" and deserve to be judged? And I'm talking about moral aspect here, not legal. > They are clearly nothing but malicious, bigoted and evil. Try to look at it this way. Jane Doe lived in a society (family, coworkers, friends) where she was respected and was considered to be good, ethical and honourable person. At the same time she wanted to play in porn. Maybe because she was just curious, or being filmed during sex was her secret fantasy (you know, it can be a big turn-on to imagine other people watch your sex), or she wanted some quick money, or something else. The problem was that playing in porn was unacceptable in her society. We don't know why they thought so, maybe their perception of sex was different from hers and they didn't like people to to it publicly, or they also had this fantasy of playing in porn but never had courage to actually do it, or something else. Whatever were the reasons of the society and of Jane, I don't judge them. So Jane encountered this dilemma. She wants to keep the respect she has in the society, and she wants to play in porn -- two wishes are incompatible. Jane is smart, and she decides to play in porn making sure the society never finds out. It looks like a win-win sutuation for her. I hope, she realizes that there's a risk of being caught at this point. People who film the porn promise Jane not to publish the videos online. And they break their promise. This is obviously a "bad", "evil" and immoral thing to do. I think we all agree that not keeping our promises is immoral. Someone encounters Jane's video online, and assumes that the society Jane lives in is very likely to consider this immoral, and Jane has probably played in the video secretly. And this person has the choice: to report Jane and act in the society's interest, or not report Jane and act in her interest. I don't think we should be concerned here with only Jane's interests, people around also have their wishes and feelings. If she's a teacher, her students parents may not want a porn actor to teach their children, and that's their preference which, I think, we should respect too. Her parents may be traditionalists and they may want to know if their daughter is doing something that they consider immoral. Jane is not the only person who has feelings here. So why shouldn't the person email Jane's friends and parents and tell them that she's lying to them? -- You might notice that I'm writing this comment from an account I just created. When I did this I also had a choice similar to Jane's. Most of the people around me now are strongly liberal. And when we discuss something related to women, sex and slut shaming, it's not very favorable to express anything except sorrow for women and judgement for anyone who caused them trouble. But I have many other thoughts on this subject (like the ones I expressed above about Jane), and I'm afraid my friends will not like this. So I did the same choice Jane did, I decided to do what I want secretly and anonymously. And if somebody finds out my real name and decides to inform people I know about this terrible sexist pig they invite to parties and spend time with, I won't judge that person. They're just acting in other people's interests, not mine.

friendly_fren 7y ago

They see something they disapprove of, it goes against their values. So they spread awareness of what happened.

Jamwinner 7y ago
With little or no thought or concern for what happens next.
- chillacy 7y ago
  I'm pretty sure they see what happens next as justice. Not that I agree with it but I imagine they feel pretty okay with the outcome given their moral beliefs.
  - jariel 7y ago
    I would take umbrage with this because I think most people would see a big distinction between 'a teen doing porn for easy cash' and 'a teen coerced into porn'. Those are miles apart in any basic value system. Though surely there are people who won't make the distinction ... I'd be pretty curious to see a data set on that one ...
  - nswest23 7y ago
    imagine believe that its your personal prerogative to act as judge and jury to everyone else around you.

hansdieter1337 7y ago

welcome to 4chan/b