Ever notice how whenever someone starts crying about their right to free speech being impinged, that person is almost invariably a white guy? And how what they are actually crying about usually has very little to do with free speech and more with wanting to have the privilege to say and do whatever hateful things they want in regards to members of subordinate groups? Yeah, I thought you had.
This is something that’s been bothering me for a while, but reading about the online harassment faced by software programmer Kathy Sierra has really made salient to me what a load of bullshit this “free speech” argument is. Allow me to recap the story for you: Kathy Sierra is a software programmer who has recently been the target of hate speech and threats of violence, including lynching, throat-slitting, and rape. Because of this hate speech, and subsequent postings of her personal information, she has cancelled public appearances out of fear for her safety. The owners of the blogs which perpetrated this hate speech are coming under a certain degree of fire, as one might expect. But instead of admitting to being douchenozzles of the highest calibur and apologizing and vowing to never blog again, they are acting like they are the victims. One, Chris Locke, complained about having “been judged by the angry mob out there” and criticized Sierra for having the audacity to feel unsafe when facing death threats, saying, “I think her response, as it pertains to anything I personally wrote, was unjustified — but highly effective — character assassination. As a result, I’m sure I’ll be explaining for years to come that I’m not really an ax murderer and child molester. Nice work.” Another blogger defended Locke, bemoaning that, “A cry of misogynism pretty much shuts off debate…. The bloggers are behaving like a lynch mob, or a US president, looking for someone to string up, or a country to invade. Sierra is upset, traumatized, even; but it’s Locke’s reputation which will be, possibly quite unfairly, soiled by her accusation.”
To paraphrase Homer Simpson, so now we’re judging people based on things they’ve done? Real classy. Free speech is good. Free speech is necessary. But what free speech is not is the right to express whatever hateful, vitriolic bullshit that comes to mind without facing any consequences. Once a person gets to be past, oh, let’s be generous and say eight years old, a person is expected to take into account the effects their actions will have on others. Chris Locke appears to be well over eight years old and ostensibly should know better. A person may not face any legal sanctions for the things that they say, but there are still social sanctions in place, and people have as much right to defend themselves and their beliefs and the person and beliefs of others as they have to verbally piss all over them. If you act like an asshole, you’ll get treated like an asshole, and don’t try to act like a victim because your actions turn out to have consequences. For a long ass time, white men were able to do whatever the fuck they wanted to members of subordinate groups, but we have since won the right to fully exercise our own right to free speech, and we are fully within those rights to call someone out for being a total douche. This isn’t really about free speech at all: this is about longing for those bygone days when girls were girls and men could piss all over them simply by virtue of their being men and no one would say a thing about it. That is not a right, it is a privilege, and it’s a privilege that no one should be able to exercise.
Filed under: dumbs, feminism, misogyny, pc, sexism, victim blaming, violence | 4 Comments
Search
-
You are currently browsing the Mighty Crankosaurus weblog archives.
I love the way you use the term douche constantly. Douches are disgusting and unnecessary, just like Chris Locke’s comments. My vagina cleans itself and I wish his mouth would too.
His mouth would clean itself, too. I don’t want his mouth anywhere near my vagina. I just wanted to add this to clarify my position because women like myself need to constantly make it perfectly clear that we DON’T want to be raped or threatened and still we will be blamed when it happens.
You’re right: it’s always white dudes claiming that their first amendment rights are being trampled every time someone has the audacity to disagree with their bullshit. Though I always love reminding the pearl-clutchers whining about their rights that I am not the government, my favorite part of these (highly typical responses) is the whole “character assassination” thing. For one thing, guys, it’s not character assassination if you’ve actually done and said the things that others are using “against” you. For another thing, you aren’t the ones being forced to leave your community — Kathy Sierra is the one who has had to limit her movement and change her lifestyle, not you.
I remember reading all about this situation when I first got involved in online feminism. And I still trudged on. I feel lucky that I haven’t gone through what she and countless other women have had to endure simply because they are women. I hope this shit ends soon, for all our sakes.
Too true; what these assholes don’t realize is that free speech isn’t truly free. What you say does reflect who you are, and people are allowed to make judgements about you based on the vitriol that escapes from their lips.
I also fully agree with L on the issue of character assassination. But what is almost more appalling is how their (dubious) character is more important to them and their cohorts than someone else’s actual safety and well-being.