The Sword and Laser discussion

http://www.jimchines.com/2012/07/why-...

Funny thing is, Jim was a regular on Usenet back in the Wild West days of the Net, and the whole point of Usenet was it was uncensorable -- it used a distributed model so that once a message appeared on one server, it was copied to every server in the network and there was no way to stop it from spreading. Most old-time Usenetters have reluctantly migrated to web forums/blogs, but many of us distrust the way our postings are at the mercy of site owners who can choose to censor us on whim. As such, I'm heartened to see a company like Reddit support freedom of speech, even when the speech is absolutely vile.

(Though do note, if this had happened on Usenet, these guys would've had their lives ruined in about 24 hours as copies of their postings were forwarded to their friends, family, coworkers and the FBI. Hopefully Reddit is doing the same.)

I'm a redditor. I frequent r/fantasy and even made their little Gandalf alien. I never saw the rape thread and didn't know of it's existence until I saw Jims post yesterday.

Hell, there's tons of stuff on reddit I never see or actively avoid(r/spacedicks).

It's ridiculous to walk away from all of reddit, basically damning the entirety of the place, for one thread in one subreddit. Even though he says he's not doing that, it is what it is.

I loved his 'pose like fantasy cover art women' bits. This? Not so much.

Well freedom of speech also means the freedom not to speak.
I like the anything-goes sewer out-posts of the internet as much as anyone but Reddit can't be a place where rapists can recount their crimes and a place where well known people who've made public stands against sexism and sexual violence are going to feel great about promoting themselves.
I know that reddit isn't just one community, but a collection of unconnected ones, but all organisations are monoliths from the outside.

It isn't even the freedom of speech issue that bugs me. Or his choice to not do the AMA.

It's the lack of understanding that one thread does not embody the whole of reddit the way a single website does not embody the whole of the Internet. Is he going to walk away from the Internet now?

And then to issue an ultimatum as though he's God speaking from on high? Come on, son.

From what I read, Jim seems to understand reddit just fine. He knows that one thread is not the community and that most on reddit will never visit that thread.

Jim's response is thought-out, understanding of how reddit works, and is not full of blame.

Jim is voting with his feet and that is the best way to create change.

Not sure how I feel about the thread or his response to it but it certainly sparked a lot of interesting discussion. I will be following to see how it turns out. Hopefully he won't delete the page.

Andy wrote: "Jim is voting with his feet and that is the best way to create change."

He is, but he's doing it in the cause of censorship, which I can't get behind even when the people he wants censored deserve to have their genitals sliced in half with a rusty knife and covered in salt.

Sean wrote: "Andy wrote: "Jim is voting with his feet and that is the best way to create change."

He is, but he's doing it in the cause of censorship, which I can't get behind even when the people he wants cen..."

I am totally fine with private companies censoring material in their forums. I am not ok with government intervention and I love the first amendment. I can choose to use Reddit or not and so I do not mind moderation.

If that bothers you, consider that Veronica has been known to shut down threads in the past when they get ugly.

That's why I brought up Usenet earlier -- it's the only Internet forum where there's no one in control who can censor comments. But the Internet community has decided that the web is better for some reason, even though that means everything is in the control of a person or group that can decide to censor on whim. I consider this a Bad Thing and I like to see groups that decide not to censor when they're called upon.

Sean wrote: "That's why I brought up Usenet earlier -- it's the only Internet forum where there's no one in control who can censor comments. But the Internet community has decided that the web is better for som..."

Ideas should be discussed, but the anonymity of the internet is a double edged sword (appropriate metaphor for this forum, no?).


Sean, I understand where you are coming from. While I do not agree with you, I respect your opinion. Thanks for talking this out with me.

Sean wrote: "That's why I brought up Usenet earlier -- it's the only Internet forum where there's no one in control who can censor comments. But the Internet community has decided that the web is better for som..."

Do you support any limits on free speech? Or are you against yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
Or, more relevantly, taking down death threats, harassment, etc.?

I think the most compelling arguments (I'm not sure I agree with them, but I can't just swat them away) for censoring the thread is that it constitutes actual harm. Both by functioning as a 'how to guide' and that the positive re-enforcement 'bro it wasn't you're fault'/'she was asking for it'/'easy mistake to make' style comments that constitute a distressing amount of responses make the offenders more likely to reoffending.

