6 ms·

Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence. Suppose the attacks were merely gross sexual depictions of them, broadcasting their private information,

Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence. Suppose the attacks were merely gross sexual depictions of them, broadcasting their private information, and other constitutionally protected acts. Would the attacks on them be acceptable? I don't chastise Scoble using his blog to express his opinions. Nor have I called for anyone curtailing the freedom of association. I'm merely calling out the gay activist movement as being a bunch of anti-intellectual jerks who want to suppress speech they dislike and attack their opponents. Kind of like the non-violent people attacking Kathy Sierra, Scooby, or the Hollywood system that created the blacklist.

dalke 13y ago
"Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence." And suppose unicorns had wings. You made a comparison and said they were equivalent. I showed they aren't equivalent. Now you want to compare a real-world event to a fictional alternative? Balderdash. And you're complaining about things being 'anti-intellectual'? How is this action against Eich as CEO anything different than a call for boycott, a boycott, and picketing? BTW, the Hollywood blacklist was effective because of state and national government involvement since the '20s. The blacklist only started after the House Un-American Activities Committee conviction of the "Hollywood Ten" on contempt of Congress charges for refusing to answer some questions by committee members. If you're going to make that comparison, where's the heavy hand of government in this boycott against Eich as CEO? For the record, I support that 12,000 Southern Baptists can call for and carry out a boycott of Disney-owned companies because they don't like that Disney has "Gay Days". I don't support the boycott, and I disagree with the premises which underlie it, but I support their right to free speech and assembly. Just like I support the rights of free speech and assembly of those opposed to Eich as CEO to call for and carry out a boycott of Mozilla products. P.S. I checked my memory regarding Sierra. It was specifically those threats of violence which "forced her to cancel a public appearance and suspend her blog". As she wrote, "I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same." So your fictional world where she received no threats of violence would have been a very different world, and one we can't reasonably probe through hypotheticals.
- yummyfajitas 13y ago
  You made a comparison and said they were equivalent. I showed they aren't equivalent. Now you want to compare a real-world event to a fictional alternative? Yes - I'm attempting to figure out what principle is being applied. As a result, I'm trying to find real or hypothetical cases as close to the dividing line of that principle as possible. So again, I ask: are legal attacks (e.g., photoshopping someone's head onto a porn star's body, releasing someone's address, encouraging people to shun them) without threats of violence something we should accept? Perhaps opponents of sexual promiscuity can create a registry of the name, photo, address and preferred sexual position of promiscuous women? And of course, list the employer's phone number of such women, and encourage people to call and advocate for firing her. If you find one particular act I described unacceptable but all the others acceptable (e.g., publishing favorite sexual position is ok but employers phone number is not), please explain why. Again, let me reiterate that I'm not asking whether this violates the US constitution. I explicitly stated in my first post that it doesn't. I'm asking whether we should accept it when people engage in such actions.
  - dalke 13y ago
    I don't see this issue with Eich as CEO anywhere near the dividing line, so I don't see why I should participate in an investigation of where that boundary might be. Consider your hypothetical about "opponents of sexual promiscuity". It's reminds me of the real-world situation of the American Coalition of Life Activists, who posted pictures, addresses, etc. of doctors who would carry out abortions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physician_.22wanted.22_posters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physicia... . "In an en banc rehearing, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ACLA could be held liable in damages because the website made a threat unprotected by the First Amendment." (Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Activists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Acti... ) Your example of getting multiple people to call the employer and advocate dismissal likely falls under misdemeanor harassment. Here's an example of one such law: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02921.htm http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02921.htm . In general I support the right of private person X to call for others to shun person Y. Don't you? That doesn't mean I can't nor shouldn't shun person X in turn. The photoshopping example may count as libel or criminal defamation. Without actual details, it's hard to say anything for certain. This is why hypotheticals are lousy. "I'm asking whether we should accept it when people engage in such actions." No. The underlying premise is silly. Of course you could/should protest. Write HN comments. Blog about it. Boycott. Picket in front of Mozilla's offices. Do whatever you want (within the bounds of law) if you don't like what others are doing. Why would you have to accept it? I fully support that people can boycott Mozilla for selecting Eich as CEO. I fully support that people can boycott Mozilla now that Eich is not CEO, and complain that Eich was forced out by a witch hunt. I just wish they would explain how "witch hunt" is different than "boycott and picketing".

