Do you have a right to privacy (and to call Obama a "nigger?")

nighttimer said:

The sentiments expressed by the posters are ugly and abhorrent, but I'm sure a Constitutional scholar (like the president) would be quick to say they fall under the cloak of protected speech.

Click to expand...

They are, almost certainly. But that does not protect the person expressing them from private, non-judiciary response, which could easily include expulsion from a school or loss of employment. People have been fired for offensive tweets. The Constitution does not protect you from that sort of thing.

caw

The purpose of this site seems to say
"These teenagers are tweeting hateful things we all disagree with. They deserve our scathing scorn and other appropriate attention. Oh and here is the town they live in, where they go to school and to be sure it is the right person here are some up close pictures of these teenagers saying these hateful thing."

As hateful some of the things they said are, no responsible person should post such detailed information about teenagers that they could be tracked down personally. This is irresponsible and could put these admittedly stupid kids into dangerous situations.

EDIT: There may be legal adults pointed out on the site, so my post may not apply to all of them.

Ergodic Mage said:

The purpose of this site seems to say
"These teenagers are tweeting hateful things we all disagree with. They deserve our scathing scorn and other appropriate attention. Oh and here is the town they live in, where they go to school and to be sure it is the right person here are some up close pictures of these teenagers saying these hateful thing."

As hateful some of the things they said are, no responsible person should post such detailed information about teenagers that they could be tracked down personally. This is irresponsible and could put these admittedly stupid kids into dangerous situations.

Click to expand...

To the bold: you're absolutely correct.

Of course, the teenagers in question were the ones to post that information linked to their hate, so yeah, "admittedly stupid" might be an understatement.

Freedom of speech means the government can't throw you in jail for saying something they don't like. It doesn't mean other people can't tell everyone what you said and ostracize you for it. So, it's definitely not a freedom of speech issue.

That being said, our society is going to have to adapt to the internet and the concept that someone can say something they regret later. These stupid racists can be held accountable for what they're saying, but if they mature and realize how _stupid_ they were, I don't think they should have to deal with someone combing their history and holding it against them. (EDIT2: I mean, ten years down the road, if they're no longer racists, they shouldn't have an employer refuse to hire them over it.)

But these are the sort of people that use social ostracism and even threats to oppress other people, and they deserve to have the full force of that tactic turned back on them until they stop doing it. They punched first, and they need to be punched in return until they stop attacking others.

EDIT:
Basically, I think people have, and should have, the _legal_ right to absolutely ruin these assholes' lives over this, to shun them and refuse to hire them and pretty much treat them like they want to treat everybody else. That being said, morally, a little restraint and mercy is always nice, and helps preserve civility.

willietheshakes said:

To the bold: you're absolutely correct.

Of course, the teenagers in question were the ones to post that information linked to their hate, so yeah, "admittedly stupid" might be an understatement.

Click to expand...

These teenager are more or less saying 'I'm proving my ignorance by displaying bigotry.". Could you point me to a place where any one of them says "I'm a bigot and here is where you can find me."?

The information is easily obtained but this irresponsible site posts all of this information in a nice easily accessed location just to make it even easier to identify and track down these teenagers.
What will this person running the site do if someone decides to use this information badly? Will he step up and admit that he let his own hate get in the way of responsibly responding to hate speeches? Most likely he will justify his actions in potentially endangering teenagers by claiming their irresponsibility is to blame.

Further searching does indicate there may be more adults than teenagers are targeted by this site. My objections are only for the teenagers targeted not the adults.

Ergodic Mage said:

These teenager are more or less saying 'I'm proving my ignorance by displaying bigotry.". Could you point me to a place where any one of them says "I'm a bigot and here is where you can find me."?

Click to expand...

All together now: their twitter accounts list their locations.

Next to their bigotry. This isn't genius detective work.

nighttimer said:

As someone who neither believes in censorship or heavy-handed political correctness, the black and white response by the Hello there, Racists creator is in its own way just as brash and misguided as the crude bigotry of those he holds up to ridicule.

Click to expand...

This.

Chrissy said:

But, teenagers? Their brains are like, deformed.

Click to expand...

missesdash said:

I think she meant as in "not fully developed" and "more reckless/impulsive"

Click to expand...