Kate wrote: "Do you support any limits on free speech? Or are you against yelling 'fire' in a crowded theatre.
Or, more relevantly, taking down death threats, harassment, etc.?"

I only support restrictions on speech where they're necessary to protect the rights of others -- don't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater (I don't know why people always leave out the most important word), no defamatory comments and no actionable threats.

I think the most compelling arguments (I'm not sure I agree with them, but I can't just swat them away) for censoring the thread is that it constitutes actual harm. Both by functioning as a 'how to guide' and that the positive re-enforcement 'bro it wasn't you're fault'/'she was asking for it'/'easy mistake to make' style comments that constitute a distressing amount of responses make the offenders more likely to reoffending.

So what other discussions of crimes should that apply to? Murder? Robbery? Prostitution? Drug use? Underage drinking? Speeding? If we were living in the 1950s, would it be okay to suppress a discussion of, "How to get an abortion," or "How to meet men for gay sex"? If you aren't going to allow it all or nothing, any line you draw will be arbitrary and people can push to have it expanded to encompass speech you think is okay.

Sean wrote: "if this had happened on Usenet, these guys would've had their lives ruined in about 24 hours as copies of their postings were forwarded to their friends, family, coworkers and the FBI. Hopefully Reddit is doing the same."

Who found that information, the community?

As I was reading through the thread, I thought, "There has to be some way to find out who these guys are." I can't imagine the stupid bravado it takes to post something incriminating online, but then I'm unclear as to how secure that anonymity really is.

aldenoneil wrote: "As I was reading through the thread, I thought, "There has to be some way to find out who these guys are." I can't imagine the stupid bravado it takes to post something incriminating online, but then I'm unclear as to how secure that anonymity really is. "

while I didn't read the thread itself I know that REDDIT would have their IP's logged (i am assuming that anybody who is dumb enough to first commit a violent crime and then boast about it on the internet is also to stupid to mask their IP address) and would know any associated e-mail address with their accounts. I would hope that 'the powers that be' would do all they can to report and ban those accounts.

And as for censorship on REDDIT I know they recently deleted a whole bunch of subreddits that had borderline illegal and disgusting activities and posts going on. like r/jailbait and others. So I don't see the problem if they wanted to remove this thread too. Anything that promotes violent crimes against women or men in any way should not be tolerated in my opinion.

Free speech is awesome but there is a line. I believe that where that line is drawn is for each succeeding generation and its court system to figure out for themselves.

Sean wrote: "I only support restrictions on speech where they're necessary to protect the rights of others -- don't falsely shout fire in a crowded theater..."

What if you legitimately believe that there is a fire, even if there isn't? What if you are shouting "Fire!" not to alert people of the presence of a fire, but to warn them of a danger that, while no less immediate, may be harder to communicate?

I believe in free speech, and I believe that censorship should be frowned upon. I also believe that this is a knee-jerk reaction to something that Mr. Hines believes to be a fire. This didn't strike me as a calculated move to suppress the voice of the people. Rather, it sounds like a man who has recoiled in disgust at a sudden bubble of unexpected filth.

Is there a better way to get his point across? Probably. Should he be condemned for exercising his freedom to not speak somewhere if he thinks the place smells like shit? Nope. That would be anti-free speech.

aldenoneil wrote: "Who found that information, the community?"

The headers in Usenet messages contain the full path a message followed from the original poster's computer to yours. That includes not only the poster's IP address, but the name of the server he's posting from which usually indicates his ISP and the town. In the case of college students, you could sometimes identify a specific computer lab or dorm building they were posting from. Then it was just a matter of a little Internet stalking to find their real world identity.

I remember one case where a guy was stupid enough to admit to donating to the IRA. Admitting to supporting terrorists in a public forum where other users can find out where you live ... not a good idea.

I read the original post by the writer and the disscussion in the comment section on the link; I don't know the writer and I know very little about Reddit, so take my view with a grain of salt; but quite honestly, this whole thing smells like a publicity stunt by the writer for his new book.

Ransac,

I know Hines personally, if not too well (we met at a World Fantasy a couple years ago and have communicated online since), so I am biased to take him at his word on this.

But that aside, considering Hines' long track record of tackling the issue of rape (http://www.jimchines.com/rape/), I find it very unlikely that this is a publicity stunt.

A thread on reddit in response to the rape one: Reddit, are you aware how dangerous the ask-a-rapist thread is?