dalke 13y ago

"Suppose Sierra/Scooby received no threats of violence." And suppose unicorns had wings. You made a comparison and said they were equivalent. I showed they aren't equivalent. Now you want to compare a real-world event to a fictional alternative? Balderdash. And you're complaining about things being 'anti-intellectual'? How is this action against Eich as CEO anything different than a call for boycott, a boycott, and picketing? BTW, the Hollywood blacklist was effective because of state and national government involvement since the '20s. The blacklist only started after the House Un-American Activities Committee conviction of the "Hollywood Ten" on contempt of Congress charges for refusing to answer some questions by committee members. If you're going to make that comparison, where's the heavy hand of government in this boycott against Eich as CEO? For the record, I support that 12,000 Southern Baptists can call for and carry out a boycott of Disney-owned companies because they don't like that Disney has "Gay Days". I don't support the boycott, and I disagree with the premises which underlie it, but I support their right to free speech and assembly. Just like I support the rights of free speech and assembly of those opposed to Eich as CEO to call for and carry out a boycott of Mozilla products. P.S. I checked my memory regarding Sierra. It was specifically those threats of violence which "forced her to cancel a public appearance and suspend her blog". As she wrote, "I have cancelled all speaking engagements. I am afraid to leave my yard, I will never feel the same. I will never be the same." So your fictional world where she received no threats of violence would have been a very different world, and one we can't reasonably probe through hypotheticals.

yummyfajitas 13y ago
You made a comparison and said they were equivalent. I showed they aren't equivalent. Now you want to compare a real-world event to a fictional alternative? Yes - I'm attempting to figure out what principle is being applied. As a result, I'm trying to find real or hypothetical cases as close to the dividing line of that principle as possible. So again, I ask: are legal attacks (e.g., photoshopping someone's head onto a porn star's body, releasing someone's address, encouraging people to shun them) without threats of violence something we should accept? Perhaps opponents of sexual promiscuity can create a registry of the name, photo, address and preferred sexual position of promiscuous women? And of course, list the employer's phone number of such women, and encourage people to call and advocate for firing her. If you find one particular act I described unacceptable but all the others acceptable (e.g., publishing favorite sexual position is ok but employers phone number is not), please explain why. Again, let me reiterate that I'm not asking whether this violates the US constitution. I explicitly stated in my first post that it doesn't. I'm asking whether we should accept it when people engage in such actions.
- dalke 13y ago
  I don't see this issue with Eich as CEO anywhere near the dividing line, so I don't see why I should participate in an investigation of where that boundary might be. Consider your hypothetical about "opponents of sexual promiscuity". It's reminds me of the real-world situation of the American Coalition of Life Activists, who posted pictures, addresses, etc. of doctors who would carry out abortions. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physician_.22wanted.22_posters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti-abortion_violence#Physicia... . "In an en banc rehearing, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals held that the ACLA could be held liable in damages because the website made a threat unprotected by the First Amendment." (Quote from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Activists http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Coalition_of_Life_Acti... ) Your example of getting multiple people to call the employer and advocate dismissal likely falls under misdemeanor harassment. Here's an example of one such law: http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02921.htm http://www.azleg.state.az.us/ars/13/02921.htm . In general I support the right of private person X to call for others to shun person Y. Don't you? That doesn't mean I can't nor shouldn't shun person X in turn. The photoshopping example may count as libel or criminal defamation. Without actual details, it's hard to say anything for certain. This is why hypotheticals are lousy. "I'm asking whether we should accept it when people engage in such actions." No. The underlying premise is silly. Of course you could/should protest. Write HN comments. Blog about it. Boycott. Picket in front of Mozilla's offices. Do whatever you want (within the bounds of law) if you don't like what others are doing. Why would you have to accept it? I fully support that people can boycott Mozilla for selecting Eich as CEO. I fully support that people can boycott Mozilla now that Eich is not CEO, and complain that Eich was forced out by a witch hunt. I just wish they would explain how "witch hunt" is different than "boycott and picketing".