Men’s Rights site A Voice for Men offers $1000 “bounty” for personal information on Swedish feminists
A Voice for Men, one of the most influential and popular Men’s Rights websites, is now offering a $1000 “bounty” for anyone able to track down the personal information of several Swedish women involved in a tasteless video advertising a theater production based on Valarie Solanas’ SCUM manifesto. As the anonymous poster calling himself John the Other – the second-in-command at AVfM – put it in a posting yesterday (emphasis in original):
We are asking for the full legal names, home addresses, places of employment, email addresses and contact phone numbers of the women and man who produced and starred in the video described above. We will pay 1000 dollars to any individual who provides and confirms this information, to be paid either directly to themselves or to a charity of their choice.
John explains that this information will be posted on the AVfM-affiliated site Register-Her.com, an “offenders database” that is being used to vilify individual feminists and “Fuck Their Shit Up,” as AVfM head honcho Paul Elam likes to put it. John notes that Regsiter-Her.com also intends to post the “government identification numbers [and] drivers licences” of the women they are able to identify.
John admits plainly that posting such information may put the physical safety of these women at risk from vigilante violence. As he puts it (emphasis mine):
Some individuals may criticize the intent to publish not only names, but also addresses, phone numbers, employers and other personal information – on the grounds that such exposure create a risk of retributive violence against individuals who openly advocate murder based on sex. It is the considered position of the editorial board of AVfM that any such risks are out-weighed by the ongoing hazard to the public of these individuals continuing to operate in anonymity.
The comments posted on the article at AVfM suggest that such “retributive” violence is a real possibility. Indeed, here’s the very first comment (which currently has 17 upvotes from readers of the site):
A commenter called Xnomolos, in another upvoted comment, adds:
i would love to hunt down these women myself.
JinnBottle responds to this comment by advising “all men to start carrying guns.”
The commenters on AVfM have already uncovered the identities of all of the women involved in the video. The blogger Fidelbogen has been the most active internet detective so far.
There is no question that the video itself is offensive, and designed to provoke. You can see it here; I’m not going to embed it on this site. If you don’t want to watch it: it depicts a young woman shooting a man in the head for no reason. Afterwards the woman and her gleeful, giggling accomplices do a victory dance, then lick the blood from the dead man’s head. A message at the end urges viewers to “Do Your Part.”
Every feminist I know who has seen the video has been appalled by it. I’m appalled by it. It’s hateful, and it’s wrong.
But John the Other, and the other commenters on AVfM, claim that it is more than this: that that the video of the staged murder, intended to provide publicity for a theater production based on Solanas’ notorious SCUM manifesto, is quite literally an open call for the murder of men. As John the Other puts it:
Open advocation of murder cannot be allowed in a civil society, without that society devolving into a culture of brutal violence.
Evidently he has no problem with, or has somehow not noticed, the comments on AVfM fantasizing about shooting and killing the women involved in the video.
Is the video a literal call to murder? Is it, as one AVfM commenter puts it, evidence of a “conspiracy to commit mass murder?” No. Violence and murder have been dramatized in the theater since its beginnings. No one accuses Sophocles of advocating fratricide and incest, though both are dealt with in his play Oedipus Rex. No one accuses Shakespeare of advocating mass murder, though many of his most famous plays have body counts that put many horror films to shame.
Does the tag line at the end of the video – “do your part” – transform the video from a depiction of murder into an open call for it? No. The “threat,” such as it is, is vague; it’s not aimed at any specific individuals. It might be seen as akin to someone wearing a t-shirt that says “kill ‘em all, let God sort them out” – tasteless and offensive, but not a literal threat. “Kill ‘Em All” is actually the name of Metallica’s first album. While a lot of people see James Hetfield, Lars Ulrich et al as pompous idiots, they have not been jailed for conspiracy to commit mass murder. That would be ridiculous.
Someone claiming to have been involved in the SCUM-inspired theatrical production in question has posted several detailed comments on AVfM, explaining that those involved in the production are “not out to get you” and that the video itself was “meant as a viral “wtf?!” to give attention to both the questions that it raises and the play itself.”