Just about anything goes on reddit. For all the shit that people despise, there is a proportionate amount of good material and discussions.

Sean wrote: "Andy wrote: "Jim is voting with his feet and that is the best way to create change."

He is, but he's doing it in the cause of censorship, which I can't get behind even when the people he wants cen..."

So, say no to censorship, but yes to maiming and torture? j/k, maybe.

What Jim Hines is doing is shouting fire in a crowded theater, it might be just a smoldering fuse box, but he genuinely believes the danger is there.

Rasnac wrote: "I read the original post by the writer and the disscussion in the comment section on the link; I don't know the writer and I know very little about Reddit, so take my view with a grain of salt; but..."

Do a bit of research on the man. Whatever else this is, it certainly isn't a publicity stunt.

KevinB wrote: "So, say no to censorship, but yes to maiming and torture? j/k, maybe.

Say yes to the right of people to talk about maiming and torturing. Say yes to the rights of Nazis to hold political rallies. Say yes to the rights of rednecks to wave traitor flags. Say yes to the right of Scientologists to tell people that psychiatrists are evil. The correct response isn't to try to shut them up -- it's to proclaim loudly, "What a bunch of fuckwits." If you only support freedom for speech that you're comfortable with, it's not freedom of speech.

What Jim Hines is doing is shouting fire in a crowded theater, it might be just a smoldering fuse box, but he genuinely believes the danger is there. "

No, actually he's standing on the GWB shouting for people not to go into New York City because there's a smoldering fuse box in the Bronx.

Sean wrote: "Andy wrote: "Jim is voting with his feet and that is the best way to create change."

He is, but he's doing it in the cause of censorship, which I can't get behind even when the people he wants cen..."

Honestly? So he is for censorship because he does not want his name associated with rape? You might as well call a person who paints over graffiti on the side of a building he owns as pro-censorship.

Sean wrote: "KevinB wrote: "So, say no to censorship, but yes to maiming and torture? j/k, maybe.

Say yes to the right of people to talk about maiming and torturing. Say yes to the rights of Nazis to hold poli..."

I say yes to the forms of speech that you reference but I can say no to being a part of an organization that hosts and benefits from such speech. I can also ask that organization to no longer host such speech, and I have every right to ask for it.

Asking for change is important, choosing to participate or not is important, disagreeing with Jim's choice is important but declaring that he is against free speech or is ignorant of Reddit and how the internet works is a little bit of a stretch.

Nathan wrote: "Honestly? So he is for censorship because he does not want his name associated with rape?"

His name associated with rape? By doing an AMA?

Andy wrote: "...but declaring that he is against free speech or is ignorant of Reddit and how the internet works is a little bit of a stretch."

He told the moderator of r/fantasy that he wouldn't do his scheduled AMA unless a thread was removed for r/askreddit. Two completely different subreddits with different rules. And if he knows reddit, he knows that's not going to happen. He'd also know the admins wouldn't do anything either unless CNN did a story on it first.

So either he has no clue about how reddit works or he was knowingly asking the impossible.

I do not have a problem with anyone asking for the impossible. Sometimes you get it.

Andy wrote: "I say yes to the forms of speech that you reference but I can say no to being a part of an organization that hosts and benefits from such speech. I can also ask that organization to no longer host such speech, and I have every right to ask for it. "

At which point you stop being for freedom of speech and start supporting censorship.

I think Orson Scott Card is an asshat and I hope people will stop paying attention to him. But what I don't do is proclaim that I will no longer buy books from Tor until they stop publishing him.

Sean, my only concern is that I want you to understand that I am supporting freedom, Jim's freedom to choose to not participate.

Edit: and with this post I am going to bow out of this conversation. I have said all I want and I have enjoyed the discourse, especially because we do not all agree. Have a great time everyone.

Sean wrote: I think Orson Scott Card is an asshat and I hope people will stop paying attention to him. But what I don't do is proclaim that I will no longer buy books from Tor until they stop publishing him.

That's not censorship. That's calling for a personal boycott.

Andy wrote: "Sean, my only concern is that I want you to understand that I am supporting freedom, Jim's freedom to choose to not participate."

No one's ever said he doesn't have that freedom; the issue is whether he's using that freedom in a way that makes sense. Calling upon Reddit to censor people doesn't qualify in my book.