Yeah, thank you. I was being silly/jokey, too, by using the word "deformed." That's why I put the *grin*.

mccardey said:

Her words weren't chosen well, then. But I think bloodfiend, who is a self-confessed teenager, made my point far more eloquently than I was making it, anyway - just by example. Teenagers are not all same.

Click to expand...

I agree that not all teenagers are the same. Of course they're not. But I would say that bloodfiend is on the way-high end of the maturity level for most teens. Also, she's 18 (19?) not 15. That can make a big difference, too. And she's a writer. And she's obviously very intelligent (I would have had no idea she was still a teen if she hadn't said so).

Teenagers can often be focused on a lot of stuff -- like impressing their friends, fitting in, being *cool* -- that they will grow out of later, or at least change their opinions about.

I don't know if that's true or not for the kids in the OP, but they seem incredibly immature, the first girl on the site, who is 15, sounds like a typical snotty high school mean girl wannabe, running her mouth without a filter to impress her six BFFs in her little podunk town with a population of 13,600.

Being on the website might even make her feel *famous*

ETA: The above is not meant to excuse these kids' behavior by any stretch. It's utterly deplorable and incredibly ignorant. But the way to respond to it isn't mass internet re-publication, imo. At least, I don't think it's going to be helpful.

Opty said:

Well, that's not what "valid" means so perhaps you should choose a different, more appropriate, word. If we're just going to make up our own definitions and interpretations of words then public discourse becomes pretty much an exercise in futility.

Click to expand...

Valid can be defined as based on truth. One person's experiences (which are true for them) can shape their opinion. Therefore, their opinion is just as valid as other's.

RichardGarfinkle said:

Do you distinguish informed opnion from uninformed opnion?

Click to expand...

Not when it comes to a person's right to state that opinion without being threatened for it.

I just find this whole debate/discussion strange. Person A says something Person B doesn't like, so B posts personal info about A on the internet, creating all kinds of problems (including physical danger) for A.

Now, if we're talking about writers and reviewers, then it's a shit storm of anger toward B. But if we're talking about teenagers posting racist comments, then it's all A's fault and they deserve whatever happens to them.

Does anyone else, anywhere, see the hypocrisy there? Or is this just another example of it being okay to beat down people who don't say the Right Thing?

shadowwalker said:

Valid can be defined as based on truth. One person's experiences (which are true for them) can shape their opinion. Therefore, their opinion is just as valid as other's.

Click to expand...

Validity is a property of the structure of arguments.

1) Socrates is a man
2) All men are mortal
1,2) Therefore, Socrates is mortal

That's a valid argument. It's still a valid argument even if you argue:

1) Socrates is a man
2) All men are sixty feet tall
1,2) Therefore, Socrates is sixty feet tall.

An argument can be valid and be based on false premises. An invalid argument, on the other hand, might look like this:

1) Socrates is mortal
2) All men are mortal
1,2) Therefore, Socrates is a man

There's a logical fallacy in there - a structural flaw - and the argument's worthless even if the premises and the conclusions are true.

... thread title change, perhaps?

"n-word" in lieu of the actual term

disturbing to have to look at that, even with quotes wrapped around it

apologies for my sensitivity

shadowwalker said:

I just find this whole debate/discussion strange. Person A says something Person B doesn't like, so B posts personal info about A on the internet, creating all kinds of problems (including physical danger) for A.

Click to expand...

Probably because that isn't what happened. Person A makes morally reprehensible remarks. Person B reposts the remarks and attaches it to the name and location Person A gave so that a quick google will turn up the shitty comment. A future employee probably won't read an entire twitter feed. But they'll read a short blurb on a blog post.


Do you know that a lot of twitter apps attach the location of the individual, down to the cross streets, to each tweet? You'll notice those are absent from the blog post.

The blog post doesn't put them in any more "danger" than the original tweets. If someone decided to go murder anyone who said "nigger" on twitter, there's a convenient search function and every single person who has a public account and has used the word will come up. Along with (most of the time) their location, their Instagram feed (ehich also gives locations) and specific details about their day to day lives.

Strange to me that someone can essentially say "Hi, I'm Bob Smith from Mobile Alabama and I hate Jews." And the outrage comes when someone else on another site says "Did you guys know that Bob Smith from Mobile, Alabama hates Jews?"

