Remember the earlier entry about what’s going to happen next after Virginia Tech?
Presto.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003681580_essay26.html
PAD
Remember the earlier entry about what’s going to happen next after Virginia Tech?
Presto.
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2003681580_essay26.html
PAD
• 
Hey, don’t pull innocent Oprah into this to justify your perversions. You are the one who some managed to go from restraining a child to fondling him. No one else brought it up.
While you may be a sick rat bášŧárd pedophile, I do feel sorry for you. You were obviously molested as a child. It doesn’t mean you shouldn’t be castrated for what you want do to children now, but it does explain your repulsive desires. I recommend you get help soon.
but as a teacher, don’t be surprised on inspiring the first cg shooting.
Having read that in full context, I don’t think it falls into the realm of “threat.”
If you keep poking that dog with a stick, it’s going to bite you.
If you keep playing with the fire, it’s going to burn you.
If you keep ticking off your employees, their going to walk out of this place and leave you hanging high and dry.
If you keep doing ______, then one day _______ will one day happen.
Not very nice, more then a little crass and not something that I would ever have gotten away with saying to a teacher (dad woulda killed me) in my day, but not really a threat.
He wasn’t saying that he would go on a rampage, he was saying that her… “style” of teaching was ticking students off. Not a great comment on his part, but not a threat.
The rest of it was just junk. Movies, songs and events in the news blended together with slagging on the teacher and his plans to be out of that place. It was pure SoC writng and nothing more then that.
I’d still like to have known more on his background, but based on this I’d say that all of this is a way over the top ado about nothing much at all.
they’re going to walk out of this place…
Anyone with a basic understanding of PTSD knows that triggers of PTSD do not have to be intentional.
I used to play throwing-dummy for a Midwestern grandmother and judo black-belt who held self-defense classes at the YWCA. She started new classes by instructing each student to walk past her as she walked forward. Then she told the class to always look at people when you walk by them, because predators will choose the girls who don’t look at them.
After the first class I saw her do that, she told me, “Those 3 girls who didn’t look at me were molestation victims.” I didn’t notice any of the girls not looking at her — and it didn’t occur to me to accuse her of being a pedophile or molestation victim for noticing a vulnerability in someone I hadn’t noticed.
My perversions do not depend on trampling the principle of consent, as you seem to enjoy doing.
Somewhere I’ve still got my old notebooks where I drew comic strips of myself and a buddy at the time going on very graphic revenge sprees against our arch-enemies at the school.
What happened when a teacher saw it? She said if I’d start drawing stuff that related to the subject she’d give me extra credit.
The end result?
I was a commercial sell-out in middle school.
These days I’d be locked away for life.
– Chris
ArcLight,
Yeah, and we used to sing songs about shooting the teacher to the tune of On Top of Old Smokey.
Between the stuff we did as parody towards other students and the stuff we directed towards teachers we disliked… I’d be in jail for life these days.
>With all due respect, unless this goes to trial and “we” are on the jury, it doesn’t matter a fig what “we” think.
Irrelevant. In a Democracy, it is essential that justice not only be carried out, but be SEEN to be carried out. And how can one ‘see’ that when one has no way of knowing if the accusations are well-grounded, or just the product of some authority types who got up on the wrong side of the bed that morning? To be able to do that critical differentiation, you need to be in posession of all the facts. Which, until you can read the offending document for yourself, you aren’t.
campchaos, ditto what Jerry said about not wanting to turn this discussion into personal combat.
It’s just that knowing both a police officer and someone who did a field placement at a facility for the mentally ill, I know that you can’t judge one by the other’s standards. And restraint holds aren’t foolproof. My girlfriend can cite multiple instances where an attempt to restrain a juvenile detainee resulted in injury to staff and/or the detainee.
This is a long one, since i went through the hundred or so posts already up and found several that stimulate me to reply:
Posted by Bladestar
Of course, they won’t call it censorship, it’s all about “Public Safety” and protecting “Society” and “The Children” from the mentally unbalanced and disturbed “Terrorists”.
Kris Kristofferson said:
Posted by Valerie
Actually, it looks like the teacher took the right action. In most schools, teachers are obligated to report this sort of thing to the student’s advisors and the administrators. Usually, nothing becomes of it officially (and obviously, this time the administration made a very wrong call).
