Disgusted
As I was riding the metro this morning, I pulled out the first section of the Washington Post and started reading this article on the front page. About halfway thru the article, and already on page A-9, my eyes stop dead in their tracks when I see the name of a kid I knew in college named as a co-owner of this message board that's turned into a cesspool of sexism, racism, homophobia, and anti-semitism. I continued to read on, but my stomach turned. I've read many news stories that have disgusted me, but these felt different, if only because I actually knew one of the people involved- no, not just involved in the story, but the actual instigator of it all!
Read the story. At first, it sounds like regular freedom of speech vs. privacy argument. And there are many debates nowadays about holding bloggers and other internet posters accountable for their words. But reading on, you see how this is different.
Women are threatened with violence. Identities are being stolen.
And then you read this classic line:
But the next paragraph is the clincher. Given how the article started-- students losing out on prospective jobs because employers Googled them and found negative things written about them online-- one wonders why the writer buried it all the way at the end of the article:
So, let me get this straight: the posters are supposed to post their messages anonymously so that they don't have to worry about employers pulling up this info on them, but they are allowed to write disparagingly about others and use their victims' real names, thus basically ensuring public hell and embarassment to those they are writing about?
And the cherry on top: People would not have AS MUCH FUN. So it's a game now? It's not really about freedom of speech and providing an online forum for the "marketplace of ideas," and the "exchange of ideas." This message board is for people to have fun. I see now.
It sickens me that a law student such as Ciolli can't distinguish between moderation and censorship, and can't stand up for the integrity of his own website and services. The "freedom of speech" be-all and end-all is not the holy grail. There's a responsibility that comes with the freedoms and protections in our Bill of Rights, and for a lawyer-in-training to just shrug his shoulders at these abuses of that right, actively allowing it to go on, is appalling. But then again, I guess I already knew that, since he pulled the same crap at Queens College 4 years ago.
Read the story. At first, it sounds like regular freedom of speech vs. privacy argument. And there are many debates nowadays about holding bloggers and other internet posters accountable for their words. But reading on, you see how this is different.
Women are threatened with violence. Identities are being stolen.
And then you read this classic line:
The two men said that some of the women who complain of being ridiculed on AutoAdmit invite attention by, for example, posting their photographs on other social networking sites, such as Facebook or MySpace.Invite attention? So because many women post their photographs on other sites, they deserve to be ridiculed, made fun of, insulted, harrassed, and threatened on AutoAdmit? Um, doesn't this ring a bell?!?!
But the next paragraph is the clincher. Given how the article started-- students losing out on prospective jobs because employers Googled them and found negative things written about them online-- one wonders why the writer buried it all the way at the end of the article:
Cohen said he no longer keeps identifying information on users because he does not want to encourage lawsuits and drive traffic away. Asked why posters could not use their real names, he said, "People would not have as much fun, frankly, if they had to worry about employers pulling up information on them."
So, let me get this straight: the posters are supposed to post their messages anonymously so that they don't have to worry about employers pulling up this info on them, but they are allowed to write disparagingly about others and use their victims' real names, thus basically ensuring public hell and embarassment to those they are writing about?
And the cherry on top: People would not have AS MUCH FUN. So it's a game now? It's not really about freedom of speech and providing an online forum for the "marketplace of ideas," and the "exchange of ideas." This message board is for people to have fun. I see now.
It sickens me that a law student such as Ciolli can't distinguish between moderation and censorship, and can't stand up for the integrity of his own website and services. The "freedom of speech" be-all and end-all is not the holy grail. There's a responsibility that comes with the freedoms and protections in our Bill of Rights, and for a lawyer-in-training to just shrug his shoulders at these abuses of that right, actively allowing it to go on, is appalling. But then again, I guess I already knew that, since he pulled the same crap at Queens College 4 years ago.
Labels: free speech
posted by elanit | 9:01 PM
2 Comments:
I don't know what the cure for this is, but I know that every legitimate message board I've encountered will remove offensive postings if requested by the victim of said post.
I completely agree with your outrage, and it's a shame that people behaving in such a despicable manner will probably go on to get lucrative jobs, while victims of harrassment get, well, victimized.
They actually talked about this on "Good Morning America" this morning. I'm not sure if it was the same site but it was talking about sites where people can post nasty things about you.
Post a Comment
<< Home