By contrast, AVfM is targeting specific individuals, and intends to offer information that would allow anyone intent on doing them harm to quite literally track them to their homes and workplaces. Those fantasizing about killing these woman are not simply making a joke along the lines of “women, can’t live with ‘em; can’t kill ‘em.” They are fantasizing about killing real people, and providing would-be evil-doers maps to their doors.
AVfM is an American site, in English; these specific women live in Sweden. While it is a real possibility, it seems unlikely that anyone reading the site will literally find and murder any of those involved in the SCUM production. At least I hope that this does not come to pass.
I don’t believe that either Paul Elam or John the Other literally wants any feminist to be killed. The real intent behind AVfM’s publishing people’s personal information, it seems clear, is to intimidate feminist writers and activists into shutting up, to make clear that if they post something that offends the internet vigilantes at AVfM they will face the possibility of some deranged individual quite literally showing up at their door intent on doing them harm.
Paul Elam and John the Other claim that they’re not advocating violence. But they are playing a dangerous game here. If some deranged individual, inspired by the hyperbolic anti-feminist rhetoric on AVfM, and armed with information provided by “Register-Her.com,” murders or otherwise harms a feminist blogger or activist or video maker, Elam and his enablers will have blood on their hands. As will those MRAs who continue to publicly support and/or link to AVfM and/or Register-Her.com.
This is not the way a legitimate rights group deals with those who disagree with them. This is what hate groups do.
Posted on November 21, 2011, in antifeminism, misandry, misogyny, MRA, paul elam, threats, violence against men/women. Bookmark the permalink. 884 Comments.
@shaenon
owlslave’s current tangent doesnt even actually involve anything as serious as that. this is all about on-campus investigations. there are no criminal penalties involved.
not punk-
last two i was in the crowd for
@Sharculese
OT but I’ve been meaning to ask you this for awhile… is the woman in your icon Haley from…argh I forgot the band’s name but I know her name is Haley.
Also hooray for Refused! even though its been ages since I listened to em’
Ashley is sleeping. Sorry.
So? Wake her up. She’ll just giggle and let you spank her.
This being planet earth, I wouldn’t hold my breath that it is indeed promoting misandry.
OT but I’ve been meaning to ask you this for awhile… is the woman in your icon Haley from…argh I forgot the band’s name but I know her name is Haley.
yes
Also hooray for Refused! even though its been ages since I listened to em’
yes
yes
Paramore! that’s the name. Great song.
My favorite Refused songs (dunno how to embed)
um…well I managed one anyway >.>
ya, paramores first album was awesome. its a shame they couldnt live up to it, but how many pop-punk bands have more than one good album anyway?
as to refused, shape of punk to come is one of my favorite albums ever. and about new noise: theres this story i love from when i used to post on atease where a dude was talking about how he saw refused on three dollar bill back in the day, these skinny blonde dude in suits come out and he’s like ‘what the fuck, this is going to be terrible’ and then they launch into new noise
I’ve put NWO on moderation again for being an even bigger asshole than he usually is.
Brandon, yes, the bounty is worse than the video.
This is genuinely appalling, and I’m very glad this video was made in Sweden, which at least makes it marginally less likely that AVfM’s collective fantasies will actually be realized.
Because logically, where do they stop? The people who made Baise-moi! are presumably just as fair game – if not more so, as it was a proper film that got an international cinema release. And how about Ridley Scott for making Thelma & Louise? Or Abel Ferrara for making Ms. 45?
Because it seems to me that there’s no fucking difference, except in terms of scale and therefore potential vulnerability to harassment.
All credit to MRAL for refusing to condone this – and saying so upfront, without getting prompted.
No credit at all to NWOSlave or Brandon for being just as predictably obnoxious as ever. In fact, Brandon’s ability to come across as even creepier than NWOSlave despite ostensibly posting far less inflammatory material never ceases to amaze me.
I missed something.
It can in fact be a tort offense to breach anonymity, yes. Most likely under libel law. If someone is anonymous, and is neither a public servant nor a “Public Figure” (And vliet isn’t, she’s nowhere near that famous), then revealing their actual identity can constitute libel (effectively). As it happens, truth isn’t quite as absolute a defense as one might expect if you’re not being sued for libel for printing something untrue, so much as printing something you didn’t actually have a right to print. Only public figures and civil servants have been ruled to have given up any right to their privacy. You aren’t breaking the law by discovering it, but by revealing this information to the public, you’re breaching privacy in a way that ordinary citizens legitimately expect to be covered.
