Linda wrote:
> 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.
No, it dealt with your _perception_ that a person was doing so--and my
argument that forbidding such speech even if it _was_ occurring caused far
worse harm than permitting it and responding appropriately.
> 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.
Bunk.
Quit twisting my words to suit your prejudices!
We are discussing the right of an individual to be free from restraints
in his/her speech. I _never_ indicated that a person should not be held
liable for _damage_ caused by that speech if it could be shown to be
untrue.
> Free speech implies responsibility and that once again seems
> left out of the equation.
Only by you.
READ my messages, don't just strike out the minute you read the words
"free speech!"
> To make comments that can be extremely damaging to an
> individual both professionally and personally in an
> anonymous forum with impunity is highly problematic.
Only if they are false.
If true, then the person has every right to make them--or do you believe
that people should be protected from themselves?
If they are false, the subject has legal remedies available already. If
they are true, there is absolutely no justification in prohibiting them.
> 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?
Let's look at that from two perspectives:
1. If the computer owner doesn't take steps to insure his/her hardware is
not used in such a manner, s/he SHOULD face legal penalties. S/he isn't a
victim, s/he is contributing to the harm by his/her inaction.
2. How does such an action differ from making the same comments in an
OFFICIAL student evaluation form? Most institutions I'm familiar with
provide evaluation forms to students which do NOT require them to provide
their name or student ID (certainly my own institution does so--as do
those I've attended). Why is it harmful for a student to post a negative
evaluation on a web site but not do the same on a form that WILL be used
in measuring the instructor's effectiveness and will become part of
his/her official record?
> 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.
Linda, ALL major websites keep such logs. Not some, ALL. You have to
physically turn the logging function OFF in a web server to prevent such a
response, and if you do that you are certainly demonstrating a deliberate
lack of responsibility that could be used in a legal action. Ask your own
webmaster about the matter if you don't believe me.
As far as your own use--in order to post a message to a system such as
collegestudent.com you would have to:
1. Use your own name and email address to register--thus identifying
yourself to the system and creating a log of your postings.
2. Obtain an "anonymized" email address at a site such as Hotmail.com or
Netscape.com and use that address to register. However if you do that you
must either:
a. Provide your legitimate registration information to Hotmail or
Netscape (name, email address, etc.), in which case you can STILL be
identified as in One above, or
b. Falsify this information, in which case by agreeing to the contract
terms you are committing criminal fraud.
3. Forge someone else's email address to register with--again a criminal
action.
Which method would YOU use? Do you believe that collegestudent.com should
be held liable for the criminal actions of its users? If a student in your
class steals the final exam answers from your locked office and it is
learned that s/he did so--are YOU liable for the action?
> 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?
Do we instead ban behavior because it MAY cause harm?
Great!
Let's ban automobiles (they can be used to kill others), guns, alcohol
(you can get drunk and drive), computers (you can communicate negative
thoughts to others), newspapers (you can read information that may depress
you), etc.
Better yet--let's leave things legal UNTIL someone misuses them, then
hold the individual him-/her-self responsible for the misuse instead of
the resource provider. If someone on a site such as collegestudent.com
uses free speech to verbally harm someone else, then punish that
individual, not the forum s/he used to express those thoughts.
> Hmmmm . . . . I can come up with a long list of seriously
> reprehensible acts - perhaps, a function of my study of history.
Then note how many of those acts would have been impossible in a society
where free speech was unimpeded--and how many were facilitated by
censorship or speech limitations. You're the expert there, Linda, lets see
you cite cases were free speech repressed a society while censorship
improved it.
> 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.
BY DEFINITION slander doesn't EXIST if no harm has been done.
And the term you are looking for is libel, btw, not slander.
Let's turn the situation around a bit. Andrea Dworkin accuses all men of
ultimately being rapists because of the power differential between men and
women. To be termed a rapist is damaging to a man's reputation. Do I have
grounds to prosecute her publisher for allowing her words to be
disseminated? Do I have grounds to sue NYCC because Leon Jefferies insists
that, as my skin contains less melanin than that of an African American I
am less trustworthy and more violence prone?
Don't like those examples? Why not? They are just as valid of samples of
free speech harming others as your own.
> 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.