The teacher assigned a Creative Writing class an essay expressing strong emotion. To a class of 18-year-olds.
She’s lucky she only got one that “disturbed” her.
Posted by Nat Gertler at April 26, 2007 07:15 PM
The Dean of Student Affairs banned any realistic looking weaponry from campus theater productions
“Is this a dagger I see before me?”
“No, it’s a bunch.”
“No, it’s a pointed stick…”
Posted by Rene
It really doesn’t matter what was in the story. Even the most hideously grotesque story in the whole world does not deserve jail time. Psychological counseling, sure. Jail? Never. You can’t be hurt by a story, particularly when they say there was no direct threat in the story.
Mike Diana.
Who was not only forbidden by the court to ever publish a comic book again – he was actually ordered to never draw anything again.
Wouldn’t surprise me if he had been banned from ever being in the same room as a pencil or piece of paper…
(Understand, if i could ever condone burning books, Diana’s “Boiled Angel” would be up there on the list…)
Posted by Jerry Chandler
There are no threats. This is massive overreaction by a teacher who will hopefully get disciplined heavily for this.
And leave us not ferget that the teacher had assigned the student to write something that expressed strong emotion.
And had apparently said profanity was okay.
I’m visualising a student turning in out-and-out pornography after an assignment like that.
Wonder if that would “disturb” the teacher.
Posted by Rex Hondo
It surprises me that a teacher could hand out an assigment like this to a room full of teenagers and get only one disturbing paper, and even more that he/she would be surprised that it happened.
I’ve been thinking the same thing.
Posted by Den
Oh. My. God. Now that is just insane. You mean there was no other way a group of adults could restrain a five year old? WTF is wrong with these people?
No taser, but remember the five-year-old in Florida a few years ago who was handcuffed and hauled off by the cops because she refused to do something in class?
Doug Marlette did a cartoon inspired by this incident and the Florida “stand your ground” law that was in the process of being passed at about the same time, showing a teacher with a smoking gun and a little girl on the floor. Caption: “She made me nervous.”
At the time i just thought of it as an amusingly snarky reductio ad absurdum of two different stupid Florida news items.
Posted by Rich Lane
It was mentioned that this is a first year teacher, so in all likelihood she didn’t consider what she was unleashing.
There’s a line in the book Up the Down Staircase (i have no idea if it’s in the film, having never seen it), in which the p[rotagonist, writing to her college best friend/roommate says something like “..Dr. Romano’s course on ‘Psychology of the Adolescent’. I have met the adolescent in his natural habitat. I’m beginning to suspect Dr Romano had not.”
Quoting the comment in the Northweat Herald {http://www.nwherald.com/articles/2007/04/25/news/local/doc462f202c94fa2608338443.txt}referred to (i think it’s the one) above:
His Marine recruiter has already informed him he won’t be joining the Marines (he apparently already had a contract that has now been cancelled by the Corps.)
I like this line: But I will say this, knowing the teacher if there is anyone who would overreact it WOULD be her.
And she was the one who made the assignment.
Posted by David S.
Imagine what would have happened if young Stephen King wrote and published “Rage” right after The Kent State Massacre or Columbine or…Virginia Tech?
Ever seen Targets, Peter Bogdanovich’s first film? Directly inspired by Charles Whitman’s Texas Tower spree. These days, it might have blighted Bogdanovich’s career before it began.
And then there’s Kinky Friedman’s Ballad of Charles Whitman a cheerfully morbid Texas two-step-style account that includes the lines “..sittin’ up there with his .36 magnum/Laughin’ wildy as he bagged ’em…”
Posted by Moon Man
Let’s not confuse what’s all right at school with what’s all right to do elsewhere (own time). When I was in fifth grade (many years ago), I knew it was wrong to include the word “whørë” in my story, but I did it anyways and got in trouble. I never remember thinking it was okay to do anything sexually explicit for any school project. The kid had to have known he would get some sort of backlash…and I’m not saying the authorities needed to be involved
A couple of accounts indicate the teacher had said it was okay to use profanity. And it wasn’t (by itself) the language that was the problem, but rather the content.
Posted by Paul1963
“Who are the Brain police?” Zappa, 1966.
