Why #gamergate is bullshit

boing
143

Yes, but the public criticism of Jack Thompson wasn’t about what he had for breakfast, it was about public positions he took. When you take a public position on a subject, your position is open to public criticism. It really doesn’t matter how well known she was before this.

I was saying precisely the opposite. I think maybe there was a misunderstanding? You talked about not releasing a tape of a police shooting before of possible outrage and I assumed you meant the police not releasing it, so I didn’t see how that was comparable.

But your response to me was to a post where I was describing why I called him an asshole, so I responded defending why I called him an asshole. And I actually do think people should be told off for being assholes.

Telling your friends how upset you are with someone is a pretty benign way to work through your feelings. Posting something in a public forum is a little less so. When your forum post gets deleted making a blog to post it seems is starting to seem a little less benign. Being unaware of the insane threats bubbling below the surface of the people you are communicating the information to could be benign. Being obviously aware of that and continuing to wear the T-Shirt is showing that your feelings are more important to you than those threats to the other person. I’ve been through plenty of breakups and I’ve been pretty upset about them and I can’t imagine wanting to try to publicly shame someone who I broke up with or damage their career (going in public to say someone slept with their boss?) or continuing any behaviour after I learned it was causing them to be threatened or harassed. None of that is benign.

If “this type of speech” is complaining that your ex cheated on you by making a blog and naming them and the people they slept with, and then then yes I will absolutely stand by the fact that it should be condemned even if true. And if that “type of speech” extends to leaving the blog up after they have received threats related to what you wrote, then I’ll double down on “condemn away.”

There are lots of kinds of true speech that we should condemn. Doxxing is speaking the truth, but it’s also a malicious attack. How far does someone have to go before they really should draw the line? Would publishing her home address have been fine, her social security number, banking information? Could he then say, “Hey, those people who stole her money weren’t me.”

Obviously there is a line somewhere about communicating the truth being harmful. I think that talking about who slept with who without their consent crosses that line.

4 Likes
144

Hi guys. It sounds like no one currently discussing the topic knows the full background on Zoe Quinn as a game developer, or as a victim of online attacks - so here it is:

Zoe Quinn made two past attempts to Greenlight Depression Quest, an award-winning IF game, on Steam. One was was back in August 2013 and one was in December 2013. In August 2013, she pulled the game in response to attacks. In December, she tried again. At that time, she was attacked verbally online, and some guys got her home number and (ick factor NSWF) when she picked up the phone, they didn’t talk to here - they jacked-off into the phone at her. The Wizardchan boards were blamed for the negative comments. To avoid pulling the game a second time, she posted openly in December 2013 about what was going on. Here is a Storify of those posts.

As her boyfriend, Eron Gjoni was well aware of the two past attacks on Quinn. His blog rant made in August 2014 (and that at this time remains online, unedited - even in response to the Kotaku article) has been - for anything that can be discredited - discredited. He knew just how to hurt her the worst way he could (both personally and professionally), and he claimed the whole time he was doing it that he was the victim. His post started the third, most violent and widespread attack again Quinn - so widespread it touched her father (who was called), and friends (who were targeted by hackers).

This was not “free speech” - this was a targeted, misogynistic attack against a female game developer who had already been attacked in this forum. Gjoni could not have been “unaware” of the risk his blog posed to Quinn. He posted what he did knowing full well how it would be received, and who by.

13 Likes
145

Well, Fortunately or unfortunately, that IS free speech. Uncivil, disrespectful, even infuriating speech is still free speech. Look, I’ve been in uniform at a military funeral being protested by the Westburo people, so, I’ve seen some pretty reprehensible things said up close and personal. It’s STILL free speech.

146

Not really. He knew what he was doing, and “fighting words and offensive speech” aren’t protected speech. Neither are threats of violence. Gjoni phrased his blog as though he was the victim, but he did that knowing about the past attacks against Quinn, and he encouraged another attack by publishing that (false and still online) blog post. He wasn’t using protected speech.

To be clear - as Quinn’s boyfriend, he knew people had taken more action than online threats in December 2013. He knew his online post could result in her physical harm.

7 Likes
148

I addressed this above. Fighting words doctrine is a very specific legal area that simply dosn’t apply here. Just because you don’t like them, dosn’t make them fighting words. Some self education would serve you well here. As for “Offensive speech”, there is no such defined category. Go re-read your link. Obscene speech is unprotected, but simply offensive speech generally is. That’s why we have things like the Westburro Baptists, and the KKK, but also why folks like Larry Flynt are able to speak, at least the political parts.

As to threats of violence, you’re right there, but, that doesn’t seem to be what’s alleged. Other people are in that boat, and what you’re saying is that his speech is what is prompting those threats. There are some thin lines here, he can’t advocate or directly ask that people do illegal things, but, short of that, simply knowing that some people might react badly to what he is saying does NOT take protection away from that speech.