Then I hope you don’t have a problem with the consequences of your actions! Because breaching anonymity is not a fucking joke.
In as few words as possible, you have no earthly idea about how easy it is to stalk someone.
Oh, and I doubt this will be an issue, but my previous comment is not actually Legal Advice.
Who was that convo with Rutee? did I miss something in this thread? o.O
@Sharculese
haha yea, it is a pretty hardcore sound from guys who look like they’d be singing something on the more emo side :P
You did, it was MRAL.
Absolutely. The amount of info you need in order to make someone’s life hell is frighteningly minuscule.
I had a rather disturbing experience on another blog in which someone called me by what he fancied was my full name, accompanied by something that could clearly be interpreted as some kind of threat.
But the disturbing part was that he got it completely wrong (as in both the first name and surname were miles off target) – and I really hope that some poor guy with that name wasn’t harassed as a result. Thankfully, the name he guessed was pretty common, so it’s unlikely.
Said from behind a pseudonym, without any irony whatsoever, once again.
I totally believe your representation is both accurate and honest. You have never been anything else. So did she spit on you too? Hint: You are not a trusted party by any stretch. Links, if you’d like this to be taken seriously.
You don’t have that right, you arrogant little twit. Same as I would fucking despise anyone who outed your real name. I don’t care if you’re an asshole; if you’re anonymous, and not threatening anyone, you get to keep it.
His posts came up off moderation on previous pages, I guess.
A couple of years ago, I accidentally discovered the real identity of a regular poster on another forum I frequent, and it’s often been sorely tempting to out this person, because if you know who it actually is, the hypocrisy behind almost every post is just staggering – and the blatant, bitter jealousy of people more successful in the same field is both hilarious and pitiful.
But I haven’t done it, and I wouldn’t do it, because I’m not an asshole.
I, and I bet most of AVfM, would never condone going after someone like Holly, Ozymandias, Futrelle, even Valenti or Marcotte or Schwyzer.
Register-Her.com, which, as David mentions, is affiliated with AVfM, includes several prominent feminist bloggers, including Amanda Marcotte. The site is supposedly for “outing” women with criminal records, but it’s quickly turned into a random collection of women the guys on AVfM would like to see stalked and harassed.
Personally, I always post under my own name, because I don’t believe in saying anything online that I wouldn’t say in person. How about you?
I use a handle because I like it, but I run in several circles where real names are strongly encouraged, so it’s pretty easy to put two and two together if you want. I’ve yet to be badly harassed even on my blog, let alone IRL. It’s good practice to, at the very least, not say anything that could get you fired from your job, since even with a handle stuff happens.
they threatened Sady Doyle from Tiger Beatdown too. The specific words in the article were “we are coming for you”
this was in response to her current speaking out against rape and death threats women get online. How ironic.
Silence your dissenters using threats and fear tactics! that’s the way to do activism!
I think a lot of people are missing the essential point about AVfM. They are a tiny, tiny group of men. Yes, they are full of hate and are ugly, unintelligent and offensive – but there’s another common demominator that holds them together – they are lost and looking for some meaning. Nothing binds people together like having a common enemy and then pretending to fight against it.
So, at AVfM, we have a group of hateful low-lives who play soldier/private detective/vigilante. But that’s extremely pathetic, I hear you say, grown men playing games like this. Well of course it is – except to AVfM, they try to sell if as “fighting bigotry and hatred/the gynocracy” etc. AVfM know that this video isn’t an incitement to murder – but they have to pretend to to justify their meagre and meaningless existences. You see, if the video was just art, then they have nothing to congregate round, get worked up about and give their lives some meaning.
Paul Elam has at least twice described how “fucking feminists’s shit up” arouses him sexually. I don’t doubt that; he is a very strange person. Paul Elam isn’t stupid (he isn’t intelligent; he’s clumsy and dogmatic), though many on the site are, indeed, very stupid. Elam knows full well that he isn’t preventing a mass murder conspiracy – but the collective delusion (though 90% will know it’s nonsense) that they are doing “good work” binds them together.