Also you might want to see if you can find Zappa’s essay “The Chrome Plated Megaphone of Destiny” from We’re Only in it for the Money (1967), which is also the album where Frank caught flak from Rolling Stone‘s reviewer for being “over the top” in the song Mom & Dad, that says
Someone said they made some noise
The cops have shot some girls and boys
You’ll sit home and drink all night
They looked too wierd, it served them right,
which then ends:
Your kid was killed in the park today
Shot by the cops as she quietly lay
By the side of the creep she knew
They killed her too…
Of course, in 1967, Kent State was just a college in Ohio.
Posted by Jerry Chandler
Having read that in full context, I don’t think it falls into the realm of “threat.”
{snip}
Not very nice, more then a little crass and not something that I would ever have gotten away with saying to a teacher (dad woulda killed me) in my day, but not really a threat.
I once casually made a similar remark at work (in 1991) to a fellow-worker (others standing around laughd at it in context), and found myself in the HR office talking to a cop (off-duty cop who moonlighted [in uniform] as extra security at the plant) and apparently quite seriously told that Sgt Smith had considered arresting me for “terroristic threats”.
{For some reason, unrelated to Peter’s post or the comments thereon, i am reminded of a lovely little snarky line in one of Eisner’s later “Spirit” stories “…the school psychologist, Doctor Wolfgang Worry, conducting his regular weekly book-burning…” – mainly of comics, apparently.)
Eric Butler, you began your discourse in this thread by accusing us of being “shrill.” It is therefore ironic that you are now involved in a sniping match with Mike, our resident troll.
Mike is a complete idiot and a total jerk. That nevertheless doesn’t justify accusing him of pedophilia. You have no grounds for making that accusation, and in by leveling unfounded accusations at Mike you are acting no better than he.
Were I you, Eric, I’d knock it off.
This sort of thing happened after Columbine, too.
” Alex B. at April 27, 2007 09:57 AM “
It’s the policy at both the Primary and High Schools that my children did/are attending.
My perversions do not depend on trampling the principle of consent, as you seem to enjoy doing.
I think that’s the motto for NAMBLA, isn’t it?
Hey, take it out on me all you want. Every minute you’re typing is one that you aren’t out at the playground asking kids to help you find your lost puppy.
Eric Butler, Bill Myers is right. We all know that Mike is a troll, officially and idiot, and possibly even not in command of all his mental faculties. But accusations of pedophilia should not be leveled lightly or jokingly. Conversation with Mike is not only frustrating, but completely futile (if you expect serious conversation). And they never end. But you should refrain from venting your frustration by such accusations. It is cras.
No, I’m not a policeofficer, and don’t pretend to be one. That’s a job I could never do, and Kudos to those who can. No one knows all the details in the case, so no one can claim victory in post-analyzing it.
The kids I work/worked with never had the courtesy of a detention center or a mainstream school. Some were drugged and locked up from the age of two, but they could be managed. I stand by my original statement: short of a flamethrower, or perhaps a loaded gun or a WMD, there is no need to taser a preschooler.
As children cannot consent to sex, NAMBLA tramples on the principle of consent — which makes them more like you than like me.
Eric, it looks as though you aren’t going to listen to good advice, but here goes: don’t get into a “who’s the bigger pedophile” argument with Mike. Mike is a jerk, nutty as a pet raccoon and The Official Idiot of Paterdavid.net. Engaging in this kind of fight with him will only do what has heretofore been almost impossible–you’ll actually end up making some of us have to stick up for him (and we’ll undoubtedly do a better job of it than he can, poor sap).
Flame wars can be ugly but there ought to be a line not to be crossed and pedophilia seems a better place than most to put that line. Mike’s post was creepy but in no way evidence of anything so horrible as that. His replies are equally wrong but, in his defense, A-you started it and B-he can’t help it.
If you really want to make Mike look bad, just hang around for a while and make some perfectly reasonable observations–compliment Kurt Vonnegut for example or, I don’t know, claim the sky is often blue, it won’t take much.
But this is making you at least as bad as him, if not worse.
Calling someone a pedophile without cause is at the very least flirting with libel or slander. But, as Wolverine-as-penned-by-Chris-Claremont used to say… your choice, your consequence.
“your choice, your consequence.”
That’s not much of a deterrent, since the consequences would be the same had he made a perfectly sensible point. But it’s still wrong.
