On saying things in public
May. 10th, 2013 01:50 pmFirst of all, this post is not about JonMon specifically. I'm posting in response to this thread, and as in the comments I made on that thread, I intend to address something more general in our culture that this lawsuit relates to. I'm writing here about some of the effects of lawsuits like this, and the kinds of reactions people have to them, generally.
Set JL = People who have are being currently sued by JonMon or have received letters from him informing them that they'll be added to the suit.
Set A = People (most of them not connected to JonMon or this lawsuit in any way) who have been sexually assaulted by someone who had previous assaulted or showed warning signs to multiple other people in their social circles or communities, where such people had shared information privately with each other about this someone, but that information had never reached the assaulted individual before the assault.
Members of set A who I am personally aware of, exceed members of set JL who I am personally aware of.
This is despite the fact that I'm confident that I'm personally aware of only a teeny tiny minority of the global membership of set A, while I am probably personally aware of a significant percentage of the total set JL.
So, when someone promotes the message "people need to be more careful about what they say on publically-accessible community forums about serial assaulters in their communities", I believe I need to respond loudly that the actual problem is that, on the whole, people are too careful about what they say on publically-accessible community forums about serial assaulters in their communities.
Again, this is independent of any assertions people make about JonMon. It's also a much bigger problem, that affects orders of magnitude more people, than the current lawsuit. But to whatever extent some well-meaning people's responses to the lawsuit may contribute to this larger problem, I want to try to balance that out.
Set JL = People who have are being currently sued by JonMon or have received letters from him informing them that they'll be added to the suit.
Set A = People (most of them not connected to JonMon or this lawsuit in any way) who have been sexually assaulted by someone who had previous assaulted or showed warning signs to multiple other people in their social circles or communities, where such people had shared information privately with each other about this someone, but that information had never reached the assaulted individual before the assault.
Members of set A who I am personally aware of, exceed members of set JL who I am personally aware of.
This is despite the fact that I'm confident that I'm personally aware of only a teeny tiny minority of the global membership of set A, while I am probably personally aware of a significant percentage of the total set JL.
So, when someone promotes the message "people need to be more careful about what they say on publically-accessible community forums about serial assaulters in their communities", I believe I need to respond loudly that the actual problem is that, on the whole, people are too careful about what they say on publically-accessible community forums about serial assaulters in their communities.
Again, this is independent of any assertions people make about JonMon. It's also a much bigger problem, that affects orders of magnitude more people, than the current lawsuit. But to whatever extent some well-meaning people's responses to the lawsuit may contribute to this larger problem, I want to try to balance that out.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 07:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 07:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 08:05 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 08:13 pm (UTC)For another examination of this type of problem, check out The Missing Stair (http://pervocracy.blogspot.com/2012/06/missing-stair.html).
no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 08:15 pm (UTC)Sort of a tangent: Unfortunately, chilling effects are chilling specifically because there actually are real (sometimes small, sometimes large) risks to you if you don’t self-censor. And sometimes that’s still the decision we’ll make. But we should at the very least be aware when we’re making it.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 08:22 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 08:31 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 08:36 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 08:45 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 10:03 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 11:05 pm (UTC)also, i have said, and will keep saying, that beyond all the stuff my friends have experienced first hand, any person that holds the opinion of "you did not go to the police, therefore i did nothing wrong" is a creep in my book for that opinion alone.
forfuckingreal.
no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 11:07 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-10 11:17 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-11 02:46 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-11 03:05 am (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-11 04:41 pm (UTC)The page you linked to defined "lashon hara" as true speech used for a wrongful purpose; it uses another term for lies.
quoting from that article:
"Speech is considered to be lashon hara if it says something negative about a person or party, is not previously known to the public, is not seriously intended to correct or improve a negative situation, and is true. "
and, seemingly directly relevant to this discussion:
"If the lashon hara serves as a warning against the possibility of future harm, such communication is under certain conditions, compulsory. "
Not merely allowed.. compulsory! (I wonder what the "certain conditions" are...).
no subject
Date: 2013-05-11 06:26 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-11 06:32 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-12 04:40 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-05-13 03:28 pm (UTC)