I suggest you go actually READ what you linked, and then, Read the actual decisions referenced there. It dosn’t say what you think it does. Now, if he published FALSE information, there is a cause of action for her, but, that’s kind of for her to decide to pursue, not for people to simply shout down for censorship.

And make no mistake, that’s what we’re discussing, when we talk about protected and unprotected speech. That’s got some dubious application when it comes to forums like this, and presumably where much of this brouhaha occurred, given those are generally private spaces, but, when you say HIS online blog post, I can only presume that he’s speaking on his own space, so, those sorts of questions don’t apply.

Online posts don’t directly result in physical harm. Period. Read actual cases and decisions regarding the application of the Fighting Words doctrine. It must be something that is likely to result in an immediate response of violence.

Why do I give a shit, or does this distinction matter? As far as this guy, and his beef? I don’t, and it doesn’t much at all. But these protections are important. MUCH more important than the benefit gained from the seemingly easy to make exceptions. They keep your speech, mine, and many other unpopular people able to speak. From MLK to even such figures as Julian Assange (international considerations aside). People die to protect these freedoms. Don’t be so quick to discard them when it seems to suit a short term interest.

149

2 Likes
150

But this can’t possibly be true. If I had posted Salman Rushdie’s home address publicly when he was in hiding and some fanatic has killed him, would I be able to say, “Hey, I didn’t cause that!” That’s absurd. If I published nuclear launch codes, would I be able to say, “Hey, free speech!” Of course sharing information can cause harm.

The US has basically the broadest and strongest protections of free speech you can find anywhere, and I doubt what Gjoni did could be illegal there, but it would probably be a lot closer call in many other countries. And those other countries aren’t on the verge of social collapse because of their lax free speech approach (in fact, many are probably considerably further from being oppressive police states - the extreme insistence on individual freedom over collective responsibility seems to be pretty corrosive in the US, if you ask me). I would tend to think that in order to say that what he did is or ought to have been illegal under any reasonable system you’d have to at least prove intent on his part, which probably couldn’t be done anyway. But there doesn’t have to be (and really can’t be) an absolute, “right to speak trumps everything” rule.

At some point we have to draw reasonable lines where the value of the right to speak conflicts with the harm that can be done. When it comes to actual rights, I don’t think it can be argued unambigiously that Gjoni crossed that line, but I also don’t think it’s clear he didn’t (particularly with the background @catgrin gives above). When it comes to figuring out if he was a dick who shouldn’t have done what he did, I think it’s pretty clear cut.

4 Likes
151

When you’re talking about an imminent harm/Fighting words exception to free speech, it absolutely is true. The standard for Imminent harm is that if I say something that will cause you to, nearly uncontrollably, engage in violence, those are “Fighting Words”. Things said online, simply by the nature of the fact that you cannot immediately reach out and strike me, remove that as a factor. And, if there’s a third actor involved, it is that person’s act, NOT the speech, that is the matter that can be legally prohibited, not the speech.
We’re not talking about if it was in the chain of events that caused the harm, we’re talking about what can be legally prohibited or acted against or forced. I know it wasn’t you that brought it into the “Legal” sphere, but, those are the terms that things were being discussed in above.

Yes, yes you would. Classified information does not have any special restrictions on publication, it’s the people handling it who are restrained, from the special agreements they made in order to handle it in the first place. That’s why we have things like the Snowden disclosures, where, possibly Snowden did something legally actionable, but, Glen Greenwald definitely did NOT (though they’ve tried to hassle him anyway).

Heh, see, this is why I like discussing stuff with you. 100% with you there. Where I get uncomfortable is the calls for a moral or especially LEGAL imperative to not engage in that fashion. Not because I give a shit about some idiot and his crusade against his ex, but, because those same arguments can be used, and with much higher magnitude, against folk like Glen Greenwald. Those same arguments can be used to justify non-disclosure of the name of the Ferguson shooter. Or the tapes in the Walmart police shooting. The circumstances are different, certainly, and our outrage is on the opposite side, but the argument that the speech would possibly enable or motivate rage and harm is exactly the same.

152

If what you are saying is accurate, then I can’t see an exception for bank information either. Like, if I find out someone’s PIN I can scream it from the rooftops and I am not doing anything illegal. States have passed laws outlawing the publishing of nude photos without the consent of the person photographed. Are those unconstitutional as well? Surely publishing a photo is a form of expression.

I’m not sure that’s really how things roll in the US, but I guess I wouldn’t be too shocked if it was. That to me is a really clear violation of any kind of sense. If there is no balance of harm that could be done against a person’s rights then basically it’s a society of unlimited freedom and no responsibility. That’s just nuts (but it probably helps to explain the over-the-top murder rates).