A a general rule people should refrain from calling each other pedophiles and Nazis, and should be very cautious about calling them racists or traitors.
—————-
“claim the sky is often blue.”
That’s a straw man, he never claimed that the sky is blue. Jerry Chandler did (see link to a picture Jerry drew in kindergardnen in which he clearly used the purple crayon, and a link to a dictionary defining the word ‘often’) 😉
Hëll Eric, just tell Mike that you agree to disagree. It’s amazing the mileage that you can get out of that.
But if Eric doesn’t take anyone’s advice here:
I’ve got May 3rd in the betting pool on when the Poisonous Pedophilia Polemic Problems invite an intervention by the management and kill an otherwise interesting thread.
Ok campchaos. I guess we’re agreeing to disagree at this point.
“My perversions do not depend on trampling the principle of consent, as you seem to enjoy doing.
I think that’s the motto for NAMBLA, isn’t it?
Hey, take it out on me all you want. Every minute you’re typing is one that you aren’t out at the playground asking kids to help you find your lost puppy.”
Yeah, okay, Eric, you need to knock this šhìŧ off now. What you’re posting right here? The pedophilia thing? It’s libel. End it now.
PAD
Posted by: Micha at April 28, 2007 10:40 AM
That’s not much of a deterrent, since the consequences would be the same had he made a perfectly sensible point.
Uh… no. Libel can have legal consequences.
Now that we know what the kid actually wrote, I feel less sorry for him and it actually seems like he made some sort of indirect threat to the teacher. That thing about saying she would inspire a shooting?
But (and granted that I’m saying this from a distance), this kid doesn’t look like the next Cho to me. He doesn’t look crazy. He rather looks like a garden-variety immature jerk that thought it would be so cool to see how much he could freak out the new teacher. Looks more like a bad taste prank to me.
Even with that line about the teacher in the paper, this could have been dealt with without calling the cops, in my oppinion. But it’s America, so everything must become a lawsuit.
How can you libel a anoymous poster?
“How can you libel a (sic) anoymous (sic) poster?”
In the real world legal system, you can’t. But here: I am the law. Random insults are one thing. The line I draw is where the real world would draw the line. Case closed…as this thread will be if Eric’s line of commentary continues.
PAD
Posted by: campchaos at April 28, 2007 08:11 AM
No, I’m not a policeofficer, and don’t pretend to be one.
I never said you “pretended” to be a cop. But you are second-guessing a police officer. In a nation where the police are part of a government that is, at least in theory, “of the people, by the people, and for the people,” asking questions about whether a police officer acted properly is legitimate. But you’re doing more than asking questions — you’re drawing conclusions based on scant evidence and declaring, “I’ve heard all I needs to know, I don’t needs to know no more.”
Posted by: campchaos at April 28, 2007 08:11 AM
That’s a job I could never do, and Kudos to those who can. No one knows all the details in the case, so no one can claim victory in post-analyzing it.
Uhm, okay… on the one hand you’re saying we can’t analyze this without all the details and yet on the other hand you’re doing just that. Well, which is it, then? Can we analyze it without all the details, or can we?
Posted by: campchaos at April 28, 2007 08:11 AM
The kids I work/worked with never had the courtesy of a detention center or a mainstream school. Some were drugged and locked up from the age of two, but they could be managed.
Wow. Either the children’s detention facilities in your area are a lot nicer than the one where my girlfriend works… or you’re drawing conclusions based on pre-conceived notions.
One of the kids brought to the facility at which my girlfriend is employed was a mentally disturbed ten-year-old who didn’t want to go to the hospital. To protest, he began screaming at the top of his lungs, dropped a load of feces in his shorts, and began smearing said feces all over the walls of his room.
And that’s but one example. Many of the kids who end up in this detention facility have suffered extreme abuse and neglect. Many of them have mental illnesses that go untreated until they lash out badly enough to end up in detention. Oh, and some of them… some of them are rapists and murderers.
So when you refer to the “courtesy” of a detention facility, you know not whereof you speak. You really don’t.
Moreover, as I said, my girlfriend just wrapped up a field placement at the local psychiatric center as part of her MSW program. She’s told me some harrowing stories.