AVfM essentially exposes what is so toxic and pathetic with the MRM; they invent causes, overreact on a comedic scale and then expose themselves for what they are.
Parody is the key weapon to combat these people. Love is lost on them; they want to be hated – it feeds them.
Happy Anti-MRA – My concern is that although they’re playing “murder conspiracy: the home game!” for schoolkiddish shits and giggles, they’re also trying their damndest to put personal information out there for someone actually violent to find it. And while I think the odds are low that’s a goddamn scary game to be playing.
I think the biggest weapon to combat these people is the day they find out that grown-ups are paying attention to their shenanigans and are not amused and will be holding them to grown-up standards. It’s like the time you were a kid and smashed a toilet to be hilarious and amuse your friends in middle school and then all of a sudden you were learning words like “destruction of government property” and exactly how much a toilet bowl and installation cost. It’s a wake-up call.
I’d like to say “just ignore these guys and let them wallow in their little circlejerk out of the eyes of polite society forever,” but I’m afraid they might start doing even more desperate and horrible things for attention then. So I think they’re in need of the “holy shit, our silly threat landed us in not-silly trouble” wake-up call.
They may be a small group but it only takes one unstable person to cause a lot of damage. That’s what worries me. 99.99% of people at AVfM may just be hateful, unhappy, men who use it as a way to vent their frustration without ever really meaning to take it into the real word.
There are fanatics who will take any cause or idea too far, even perfectly good and reasonable ones. However a cause that is based upon hatred for another group of people is far more likely to attract someone who is violent. I am absolutely opposed to limiting free speech but there’s a very clear difference between an offensive video by a bunch of college kids trying to shock people and publishing their names and addresses with a clear implication that they should be “punished”. One is just stupid and the other is potentially putting people in direct danger.
I see a pretty clear parallel between this and anti-abortion activists who publish the names and addresses of abortion doctors, or if you want an example on the left, animal rights extremists who post the addresses of researchers who work with animals. In both cases people have been the target of not just threats but actual violence.
I don’t, because I don’t want any person with my name to be able to instantly find every word I said in ten or twenty years. When I talk irl to someone, the odds are slim that they will repeat it it to others, or it will be to a few persons, probably in the same circle of friends/family. Not everything I say is addressed to my grand-parents, my future bosses or my potential children. However, in forums where I already know the people, I usually use my first name because that’s just more clear.
I don’t have that luxury. But it’s because I talk about “shameful” things, not hateful ones.
I’m not demanding anyone else’s identity either, though.
I blog anonymously because I don’t want to constantly assume that whatever I am saying is in the earshot of my employer, my parents, or my ex. I also have a kid, and I see anonymity as a basic safety precaution.
Besides, when we talk in person, we adjust to the audience, so it isn’t about honesty. There are things that, I am sure, you would say to a friend, or even a casual acquaintance that you wouldn’t say to your boss. And for most people, there are things we say to bosses that we don’t necessarily believe. Most people would not discuss sex openly in front of their grandmothers; but that doesn’t mean they are being hypocritical or dishonest when they discuss sex in other company.
I realize that Internet anonymity encourages a lot of trolls and chicken hawks who hide behind a fictitious identity to say hateful things. At the same time, despite all that garbage, it also encourages robust debate and heartfelt expression, because it allows people to publish their thoughts without fear of being fired, ostracized, prosecuted or stalked.
I don’t condone the talk about violent retrubition at all, its very foolish but I think the fact that noone here is commenting on a state promoting hate propaganda in the form of SCUM to school children is much more disturbing than the anger experssed about it in the comments section of AVfM.
But that’s how it goes, if the violence has a pink pow attached, it flys under the radar.
Someone was worrying about AVfM going after Valenti and a few others.
Valenti and Marcotte are already on regrister her for bigotry.
Holly will likely be added at somepoint for promoting the idea that all women should fear all men, until men prove otherwise. Doyle, Shakesville and so on will likely be included for gendering abuse and so spreading fear and hate propaganda. Schwyzer would definatly be a good candidate, for lying about abuse and so spreading read and hate propaganda.