The entire debate is based on the illusion of privacy on very very public forums.

The entire debate is based on the illusion of privacy on very very public forums.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think the privacy argument has a leg to stand on (though I'm no lawyer). If there is some exception for minors, minors shouldn't be allowed to tweet or post on Facebook in the first place.

As far as shadowwalker's comment about hypocrisy... yeah, I sort of agree with that. It seems hypocritical to hatefully comment upon another person's hateful comments.

shadowwalker said:

Valid can be defined as based on truth. One person's experiences (which are true for them) can shape their opinion. Therefore, their opinion is just as valid as other's.

Click to expand...

I hate to continue the derail but, no, "valid" cannot be defined as "based on subjective, experiential truth" unless we're just making up definitions that have little to do with the actual definitions to words.

You may want "valid" to mean that, you may have always mistakenly believed that's what it means, but it doesn't. You've misused the word, or used the wrong word altogether, and no amount of Kierkegarrdian philosophizing about personal truths will change that. I even linked you to the actual definition yet you're still clinging to a made up one. I don't get it.

As I said, words have actual meanings. We can't just make up our own or continue to assert that a wrong definition is somehow right just because we don't want to admit that we were wrong about it. Doing so jeopardizes the possibility of fruitful discourse. I would think a board full of writers would understand that.

shadowwalker said:

I just find this whole debate/discussion strange. Person A says something Person B doesn't like, so B posts personal info about A on the internet, creating all kinds of problems (including physical danger) for A.

Now, if we're talking about writers and reviewers, then it's a shit storm of anger toward B. But if we're talking about teenagers posting racist comments, then it's all A's fault and they deserve whatever happens to them.

Does anyone else, anywhere, see the hypocrisy there? Or is this just another example of it being okay to beat down people who don't say the Right Thing?

Click to expand...

First of all, to touch on the "valid opinion" argument, of course everyone has a right to their own opinions. But not every opinion should be respected, or given equal weight. Everyone has the right to be an ignorant hateful racist turd, but they do not have the right to suffer no social consequences should their backwards and anachronistic beliefs come to light. Especially when said racist turd shouts their ignorance in a public forum.

The bottom line is these kids posted their own personal information on the sites they used to spread their vitriol. We as a society have a right to call them out on it. I would be singing a different tune if the tumblr site included information that the posters didn't include themselves, or that wasn't part of the public domain already, but it's not the case.

Chrissy said:

Yeah, I don't think the privacy argument has a leg to stand on (though I'm no lawyer). If there is some exception for minors, minors shouldn't be allowed to tweet or post on Facebook in the first place.

As far as shadowwalker's comment about hypocrisy... yeah, I sort of agree with that. It seems hypocritical to hatefully comment upon another person's hateful comments.

Click to expand...

Was the commentary hateful? I find it to be pretty matter-of-fact. But I only read a couple of pages. There was a bit of sarcasm. But for the most part it's "here's what they said"

I don't think we should conflate being critical of hateful language and being "hateful."

There is also the issue of tone policing: expecting people to be completely polite and well mannered when disucssiong oppression. It's a derail for the most part.

Opty said:

I hate to continue the derail but, no, "valid" cannot be defined as "based on subjective, experiential truth" unless we're just making up definitions that have little to do with the actual definitions to words.

You may want "valid" to mean that, you may have always mistakenly believed that's what it means, but it doesn't. You've misused the word, or used the wrong word altogether, and no amount of Kierkegarrdian philosophizing about personal truths will change that. I even linked you to the actual definition yet you're still clinging to a made up one. I don't get it.

As I said, words have actual meanings. We can't just make up our own or continue to assert that a wrong definition is somehow right just because we don't want to admit that we were wrong about it. Doing so jeopardizes the possibility of fruitful discourse. I would think a board full of writers would understand that.

Click to expand...

I thought this was interesting:

An opinion is valid if the one expressing their opinion has grounds for their view, whether they have stated those grounds or not.

Opinions are beliefs, viewpoints, estimations of a matter.

Opinions are formed from one or more influencing factors, e.g.