Based on her input, I can say with confidence that the holds used to restrain people without injuring them are not foolproof. I don’t care what your individual experiences have been, as the tales my girlfriend has related to me comprise the aggregate experiences of many people at her place of work over a number of years. People can and DO get injured performing restraints — both the restrainers and the restrainees.
Posted by: campchaos at April 28, 2007 08:11 AM
I stand by my original statement: short of a flamethrower, or perhaps a loaded gun or a WMD, there is no need to taser a preschooler.
You can stand by it to your heart’s content. Personally, I prefer to recognize that all knowledge begins with the statement, “I don’t know.” And without more details about the incident in question, I cannot tell you whether there was a need to taser the preschooler or not.
I suppose this won’t help sway you, but I’ve gotten to know Jerry pretty well. We’ve talked on the phone a few times and I can tell you he’s extremely level-headed, intelligent, and compassionate. He’d HAVE to be in order to have engaged in coversations with me and not concluded them by swearing at me and hanging up. If he says there are situations where tasering a preschooler may be the only option to preserve said preschooler’s life… well, knowing Jerry as I do that carries a lot of weight.
Couldn’t you just inflict punishment in the form of a month long Disemvowelling of him instead? This thread’s actually pretty interesting and running along, certain parties excluded, pretty civilly.
Thanks Bill.
“Posted by: Bill Myers at April 28, 2007 12:07 PM :
Posted by: Micha at April 28, 2007 10:40 AM
That’s not much of a deterrent, since the consequences would be the same had he made a perfectly sensible point.
Uh… no. Libel can have legal consequences.”
I didn’t consider legal consequences to be a realistic event in these circumstances. So, until PAD stepped in, the only likely consequences seemed to me to be the continuation of the argument.
In general I prefer people refrain from doing things because they are wrong and not for fear of consequences. Obviously, that’s not always possible.
Belated, I just want to let Eric know that whatever he’s said since his exchange with me, I realize he had a point when he said this:
I didn’t say the reaction was over the top. I believe it was as well. But attributing it to the teacher may well be a mistake. He or she may have simply reported the story to the office (as is mandated by law), and the office over-reacted. Once the administration has it in their hands, the teacher generally has little to no say in how it’s handled.
On that, you’re right. I shouldn’t have concluded that the teacher wanted him out of the classroom or in jail. Clearly somebody overreacted, but as you say it may not have been the teacher.
As the story goes, he was teaching a speech class; and on a particular day when the class was to give their assigned speeches, one student showed up with a gun, pointed it at the teacher and ranted and raved about one thing or another. And then, just when it seemed certain he’d pull the trigger….
he set aside the gun and went into his speech.
…which reminds me of a comic book (who’da thunkit?) That “Animated Batman Family” issue where Ðìçk Grayson and Barbara Gordon are both in a class on criminology, a guy comes in, shoots the teacher, then runs out — and we find the whole thing was a setup by the teacher as a lesson on observing details.
But here: I am the law.
I so totally had a flash of you in Judge Deredd suit at that moment. Looked surprisingly good; you’ve slimmed down.
…which reminds me of a comic book (who’da thunkit?) That “Animated Batman Family” issue where Ðìçk Grayson and Barbara Gordon are both in a class on criminology, a guy comes in, shoots the teacher, then runs out — and we find the whole thing was a setup by the teacher as a lesson on observing details.
I remember a story of an actual teacher that did something similar in a criminology class and after the event (which involved screaming and threats but no gunfire) the class had to write down every detail as they remembered it. The result was to demonstrate how unreliable witnesses can be and the lesson was learned; some didn’t even get the race of the assailent correct. Yet witnesses are given the highest level of respect by juries.
>Yet witnesses are given the highest level of respect by juries.
And recent studies have shown how unreliable line-ups can be, too, with ‘witnesses’ sometimes picking out the guilty party where everybody in the line-up are innocent. They diligently follow through and point to an innocent because they feel they’re expected to see the perpetrator there.
“In the real world legal system, you can’t. But here: I am the law. Random insults are one thing. The line I draw is where the real world would draw the line. Case closed…as this thread will be if Eric’s line of commentary continues.”
So one person can cause an entire thread to be shut down?
Yeah, real intellent and free-speech supporting…
…
…
As far as I take Oprah at her word, and cited the principle justifying statutory rape laws, I wasn’t asking anyone to take my word on anything. This you characterize as trolling and idiocy.