I can’t see Ozymandias being included tbh. She is part of the anti-mens rights movement and will only speak out against a little but of the misandry that’s out there out of loyalty to feminism and supports some blatant misandry, but her heart seems to be in the right place.
These are just my opinions and some facts and not any sort talk on behalf of AVfM..
Edits
” Schwyzer would definatly be a good candidate, for lying about abuse and so spreading fear and hate propaganda.”
“She is part of the anti-mens rights movement and will only speak out against a little bit of the misandry that’s out there, out of loyalty to feminism and she does support some blatant misandry, (Doyle/Shaksville etc) but her heart seems to be in the right place.
NOTE: Cat San Day is our friend Eoghan. I let these two comments through because they are weird and creepy and full of complete bullshit. but he is still banned. To paraphrase Paris Hilton, explaining why she and Nicole Richie weren’t talking at one point, “he knows what he did.” Or maybe that was Nicole talking about Paris. Whatever. Also, Eoghan probably doesn’t know what he did. Because he’s Eoghan, and seems to make up his own reality.
Where the fuck are you getting this? Are you saying that the NATION-STATE of Sweden is promoting SCUM to school children?
Oddly enough, doing a google search for “Swedish SCUM play” nets the first result about the $1,000 bounty, not the play and certainly not anything about Sweden promoting it to school children.
Thanks, David, for your note. I had to read and re-read those posts to make sure I was actually following. I was beginning to wonder if someone slipped LSD into my cheerios.
Since NWO posted the video here first, the views have shot up to 16k on Youtube. Youtube’s statistics say that it’s main audience is 25-54 year old males…. If you look at the comments, they are all of the MRA persuasion.
Personally, I always post under my own name, because I don’t believe in saying anything online that I wouldn’t say in person. How about you?
I never post under my real name. Though it’s become more common throughout the years, I have a variation of it that I’ve only seen a handful of times. I really don’t want to make it easy for someone to stalk me. And then there’s the whole issue of employers checking out social networking sites, which I am totally opposed to. And people do Google other people. In fact, this nom de internet isn’t even the one I normally use – this name is only used for this site.
I wouldn’t be so paranoid if I didn’t attract creepers in real life. I’m like a lightening rod for them. Packed bar? They sit right next to me and start talking to me. If I’m walking down a crowded street, they will surely find me. And this happens so often, people have remarked about it. If I get the really hinky vibe, I don’t even introduce myself with my real name.
If I had a very common first name and last name, I’d probably post with it, although I really like my internet names.
I guess we shouldn’t be surprised they haven’t gotten over the SCUM Manifesto. They still bitch about Lysistrata, for fuck’s sake.
@Cynickal: Oh, you actually think that ONLY bitter men would be drawn to being an MRA. So by your logic, you are not being welcoming to regular average joes, but the “undesirables” who hate women and are bitter.
If that is what you think…you have already lost.
I don’t think women should be scared of men. I think we ARE. Because some of them do things like threaten to set Internet stalkers on us.
Who wouldn’t get a little nervous about that?
It occurred to me that given the latest terrorist attack in Sweden, they might be inclined to take this very seriously if it’s brought to their attention.
“I don’t condone the talk about violent retrubition at all, its very foolish but I think the fact that noone here is commenting on a state promoting hate propaganda in the form of SCUM to school children is much more disturbing than the anger experssed about it in the comments section of AVfM.”
Nice to know you’re not condoning violence, even you’re more than ready to had the name and address and personal data of the “targets” to every angry loon that do condone violence.
I don’t believe this play was chosen by the State – any State – and I don’t believe you believe that either.
I should clarify, just so nobody gets too much of a hateboner, that Eoghan’s specific threat doesn’t have me exactly quaking in my boxers. Sounds like a traffic source to me. I have ads; if you come over to Internet Tough Guy me, I get *paid*.
Ah, Wormtongue! Do you ever get tired of serving your master?
The play’s website invites high school classes to come watch. That is not state sponsorship of the play, nor does it indicate how many school classes have even come.
NWO’s posts here used to piss me off, but I can’t muster up the energy to be offended by him lately because he’s so pathetic.