The idea that the constitutional protection of free speech has to exclude any counterbalance because the counterbalance could be used to arrest Glen Greenwald just doesn’t stand up to reality. The government of the US, like other corrupt governments, simply ignores laws it doesn’t like. Not allowed to execute American citizens without some kind of due process? Just ask your lawyers to write you a BS legal memo saying you can and then make it classified! BS legal memo comes to light? Keep doing it anyway. Who cares? Who can stop you? (If someone speaks too loudly against you, they could always been added to this list, after all)

That’s the reality of the threat - a government that doesn’t care about the law, and courts that have been stacked with moronic partisans who make the law say whatever it is convenient for their political allies to have it say. Absolute protection of free speech isn’t very useful when the government just ignores it suits them.

So I disagree that having a reasonable balance of public responsibility against individual rights is a dangerous thing. Pretty much every other democracy has that and the US is more of a police state than most. In fact, many of the absurdities of the US system are justified by that kind of absolute right. Most US legislators have been completely bought by wealthy people that successfully justified their legal right to buy legislators under free speech laws. Talking reasonably about whether some speech is harmful, for the US, seems like it would be digging up rather than down.

1 Like
153

I’m relatively sure the violation there isn’t the publication of the photo, but the violation of privacy to take it in the first place. However, many of those laws are as yet somewhat untested, we’ll have to see how that all shakes out. We’ve already seen some laws intended to prohibit photos taken in public that were supposed to prohibit photos taken without consent for the purpose of sexual gratification struck down, for over breadth. These laws are required to be tailored to narrowly target unprotected behavior, not protected speech, in order to survive judicial review.

You’re looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope. Government has a limited grant of ability to constrain rights, within narrow parameters, to address harms. The whole point is they exist above government. They must balance harms to their ability to restrict rights. Rights are not privileges, to be granted on a harm balance test.

As to “Over the top murder rates”, Those have been on a sharp decline for decades. Possibly you just mean in comparison to other countries? I don’t really see how you can reasonably link that to speech issues. Seems like an entirely separate kettle of fish.

I won’t argue government abuse isn’t a problem. It is. You go on to cite many ways it is a problem, bought politicians and judges, etc. But, simply abandoning the rules because one side sometimes dosn’t follow them is no solution. At a minimum, even when they do the things you say they do, they STILL have to break the rules to do them. And even if they usually get away with it, having the rule there for them to break to do it is important. As to what you can do about it, I recommend going to the Photography is Not a Crime website, and reading up on their actions with FOIA requests, and how they are using the sunshine laws to uncover abuses of this exact sort. And pay attention, especially to your local political elections. These things matter, and are places where a difference can be made. I take it from the posts you’ve made that you’re somewhere other than the US, so, this would be a more general sort of “You”, but, the point is that the correct response to corruption isn’t to abandon the good principles and foundational freedoms that they abuse, but to stand fast on them and demand they be followed.

And while some judges are either bought, or simply political ideologues, I don’t yet think that we’re beyond redemption on that front. Seeing a republican appointed appellate judge rip into a DA trying to argue the constitutionality of SSM, or, the scads of district judges tearing into dragnet discovery of John Does in P2P cases, I don’t think we’re quite doomed yet.

Yes, the tooth has much decay and might need a root canal (and the associated pain and suffering that goes with), but, it’s not yet time to yank the thing entirely.

154

[quote=“SirCracked, post:153, topic:41770”]
I’m relatively sure the violation there isn’t the publication of the photo, but the violation of privacy to take it in the first place.[/quote]

No, these laws were in many cases specifically created to prevent people from posting photos/videos of their exes. They are targeting “revenge porn” sites. These photos and videos were mostly created with consent in the first place, but are used to harm the subject after a break-up. I’m sure we simply disagree on this, but if that can’t be made illegal then I really think the balance of individual right to do whatever they want vs. another individual’s right to not be harmed is totally out of whack.

But basically everywhere in the developed world except for the US they are. Section 1 of Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms says:

  1. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

This is way more standard the the absolute rights given in the US. But in recent years I think the US has had a worse record on rights than Canada has (just a perception). While the US concept of rights protects Westboro’s right to harass and insult people at the funerals of their gay loved ones, Canada’s concept of rights allows gay people to get married. I’m just not convinced that the “no reasonable limits” idea is helping.

And that’s why I call it a society that sees a lot of individual freedoms and no responsibilities. I know the murder rate sounds unrelated but it feels very related to me. A culture that has a lot of guns is not necessarily a culture with a lot of gun murders, but the US culture where people who like guns think it’s fine to hold rallies in towns where there have just been school shootings because it is their right and fuck the hurt they are causing is a culture with a lot of gun murders. And yes the rate has been declining, but the rate has been declining everywhere (every western nation I checked has their murder rate drop to the rate from the mid-60s in the last few years) - there is something weird going on there (I hear there are reasons not to believe the leaded gasoline theory, but if not that, it’s something) but it’s happened pretty much everywhere.