If you let your dislike of the messenger interfere in your awareness of the uneven vulnerability of those around you, shame on you.
Posted by: Bladestar at April 28, 2007 07:35 PM
“In the real world legal system, you can’t. But here: I am the law. Random insults are one thing. The line I draw is where the real world would draw the line. Case closed…as this thread will be if Eric’s line of commentary continues.”
So one person can cause an entire thread to be shut down?
Yeah, real intellent (sic) and free-speech supporting…
Bladestar, even the most ardent of free speech supporters (a group to which I belong) realizes that speech that causes a direct, tangible, and provable harm is out-of-bounds. That includes death threats against specific people, screaming something false in a crowd in order to cause a panic, or falsely defaming someone’s character. Thus, Peter’s threatened actions are NOT inconsistent with a belief in free speech.
By the way, Bladestar, I’m ashamed to say you and I both have one thing in common (because really, I’d like to think we have nothing in common): each of us is responsible for prompting our host to shut down a thread in this blog. Difference between you and I? I learned my lesson. You apparently haven’t.
Please don’t ruin what has been largely an interesting thread by attempting to provoke our host merely for the sake of doing so. I’m not asking this for Peter’s sake, because, frankly, he can take care of himself. I’m asking for my sake, and for the sake of all the other guests who enjoy using this forum for the exchange of meaningful ideas.
Actually, as far as Peter characterized “I believe in free speech, but…” as paying lip-service-only to free speech, Peter invoked “I believe in free speech, but…” as he portrayed it as a retreat from unconditional free speech.
The unconditional practice of free speech seems to benefit first those who already benefit most from the status quo, and I don’t think it as important as it seems. However, as the arbitrary accusation against me seemed to have been based on an attempt to smother as taboo a discussion of nurturing in individuals the practice of establishing boundaries, I’m sorry said discussion-smothering was done on my behalf.
As far as the discussion may benefit from Eric chasing down unconscious reactions that cause him to vehemently reinforces a taboo that otherwise buries the voices of the most vulnerable, I have no reservation against him carrying on. I just don’t need any particular reputation that much right now.
“So one person can cause an entire thread to be shut down?”
Yes, that one person being me.
“Yeah, real intellent and free-speech supporting…”
Only trolls and idiots have put forward the notion that I have an all-or-nothing approach to free speech. I have never adovcated the notion that there are no bounds to free speech. In the Imus case, for instance, I made specific mention that Imus’s comments were not outside the bounds imposed by the FCC, nor were the outside other legal guidelines.
I draw the line where the law draws the line. That seems a reasonable way to proceed.
PAD
Sorry to have upset you so much, Bill. It was not intentional. I tried to be short and not waste time with long tales of 8 year olds almost killing other children by biting their throats out. A boy ripping off his pëņìš because he wasn’t getting a bath fast enough (the ER loved that). Beautiful kids who banged their heads so hard and so long they grew horns of scar tissue. I’ve watched children die from the HIV they caught from their 3rd shift staff. Pulled the paranoid schizophrenics out from inside cinderblock walls where they’d squeezed to flee their demons. There were clients so violent the court required them to wear bells on their shoes so they couldn’t sneak up on people. Dropping a load in one’s pants was the start of my day; it was the kid eating it like frosting that grossed me out for the first 3 years. Try cleaning feces off a textured ceiling. Some of the places my foster children came from would make you scream. Some were so abused they were considered unrehabilitatable by 12.
Yes, the place I worked was a real showplace. It was shut down by the state for incompetence and abuse.
It appears to me your girlfriend and I work in the same field. I didn’t think it was necessary to enter a my-story’s-worse contest. Anyone in the field knows they’re all bad.
campchaos, you didn’t upset me. I was merely trying to illustrate a simple point: restraint holds aren’t foolproof, and Jerry’s opinion carries a lot of weight with me.
I think you and I are where you and Jerry are: agree-to-disagree-ville.
As an aside, I’m glad to hear the place you described was shut down by the whatever state it was in. The psychiatric hospital where my girlfriend did her field placement isn’t perfect, but is extremely humane and works very hard to provide safety while treating residents with dignity.
So one person can cause an entire thread to be shut down?