NWO, is the reason you lash out so violently and hatefully to any post here directed at you because you know deep down that your entire “movement” is a sham and won’t amount to anything more than an embarrassing footnote in the annals of history? The MRM will never, ever gain any substantial power, not just because of your collective inability to get off your asses and do something or because of feminism, but because of men. Ordinary, sane men that make up the majority of the male population. Normal men don’t want all women to be made into rape slaves. Normal men don’t want to rape eight year old girls, no matter how “sexualized” their swimwear is. Normal men don’t want to be associated with you, which is why your “movement” is nothing more than some loud misogynists trolling Internet comments. Sure, the MRM and its witch hunts might hurt someone, but the response to that violence isn’t going to be hundreds flocking to your cause. It’s going to be the men you claim to fight for shaking their heads and saying, “Damn, that’s fucked up.”
Of course, it’s clear from your posts here that you don’t really care about other men at all. If you did, you’d get away from your computer and start volunteering. The only person whose needs you care about serving is yourself. For all your talk about feminists running to “Big Daddy,” what you want more than anything is for the rest of the world to coddle and serve you and say “Yes, you’re right, those girls are a bunch of big mean bitches.” You’re a middle-aged man who has wasted his entire life being so warped with hatred and bigotry that you’ve passed up every opportunity to do something meaningful. And when you’re gone, all that you will have left as a legacy are some milk machines and the Big Book of Larnin’. That’s how you’ll be remembered: by feminists on the Internet as a clown.
Can someone recreate the Total Perspective Vortex from Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy and shove Brandon in there? It be nice for him to gain a sense of just how unimportant he is.
On the day that NWO posted the video, the views were less than 2k – and that was over the course of a year.
Goddammit, what do I have to do to get the misogynistic asshats to dislike me already?
Also, everyone, my pronoun is zie. Thanks. :)
Doyle, Shakesville and so on will likely be included for gendering abuse
Both of those bloggers do say that men are victims of domestic violence, and that all domestic violence is wrong. In what way is it gendering violence when they say that both men and women should be safe from ipv? They only argue against the MRA claim that domestic violence is 50/50. Are you saying that if someone critiques the studies that rely on the conflict tactics scale and ignores the severity of violence as well as violence that occurs after a break up or divorce, that the person making such a critique deserves to be put on a phony bolonga hate wiki? You just showed the true meaning of the site. RH.com is a beatstick meant to intimidate anyone who dares to disagree with MRM dogma. Oh, and since people can be “registered” for not citing their source, you can go ahead and read about how the MRM distorts the information on domestic violence.
Oops, I meant to blockquote cat san day’s comment that “Doyle, Shakesville and so on will likely be included for gendering abuse”. I’m a newbie with html.
I think it’s important not to lose site of the fact that *no* speech justifies these tactics. There is NOTHING a person can say–not “Hitler was right,” not “Burn baby boys alive,” not “we should set puppies on fire,” not “My gender should own your gender as sex slaves”–that makes this okay. Talking about whether this video or a particular blog is really misandrist misses the point, because what if it really was?
That still doesn’t justify threatening someone’s job, privacy, and physical safety. There are NO words, no matter how genuinely hateful, that make it okay. That’s simply not how you respond to speech–ANY speech.
Thank you for that link, thebionicmommy.
*slow clap for Lauralot*
Holly: Yes. Free speech, people, it is a thing. You have the right to say whatever you like, and other people have the right to call you an asshole– not to light your car on fire, or beat you up, or stalk you.
Damn, Lauralot.
A way with words: you have it. Thank you.
I agree with most of the commenters here that it’s important to respect the privacy of others on the internet, but is it really unacceptable to out anybody, no matter WHAT they say? Like, if some jerk is saying things, directed at a specific person, that would be considered an unambiguous threat if they were said in person or on the phone (that this happens was evident from #mencallmethings), is it still crossing a line to out them? Yeah, that behavior is rampant, and certainly most of the people who do it aren’t actually ever going to be violent, but does everyone else have to give them the benefit of the doubt until violence does occur?
I guess my reasoning is this: if somebody is directing graphically violent threats at a specific person (as in, I’m not talking about this video), there’s no way for anybody else to actually know that it’s all in good fun. If outing that person is a way to make certain that they won’t follow through on it for fear of actually being implicated, I don’t see why it should be completely off limits.
