Hi Y'all,
We return once again to the human rights vs. free speech debate. Previously, the
discussion dealt with the right of individual to make racist, sexist, anti-Semitic
etc. comments on a professional discussion list. Now, we are discussing the right
of individuals to make any sort of defaming comment, potentially slandering comment,
professionally harmful comment etc. with impunity under the guise of free speech.
Free speech implies responsibility and that once again seems left out of the
equation. To make comments that can be extremely damaging to an individual both
professionally and personally in an anonymous forum with impunity is highly
problematic.
And let's face it. At this point in time, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to
hide one's identity. If nothing else, as Mike Scoles pointed out, one can just go
to the library, internet cafe, copier/computer store etc. and log on. Yes, perhaps
the computer owner can face legal ramifications but does the scammer care?
Rick Adams wrote:
>
> On the contrary--ANY web site has a built in mechanism for tracking the
> identity of a poster; they simply record the ip address of all connections
> in their system log.
Simplest solution - don't use your own computer. In my research around the various
university libraries, I have simply logged on. No id required - just point and
click. Additionally, you assume that because they have the mechanism means that
they are actually keeping a record.
> So far, I've seen a great many statements that the owners of the site may
> be causing harm to people--but I haven't seen a single example of someone
> who WAS harmed by the site itself.
Do individuals need to wait until someone is harmed and only then speak out against
something that is potentially harmful, highly problematic, or just plain wrong? Do
we then start making decisions that we will only speak out if it causes professional
harm but not if it causes a personal harm?
> Censorship is the most reprehensible
> act an academic can call for--
Hmmmm . . . . I can come up with a long list of seriously reprehensible acts -
perhaps, a function of my study of history.
> before even considering it, VERY solid proof
> that harm has actually occured (names, dates, nature of the harm, lack of
> legal recourse by that person, etc.--not wild suppositions) needs to
> exist, and if it does, no one has cited it here.
Thus slander is okay if no harm can be documented? I believe this is the legal
fence behind which the rags and yellow journalism hide behind.
Getting back to the discussion at hand - this is not a matter of censorship. It is
a matter of responsible web site management. Their policy of carte blanche
acceptance of potentially defaming, slanderous, etc. postings hidden behind a policy
of "not our responsibility" is highly problematic.
> Much of this conversation smacks of PC aspects--and from a personal
> perspective, I would sooner give up teaching altogether than to be
> associated with THAT particular form of intellectual bigotry.
Ironically, the non-discriminatory acceptance of all speech even if it is
potentially extremely harmful looks to me to be PC. I guess it is a matter of the
crowd one runs with and how PC is defined.
> Sorry, Linda, but the right to free speech is far more important than the
> relatively minor harm that may come from a site of this nature-
I guess it is minor if you are not the person who loses their job. I guess it is
minor if you are not the person who loses their state license and ability to
practice as a psychologist. I guess it is a minor problem if you are not the
individual who's belongings end up on the street. I guess it is not a problem if it
doesn't result in the loss of custody of your children. All of these can legally
happen depending on the state/city one lives in and the institution they work for at
the time of their "outing". Almost all states in the U.S. offer no civil
protections on the basis of sexual orientation (as of late 1998, only ten states
offered protection against workplace discrimination). In fact, many of the policies
such as 30 day notice to vacate an apartment or employment termination policies are
not required if the cause of action is the result of an individual's disclosed
homosexuality. And unfortunately, these are not rare occurrences. For more
information see About the ACLU's Lesbian and Gay Rights Project at
ttp://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/aboutgl.html and their mainpage at
http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/hmgl.html.
Obviously, this is not the only statement that could be potentially harmful. It is
simply the one that was reported to TIPS. What if a student wanted to make
unsubstantiated and false claims that you have provided illegal drugs to students or
alcohol to underage students? What if a student wanted to make unsubstantiated and
false claims of sexual harassment? At this point, there is nothing on the site to
prevent an individual from logging on and making these accusations or just as
damaging, insinuations of such behavior. Personally, I don't believe that this is
an issue of constitutionally protected free speech any more than shouting fire in a
crowded theatre. Harm can be anticipated in both cases.
Just a brief perusal of the site resulted in comments such as (note that **
designates where I removed the person's name - one the website, each evaluation has
the faculty members name in the heading as well as occasionally in text):
"She is unprofessional", "she came straight from the war and is bitter and crazy",
"the professor is crazy", "he is a pimp", "he is supposed to be teaching spanish but
he can't even speak the language", "downright mean", "he spends more time being an
ass-kissing chump than teaching anything meaningful", " ** is the antichrist", "he
is creepy", "mean bitter old f*ck", "old French whore", "she is seriously
imbalanced", "the professor is senile", and "can't speak a word of English".
And perhaps, more distressing:
"He hates black people", "I think his bitch ** T.A. is slobbering his knob", "this
man deserves his nickname - cockrider", "I asked her, ' ** tell me what the hell
you want from me?' She said,' Nothing, just hang out with my fat girl and you will
be out of this course.'", "This guy sux hairy balls when he goes home at night",
and " ** sucks fucking dick".
And then there are the insightful comments:
"If you are reading this ** . . . go to hell you fat cow" and "I've taken dumps and
the pieces of dump floating in the toilet bowl could do a better job teaching than
**. They also smelled better than her too.".
And then there are the threatening comments:
"This is the only professor that I've considered killing".
Let me point out that I only examined about 80 evaluations from two states (almost
all are from one college/university).
Based on the information above, I guess I disagree with your assessment of
"relatively minor harm". Will the TA who is listed by name keep her assistantship,
what ramifications will it have for her in the classroom, will she have any
difficulties finding full-time teaching if this comment becomes general knowledge?
Those of us who have been around for a while could probably weather the tide and
could even perhaps pursue legal recourse. Of course, legal action is expensive.
Unless an institution is being sued, most attorneys will not take such a case on
contingency as the student most likely has no resources, damages will be difficult
to demonstrate, etc. But perhaps, other academics make significantly more money
than I or have a legal nestegg waiting to be used.
Personally, I think the web site needs to take responsibility for the information on
their site.
linda
--
linda m. woolf, ph.d.
associate professor - psychology
webster university
main webpage: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/
Holocaust and genocide studies pages:
http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/holocaust.html
womens' pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/women.html
gerontology pages: http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/gero.html
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