But I think the US rules are actually part of the problem. How on Earth can corporations spending money be considered free speech and be given the protections that I would have if I was saying I didn’t like how the government was conducting its affairs? If there was any concept of being reasonable built into those rights, maybe the US would be protected by decisions like that one that completely defy any common idea of what is reasonable.

1 Like
155

You’re still talking more about privacy rights than you are about free speech, because it’s a picture of a person. They may have consented to TAKE the photo, but they didn’t consent to publication of the photo (presuming they don’t have a signed release form :slight_smile: ).

156

Don’t worry Humabella, there’s absolutely NO WAY what he said was protected speech.

Actually, there are multiple reasons his blog isn’t protected speech. As far as other people’s actions goes: it uses a combination of “fighting words and offensive speech” and the same type of speech that makes it illegal to shout “FIRE!” in a crowded theater - which is what I already alluded to (by explaining that he knew about past actions taken against Quinn).

His words themselves did not openly direct people to attack Quinn. He didn’t say, “go target her”. Instead, he said, “she is a bad person worthy of your animosity - here are examples” - but he said it to people who had ALREADY ATTACKED HER. The examples he gave were false. He didn’t say this close friends - he posted it openly online. Posting it there was purely designed to stir up pre-existing online animosity toward Quinn - animosity that had previously manifested offline. He had to know there was a very real chance that him “crying wolf” could really get her hurt. There’s absolutely no way that he didn’t know that. Basically, he pulled the initial trigger, and did so knowingly. The thing is - I wasn’t even talking about that in my last post.

SirCracked, you didn’t understand WHICH PART of “fighting words and offensive speech” I was claiming his own words were directly covered by. “Along with fighting words, speech might be unprotected if it either intentionally, knowingly, or recklessly inflicts severe emotional distress.” That’s reserved for “private figures” not people in the public eye, and as so many people have pointed out - until GG happened, most people had never heard of Zoe Quinn. His own words were a direct attack using negative publicity against Zoe Quinn. They were public, and also involved the place she does business. They also related to a private issue that he chose to air (untruthfully) online.

I was playing nice, and NOT pointing out the obvious, but now I guess I have to do so. Gjoni combined two types of speech that aren’t protected federally:

  • Fighting words and offensive speech
    and
  • False statements of fact

What he said (as I have already written a few times now) has already been determined to by FALSE. He also wrote it with the express purpose of causing harm to another, and even though he has made statements about how much he “wants it all to go away” that blog is still posted online, in full, unedited.

It’s simply not covered by protected speech.

6 Likes
157

So whats the problem with saying he is an asshole?, there’s certainly a difference between legal and social repercussions he can expect isn’t there?

Surely you’re not suggesting morality be superseded by legal considerations? After all, the Westboro baptist church members are clearly exercising their moral convictions for which they have legal protection. At most, it could turn out that he is allowed to be a baby about it but why does that mean that nobody is allowed to call him out on it?

And I know that in many respects you are referring to legal considerations of what he is or isn’t allowed to do, but since this isn’t a court case, at least not that I know of, then we must be talking about him being publicly proclaimed a hero by trollies and an asshole by just about everybody else.

2 Likes
158

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.

1 Like
160

Wow, thanks @beschizza! If you told me that I was going to be pleased to see a topic reopened so that people could continue their active, worthwhile discussion, I would not have told you that topic would be #gamergate!

But wouldn’t the same be true about written information that is typically considered private information? Like the bank account example or the who-you-had-sex-with example?

Not to mention the fact that he isn’t rich, and is a human being rather than a corporation! (zing!)

2 Likes
161

Right? relevant emoji here

162

You are right of course. Like the assassination of Franz Ferdinand brought a lot of existing tension to the surface and gave aggressors an excuse for their aggression, so the story of the ex-boyfriend has brought a lot of misogyny to the surface and serves as an excuse for harassment and threats. The real problem is far bigger than that one crazy ex. The real problem is how much misogyny there still is, hidden in various communities where it is allowed to fester and angry trollies support tell each other the lie that their hatred of women is entirely justified, because they cheat, and surely it’s totally reasonable to destroy her life for that, right? Nobody disagrees? Alright, let’s do it! That attitude, that is the real problem. The crazy ex was just the trigger.

8 Likes
163

If you’re trying to figure out what #gamergate is all about, Alfie, here’s somebody else who’s also looking for that answer:

https://twitter.com/whatsgamergate