You’re welcome. I think that some of the MRA’s know there are flaws with their studies showing ipv to be 50/50, and that’s why they made RH. They want to intimidate anyone who brings up those flaws. At AVfM, they have an article titled “Where is the Counterargument?”. They obviously don’t want to hear a counterargument, though, because they intend to register anyone who dares give one. Neither Sady Doyle or Shakesville denied that men can be victims of violence from women. Their only “crime” was daring to challenge MRA claims about dv being 50/50. Their goal is to dominate the discourse on dv, and other issues like rape, child support, and child custody battles by silencing their critics. If they had the truth on their side, they wouldn’t resort to such bullying tactics.
So lets say the same thing happens irl.
Would you hand flyer’s in all the neighborhood with the name and address of this jerk? Even while knowing your neighbors are angry and violent people? (and since it is the internet, you know some are)
Or would you go to the police, file a complaint, get a restraining order, try to get him arrested,… I don’t know anything about the laws that apply here of the best way to act, but that’s not it.
You still can ‘out’ the threats by showing them, or ‘out’ a troll by linking him to his others persona, though. Both of these thing make the person just a bit less anonymous while respecting his right.
PZ Myers makes it absolutely clear on the front page of his blog that he will publish identifying details (IP addresses, email headers, etc.) of any communication sent to him that contains threats of violence.
Which seems fair enough to me – especially as advance warning has been given.
On the other hand, if I wasn’t the actual recipient of said threat, I wouldn’t get involved unless explicitly asked. There’s rather too much third-party vigilantism online for my taste – as is amply demonstrated by the AVfM thread.
A threat against a specific person is a different thing from speech threatening a general group of people. If someone threatened “women,” well, I’d just think they were a jerk and laugh at them and move on with my life. (As we do every day here.)
But even in that case, if I got their personal information, I’d go to the cops with it or use it to send them lawyer-threats. I wouldn’t post it up with a wink-wink “sure would be a shame if anything happened to them!” for the general public.
Er.
“Even in that case” means the case of a threat specifically against me. That was not clear.
In the case of a threat against women in general, I’d say “must be Tuesday!”
…Also, if the MRAs put everyone who disagrees with them on any issue on register-her, they could save some time and just copy the phonebook.
Uhm, wait. So, on one side we have a few people who made a distasteful and distgusting video (where none of the people involved actually got hurt), and that also got one of the worst Youtube ratings I’ve ever seen.
On the other side we have some guys who think this somehow justifies trying to dig up and publish the personal data of the specific people involved in the video that can actually put them in danger.
Did I get this right so far?
And I agree with Holly. While threatening certain groups of people is still shitty and not okay, it’s still very different from threatening a person/persons specifically and publish their personal information.
A direct threat of harm is indeed where I stop caring about your anonymity. I don’t care if you post identifying information of people who threaten you. Or, I suppose, another poster.
Kyrie: If you’re talking about outing somebody in a way that is designed to incite violence against them, then I agree with you. But the problem is that in order to treat an online threat the same way that a reasonable person would treat one IRL, you would need to out the person to some degree. I doubt the police really bother much with email threats unless they have some identifying information. And I feel like saying that recipients of online threats/harassment must respect the privacy of their harassers and not out them is kind of like saying that harassers’ rights to happily continue harassing anonymously is more important than recipients’ rights to make themselves safe.
Out of curiousity, what would you say if the harasser in question were posting personal information about somebody online? I know a few bloggers have received threats/harassment that included their addresses and phone numbers. I don’t generally subscribe to an eye for an eye, but a person who does that must either actually intend to threaten violence, or think that privacy just isn’t that big of a deal. In either case, I don’t see the problem with returning the favor.
I see a pretty clear parallel between this and anti-abortion activists who publish the names and addresses of abortion doctors, or if you want an example on the left, animal rights extremists who post the addresses of researchers who work with animals. In both cases people have been the target of not just threats but actual violence.
I was thinking about that too. Bill O’Reilly openly called for the death of Dr. George Tiller for years, calling him “Tiller the Baby Killer” and a “Nazi” and saying that anyone in Kansas who didn’t try to stop him “has blood on their hands.” Then, when a guy followed Tiller to church and shot him to death, O’Reilly acted all outraged by the idea that he or the pro-life movement were complicit.