Two points:
1. It IS a matter of censorship.
2. Show me a single place on their site where they state such a policy.
It is YOU who claim that policy exists (and thus it is YOU who are
defaming them), not the site operatiors themselves. Of course they state
they are not responsible for the specific content of messages--are YOU
responsible for the content of evaluation forms submitted by your
students, or for their opinions expressed in your classroom?
> 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.
That, Linda, is totally absurd.
We BOTH know the definition of Political Correctness does not include
acceptance of free speech, but rather the imposition of limitations on
speech which has the possibility of offending others (at least minorities,
I have yet to see a so-called PC activist who cares if the majority are
offended or not--apparently WE deserve it simply for existing).
If you run with a crowd who define PC as accepting free speech, I really
don't want to see your definitions of black and white, up and down, or any
other similar terms.
> 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 http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/aboutgl.html and their
> mainpage at http://www.aclu.org/issues/gay/hmgl.html.
Linda, I'm getting really tired of being talked down to by you.
FACTS:
1. While you were in your ivy covered halls learning theory, I was in
jail cells for protesting precisely the kinds of actions you are lecturing
me about. I know at least as much about the glbt community as you do,
Linda, and possibily more. Don't lecture me on the problems faced by a gay
American, I know exactly what those problems are--and I've been an active
gay rights activist since the time of Stonewall.
2. If you are seriously claiming that anonymous postings to a service
such as collegestudent.com will affect someone's career, freedom, or
custody you are living in a fantasy. No reputable instutution would take
such a source seriously in evaluating an instructor--and certainly no law
enforcement agency would take such anonymous accusations by a student
against a professor seriously in determining whether to investigate an
individual.
3. If a student is capable of "outing" a gay instructor, that BY
NECESSITY means that the instructor made it clear in his/her classroom
that s/he was gay to start with. You can't "out" someone who isn't gay,
and you can't "out" someone who is already open about his/her orientation.
Any instructor who wanted to remain in the closet (which, to me, is an act
that contributes to the problems all glbt individuals face today--ALL gays
will be victimized until those with "comfortable" accomodations develop
the moral conviction to stand up and be counted) yet who revealed his/her
orientation to the class is, frankly, too stupid to be teaching in the
first place. How would a student KNOW s/he was gay unless s/he revealed
the information by word or act? And if s/he DID do so, why should s/he
expect the student not to reveal the information.
4. Any student who would "out" an instructor on collegestudent.com would
certainly do the same on an official evaluation form. If you oppose the
anonymity of collegestudent.com, you should, by necessity, oppose the same
anonymity on official evaluations even more strongly. Of course, that
would eliminate any chance that a student would be honest in his/her
evaluation instead of simply playing safe and praising the instructor, but
since it would protect people from _potential_ harm, that's all that
counts, right?
5. Instead of lobbying against free speech, why not spend your time
lobbying against homophobia on campuses? Isn't it about time that
academics started standing up for what they believed in? Do you work for
an institution that welcomes glbt employees or one that discriminates
against them? If the latter, why are you willing to work for such an
institution, and thus allow them to perpetuate their homophobia? I'm
straight, yet I turned down a teaching opportunity (tenure track) at a
private college where gays were unwelcome (Spring Arbor College, if it
matters). From my perspective, any instructor willing to work for such an
institution is either a homophobe or is willing to trade his/her integrity
for money--both of which are offensive to any rational person. It's a lot
easier to simply oppose "outing," Linda, but the ultimate result is to
keep glbt people in the closet instead of forcing institutions to
acknowledge their right to employment.
> 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?
What if they do precisely the same thing on an official evaluation? Do
you believe an administrator will take a web site more seriously than an
official form?
> 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.
Precisely the same holds true for on-campus official evaluations.
Would you censor the site to prevent the _possibility_ of such actions?
If so, why shouldn't the campus evaluations be similarly censored? After
all, it isn't the effect on or rights of potential _students_ you are
concerned with (a fact that itself implies a great deal about this debate)
but the protection of your colleagues from potential harm. A campus
evaluation _clearly_ can cause more harm than an online one, so perhaps
your efforts should be directed at banning those instead. That way we
could acheive parity for the mediocre!
> Personally, I don't believe that this is
> an issue of constitutionally protected free speech any more
> than shouting fire in a crowded theatre.
This has been addressed in a previous message. It IS constitutionally
protected speech, Linda, just not "PC approved."
> Harm can be anticipated in both cases.
So let's ban anything that can cause harm.