• knowledge of the facts, from which logical and reasonable conclusions/inferences can be deduced/extrapolated

• the weight of opinion(s) of others

• customary beliefs and cultural background, which often mold ideas and opinions on matters

• personal maturity and experience, (or lack of!) which affects and molds attitudes, behavior and viewpoints

• the evident professionalism of a credible authority when they express their opinion on a matter within their field of specialty, and only after they have carried out due and careful consideration of the matter and all the relevant facts and factors.

• the ability to foresee the consequences of holding to a particular opinion, or of taking a particular stand or position, on something

• simple personal preference, which, although not having any weight of 'proof', is nevertheless as equally valid on a matter of personal taste and choice as any other person's opinion.

Click to expand...

missesdash said:

Was the commentary hateful? I find it to be pretty matter-of-fact. But I only read a couple of pages. There was a bit of sarcasm. But for the most part it's "here's what they said"

I don't think we should conflate being critical of hateful language and being "hateful."

Click to expand...

I agree that critical does not equal hateful.

I couldn't read most of the stuff on the website, it nauseates me. I just skimmed it. The website doesn't return slur for slur, no, but here's an example of an intro paragraph for one of the racists:

Kenton David Saunders lives in Dexter, Missouri. He attended Dexter high, and from his photographs, clearly peaked in high school, and Kenton is living out his remaining years trying to re-live that forever-lost time.

Click to expand...

I mean, that's sort of funny, but ...

Here's another comment from the website creator, under a pic of one of the (male) kids:

(yes, this is his actual picture, not some elderly woman’s)

Click to expand...

missesdash said:

There is also the issue of tone policing: expecting people to be completely polite and well mannered when disucssiong oppression. It's a derail for the most part.

Click to expand...

I agree. I don't want to police anyone anyway. People are going to say what they're going to say, and we'll all have an opinion about it.

Chrissy said:

Yeah, I don't think the privacy argument has a leg to stand on (though I'm no lawyer). If there is some exception for minors, minors shouldn't be allowed to tweet or post on Facebook in the first place.

Click to expand...

I kind of agree, actually, that we need to examine how much free reign kids get when it comes to the internet. I don't think the majority of kids understand the permanence, the far reaching audience, the transparency of it all. I'm willing to bet each of those posters thought their comments were at least partly private, and that a backlash like this wasn't even possible in their minds.

On NPR, they did a interview a few months back of an author who had written a book about privacy and children on the internet. I'm going to see if I can find a link...

ETA: Found it. The audio doesn't appear to be working, but the article is decent.

Chrissy said:

I thought this was interesting:

Click to expand...

I suppose it's interesting but an anonymous post on Wikia.answers is far from authoritative or convincing. A quick search of that same site for the same subject yielded me 4 different answers.

However, your link perfectly illustrates my point about personal, made up definitions and how they can muddy the waters of discourse.

Chrissy said:

I agree that critical does not equal hateful.

I couldn't read most of the stuff on the website, it nauseates me. I just skimmed it. The website doesn't return slur for slur, no, but here's an example of an intro paragraph for one of the racists

I mean, that's sort of funny, but ...

I agree. I don't want to police anyone anyway. People are going to say what they're going to say, and we'll all have an opinion about it.

Click to expand...

Ah see, I didn't read that far. The newer ones have much less snark, so I wonder if they re-thought the insults. Personal insults at least.

I'm almost positive they have, the tumblr SJ community self-polices to the point of constant bickering over word choice.

Opty said:

I suppose it's interesting but an anonymous post on Wikia.answers is far from authoritative or convincing. A quick search of that same site for the same subject yielded me 4 different answers.

However, your link perfectly illustrates my point about personal, made up definitions and how they can muddy the waters of discourse.

Click to expand...

I think the problem is trying pair the word "valid" with opinion. If an opinion is a personal, subjective belief, then how can it be anything other than valid for the one who holds it? Is there such thing as an invalid opinion?

I think Richard's "informed" versus "uninformed" makes more sense.

Ergodic Mage said:

These teenager are more or less saying 'I'm proving my ignorance by displaying bigotry.". Could you point me to a place where any one of them says "I'm a bigot and here is where you can find me."?

Click to expand...

Yes. They say this right on their twitter pages. They say, "I'm a bigot, here is where you can find me, and this is what I look like." As well as a host of other information that was NOT reposted by by the tumblr, such as, "This is where I am right now, and where I'm going tonight, and this weekend."