This is how hate groups operate. They huff and puff and play-act at anger, working each other into a lather over nothing (I mean, really, calling for the murder of Swedish college students who at some point put on a SCUM Manifesto play? Encouraging people to stalk and harass a woman who, as far as I can tell, made all of one post to the Radical Feminist Hub?). 90% of them are too cowardly or too sensible to commit violence themselves, but they happily egg the other 10% on. And if someone gets hurt, yay! I mean, oops! I mean, how dare you suggest it’s my fault?
Oh, you actually think that ONLY bitter men would be drawn to being an MRA. So by your logic, you are not being welcoming to regular average joes, but the “undesirables” who hate women and are bitter.
If that is what you think…you have already lost.
what the fuck is wrong with you? social change isnt some fucking video game where you have to fill up your convert queue before the other guy in order to power your special attack.
feminism addresses the needs of people who arent you. we get that this is anathema to you, but we also dont care. if feminism changed itself to satisfy the needs of every selfish white dude who wanted to call himself a feminist, it wouldnt be feminism anymore, it would just be the rest of recorded history.
“And I agree with Holly. While threatening certain groups of people is still shitty and not okay, it’s still very different from threatening a person/persons specifically and publish their personal information.”
I definitely agree, and like I said, I’m talking about outing harassers who make specific threats, not just statements of vague misogyny, or whatever the heck that video was supposed to be.
Seriously, Total Perspective Vortex. I can get the fairy cake if need be.
It’s not really different. In both case, you need personal information about the person. What matters is what you do with that information: it’s not an outing if you give it to the police or your lawyer.
Would you be safer, though? Why? I’m not saying you should keep the threats or the identity of the person a secret, but you should tell whoever you would tell if it wasn’t the internet (family member, friend, spouse, cop, lawyer, bodyguard,… I honestly don’t have a clue how you’re suppose to deal with this kind of issue), but I don’t see how putting these info in a public place will help with the issue.
It seems to me bullying back the bullies won’t make anything better. (which is not me saying people shouldn’t be defending themselve against bullying)
See above, Idk.
To be honest, the video didn’t even bother me that much. It’s so over the top it’s like, whatever. What really bothers me is more mainstream feminist thought because, being more reasonable but still insidiously misandric, it has the potential to actually exert an influence.
Ho. Lee. Shit.
Can anyone expand on this?
I just wanted to repeat the point that some have made that we don’t know what the play is about. I can easily imagine making a provocative trailer for a play that would be about how the SCUM manifesto is fucked up.
Thank you, shaenon.
This is one thing that really gets my goat: the selective narrowing of the meaning of one’s words for personal benefit. We do not get to heavily suggest things, without coming right out and saying it, and then go “That’s not what I SAID!” or “I didn’t directly SAY that, so you can’t blame me!”
FactFinder, a few posts ago, stupidly said that we’re responsible for ALL the implications that our words have and shouldn’t speak if we can’t be responsible for all of them.
Neither extreme actually is the truth or is how we really speak. If I say “Can you pass the salt,” the literal answer should be “yes.” But, we all know that this is an polite way to express my desire for you to pass the salt (not “you” directly shaenon, but the general one). So, no one tell me that if you don’t say it directly, you’re not responsible for it. That’s bullshit. All languages, to a greater or lesser extent, have circumlocutions or indirect phrasings. Well all know what they mean, so don’t suddenly say that none of it counts.
Words can carry a fluid, negotiable meaning. Things can be implied. What FF refused to accept, apparently, is that the person who says something can refute an implied meaning. If you haven’t been in a discussion before where you flubbed what you meant to say and had to restate yourself to get your point across, then you’ve probably taken a vow of silence. “I know I said X, but what I meant was X’.” happens all the time.
Context matters. And a bunch of guys who normally talk about how much women suck, how cruel and evil feminists are, and how oppressed men are REALLY points to a “we’d like someone to hurt/kill those women if we can get their contact information, but saying it is illegal” interpretation.
in case it is not clear, my example sentence should read “I know I said X, but what I meant was X prime.”
(another good example of the ability to clarify meaning to make sure the right point gets across.)