Yeah, real intellent and free-speech supporting…
Bladestar, it’s his blog.Being for free speech does not mean you have to support anyone being given any venue they wish, especially when doing so means you have to tolerate a monkey flinging poo in a venue you yourself created.
Personally, I’d rather they just get disemvowled. It worked great for x-ray (gone but not forgotten) and it would work equally well for our current trolls (forgotten but not gone).
Campchaos and Bill Myers–jeeze, anytime I feel even the least bit sorry for myself with the challanges at my job I’m going to keep all this in mind. Holy crap…
Campchaos,
Wow. Just… Wow.
That’s about three or four Crisis guys I know all rolled into one. And they at least deal mostly with adults and not, what would for me be, the more disturbing job of always seeing children doing that kind of stuff.
I’ve watched children die from the HIV they caught from their 3rd shift staff.
Huh? Did you leave a word out or am I missing a job specific reference? Can you clarify that one?
Well, I never said you advocated unconditional free speech. You did advocate the notion journalists must dismiss any exception to free speech to fulfill a public trust of sheltering it:
The third example you characterized the NABJ as totalitarian. As far as your totalitarion characterization didn’t depend on anything the NABJ actually said, it depended on unconditional free speech in and of itself as a journalistic principle. Again, anyone who wants to take a stab at reconciling the principle of unconditional free speech with the intolerance of journalists who fabricate stories can make it a first for the History of Civilization.
Having said that, the people who disagree with you aren’t the only ones who fit your qualification for troll and idiot:
PAD: This libel thing is a little awkwardly put. Saying that you won’t tolerate name calling beyond a certain level on your site, because it is your site, makes perfect sense. Saying “No libel allowed” followed with “Is it libel?” and
“No it isn’t libel, but I don’t allow it” is an invitation to accusations that you are incoherent. Of course, I agree that it is out of bounds to accuse posters with whom one disagrees of pedophilia: Your standard here is correct, but your expression of it is faulty. Your admission that false claims against an anonymous poster do not constitute libel is quite provocative. I am not a lawyer, nor, I assume, are you, so I don’t know what the truth of the matter is – but I am curious, and will try to find out more about this. On the surface, it sounds difficult to prosecute, but perhaps not impossible.
Th whole point was that shutting down a whole thread rather than just one user is incredibly stupid.
Taking away a form of expression from everyone over the actions of one sound a lot like pad’s buddies at the NABJ treatment of Imus…
One difference leaps out, grabs your paw, and attempts to shake your arm out of the socket while saying, “Hi, hoyadoin, nice to see ya!”
PAD, and pretty much everyone else ’round here, will support free speech. But, seeing as how this is PAD’s blog, supporting free speech does NOT mean providing a medium by which A)someone can insult his family, or B) libel someone else. Free speech means only that you can speak. People also have the freedom not to listen.
Bladstar’s point is that it’s wrong to punish everyone for the sins of the few. It’s a fair point, though calling PAD’s opinion “stupid” scores no points.
On the other hand, the fact that the actions of a few can derail a thread to the point of it being closed may would hopefully serve as an incentive to the sane members of the community not to let things get that bad. The crazies are beyond help but ignoring them once they start speaking in tongues usually calms things down.
You have to look at it from Peter’s point of view; if he allows a thread to become a forum for out and out libel it is at least theoretically possible that he gets dragged into any potential legal action. The liklihood of him actually being found guilty of wrongdoing is slim to none but who needs the hassle?
As a boundary that minimizes Peter’s liability in lawsuits, it isn’t incoherent. You’re asking for the formal establishment of a boundary, and he doesn’t have to formalize his approach to get the results we all agree he wants.
Not all inconsistencies are to be retreated from: you have to allow for some casualness in life. More latitude for a casual approach should be allowed to minimizing liability.
Mike (huge news flash – there are people other than PAD with whom I disagree): I completely agree that PAD is completely within his rights to draw the line on speech on his blog wherever he wants. In this case I think his judgment is completely correct. I just thought his expression of his standards could have been much better stated. “This is what I won’t permit” is good. A. “You can’t do X” B. Is this X?” A. “No….It isn’t X, but it’s a lot like X. Don’t do that.” is an invitation to confusion and unnecessary controversy.
He’s right, and within his rights, but more unclear than a writer of his talent should be.