Great--start with the PC movement--it causes people to lose rights. Ban
it. Then lets move to controversial subject matter (theology, ethics,
religion, etc.). These can cause psychological harm. Ban them. Now let's
start burning books as well and soon we'll ALL be good little Nazis!
> 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",
[SNIP: Many biased selections from the site cut to save space]
> and " ** sucks fucking dick".
And how many of these absurd examples do you honetly believe an
administrator would take seriously? You are claiming that a person's
career or tenure are at risk. From comments like these? That's ridiculous!
> 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.".
Now THERE'S a comment guaranteed to convince a department chair that the
instructor is unfit, right?
Sheesh . . .
> And then there are the threatening comments:
>
> "This is the only professor that I've considered killing".
Not a threat (unless the President of the United States is referred to).
It is a statement of personal feelings, undoubtedly meant metaphorically
not literally, as you well know.
> Let me point out that I only examined about 80 evaluations
> from two states (almost all are from one college/university).
And you selected the most negative you could find. How about some
POSITIVE ones to compare them to? Here are some from the evaluations of
University of Michigan faculty (INCLUDING a "pimp" one such as you cited):
"Ann is a wonderful prof; she is insightful and entertaining. If you're
into knowing more about modern art (modernism & mass modernity) she's the
best there is!"
"Dr. *** is a pimp. This was great class. I learned more in this class
than most of my other CS classes combined. It is a very challenging
course. I took it in the summer and it was a lot of work, so I recommend
taking it during a full semester. The two best classes to take in CS are
CS375 from ** and CS378 OOP with **"
"** changed my life. It all has meaning now. It all makes sense......
(not for the faint of heart)"
"You will actually learn something in this class about fiscal and
monetary policy. It might scare you at first but the class is a snap!
Grades on a good curve. Word!"
"This class is not only a blast, but you get to actually learn the
language and enjoy doing it. ** makes learning french easy and always
interesting. Before I had **, I wasn't really sure I'd like french, but
now I think it is awesome!! He's the man!!"
"This is the best prof I have had at UT. We are learning so much-- things
very relevant to our futures: birth defects, preganancy problems, etc. **
is very young, but has TA'd 12 times for the other prof. He teaches the
human version of developmental bio and prepares us for med school. He's
fun, cute, and exciting !!!!"
"** rocks! She eases you through this very intimidating class and you'll
gradually build confidence. Believe me, with the wrong calculus prof, you
can go downhill fast! You are screwing yourself if you don't take her for
this class!"
Next time you provide citations, try demonstrating a bit less bias in
your selections, Linda. The ones you chose say far more about your
attitude toward the site than about the site itself.
> 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?
Are you SERIOUSLY claiming in a professional list that you believe such
ridiculous comments will have an effect on the opinions of the
administrators or other professionals at the individual's institutions?
You certainly have a low opinion of your colleagues if that is the case.
> 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.
Of course they will--because absurd statements such as those you cited
will CAUSE no damage to the person. Again, NO administrator would take
them seriously.
> But perhaps, other academics make significantly more money
> than I or have a legal nestegg waiting to be used.
Or are more capable of seeing that such wild statements will do them no
harm and simply laughing them off, of course.
Based on our debates here, Linda, you seem to spend much of your life
finding offense in statements and seeing harm in free speech. Perhaps it
is your perspective, not reality, that is shaping your views of this site.
> Personally, I think the web site needs to take responsibility
> for the information on their site.
I agree. But feeling they _should_ do something and _requiring_ them to
do so are two very different issues. I feel people _should_ stop making
homophobic, racist, and sexist statements. But I oppose any law that would
_require_ them to do so.
Once again, this has become a battle of ideologies, Linda. You are
looking at the matter from a PC position and advocating censorship while I
am focusing on rights and freedom and advocating personal responsibility.
We we never find a common ground for our communications so my simplest
recourse is to refuse to respond to any of your posts in this debate. Feel
free to comment as you choose, in the future I will no longer respond to
any message of yours in this or any other thread dealing with issues of
free speech or individual rights, since we so clearly are diametrically
opposed in our perceptions of fairness and justice.
Rick
--
Rick Adams
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Department of Social Sciences
Jackson Community College, Jackson, MI
"... and the only measure of your worth and your deeds
will be the love you leave behind when you're gone."
Fred Small, J.D., "Everything Possible"