Charles wrote: "That's not censorship. That's calling for a personal boycott."

For the purpose of getting a company to censor someone.

Give me a break - your right to free speech does not include a right to be paid to write books. I've never been offered a book contract by Tor, so I guess I should probably sue them for censorship!

The KKK has the right to a peaceful march down a public street. They do not have the right to a peaceful march through my kitchen. The fact that I would not allow the KKK to meet in my kitchen is not censorship.

Your right to free speech doesn't include the right to post on Reddit either. Reddit is a corporation with a publishing platform and can choose to allow or disallow any kind of speech they want. Historically, this has meant little to no moderation and so almost every unmoderated Reddit forum is full of rape threats being voted up by assholes who think they're hilarious. I have never seen an unmoderated Reddit thread where this was not the case. Kudos to Jim Hines for recognizing this and choosing to disassociate his brand from their platform.

I'm not a reddit user nor do I know Jim C. Hines, but my personal feeling is this:

If I'm not okay with something and I feel uncomfortable with it it is my right to walk away from it. If Jim C. Hines feels uncomfortable with holding an AMA on the same platform where rape is discussed in at least questionable manner, then he can do so. It may seem stupid for others, you may not understand it or argue that it won't change anything, but if I were in a similar situation, I would probably decide to do whatever made me feel okay about myself, even if I knew that it might seem stupid or unnecessary to others.

As for the ultimatum I'm with Andy in the sense of it doesn't hurt to sometimes ask for something you're 99,9% sure you won't get. I'm guessing Jim C. Hines was well aware that the outcome would be him not doing the AMA but he made clear what he based his decision on and pointed it out clearly.

You might not agree with his choices, but it was his choice to make. I also think that especially with things like these it is the little things that count. One person walking away because they don't like what is happening and clearing pointing out what it is is better than no-one doing it. Yes, it might not make a difference overall, but I can understand how personally you sometimes want to be able to say "I made this choice deliberately and I feel better because of it".

Sean wrote: If we were living in the 1950s, would it be okay to suppress a discussion of, "How to get an abortion," or "How to meet men for gay sex"?"

Let's hope that in half a century we're not looking back as a culture and regretting our moral position against rape.

The rape thread wasn't even on /r/fantasy, correct? Boycotting /r/fantasy because of what happened on a different sub-reddit makes about as much sense as boycotting the internet because of what's posted on /b/.
His gesture accomplishes nothing except dodging a promise.

Besides, I'm sure he knew what Reddit stood for before agreeing to the AMA, but somehow it wasn't a problem until this specific discussion popped up? I don't frequent Reddit, but I'm fairly confident there have always been . . . controversial discussions there.

I was also annoyed by his rhetorical foul play e.g. "I'm not trying to tell Reddit how to moderate their forums, BUT" when that is precisely what he is trying to do (whether or not it is right).

he has the right- the topic was a morally repugnant one- not one about free speech- not one about understanding- but a forum of braggarts and how-to disclosures. bringing usenet into this is incorrect.

as a man- i believe in one punishment for rapists- it;s not pretty, very painful, and even then i do not believe it would ever come close to the pain they give to the women they harm

Erik wrote: "The rape thread wasn't even on /r/fantasy, correct? Boycotting /r/fantasy because of what happened on a different sub-reddit makes about as much sense as boycotting the internet because of what's p..."

FWIW I'm an old usenetter and miss it but Verizon and a bunch of other internet service providers caved to the Secretary of State Andrew Cuomo complaining that it could be used to distribute child porn.

I have the same concern about stopping abhorrent conversations on reddit as I did on usenet. If these people are out in the open on an open platform they can easily be traced and found. To close these discussions just moves them to where they would be harder to find for law enforcement.

The idea that this sends a message to Condé Neste is pretty silly IMO. Their policy of staying out of things makes too much sense for them.

If he was going to do a AMA on the same subreddit as the rape thread then it would make some sense, since subreddit moderators really are responsible for the threads on their subreddit.

but the fantasy subreddit? give me a break.

It's very important to draw attention to stuff like "Ask A Rapist" when it comes up. This stuff thrives in the dark. This author is doing everyone a service, and all some people can see is that he's attacking your favorite time-wasting website.

As far as speech goes, the pro-rape guys can say whatever they want. Similarly, I'm also free to boycott whoever gives them that platform, and Reddit is free to NOT give them a platform.