proud to speak your mind? Think again...

[lagilman]

http://www.livejournal.com/users/anniesj/331112.html


Mind you, I understand the need for awareness. Most of the Secret Service guys I've met have been pretty cool (even the ones I dunked with a bucket of water). There are a lot of crazies out there, and they fixate on public figures, and the SecSer and the Feds need to be aware and on top of things. But these was...extreme. And for a LJer to have turned the poster in -- the mind boggles. Satire, people. It is still protected. Mostly.


And don't think that locking your posts can protect you -- nope. It's a matter of a simple subpoena under the Patriot Act for them to get access to that (unless LJ should happen to have a massive melttdown and memory wipe just before the Feds busted down the door, which, y'know, these popular services, it can happen)

Personally, while only a portion of what goes into this journal is public access, I never lock my political rants. So I'll say right here that I'm scary only in the sense that I have a brain and use it to think. If that's something the Feds need to be investigating, well then, bring it on. You know where to find me.

Comments

Yeah, what Suri said.

[aitchellsee.livejournal.com]

I've not read all 12 pages of comments over there, but someone who'd read the original thread asked 'wasn't this the post where you said [thus-and-such] in so many words?'
http://www.livejournal.com/users/anniesj/331112.html?thread=9202024#t9202024


I agree with fgwriter's comment on 'the informer bit'.
Yet it strikes me that, 1) in a time of war and 2) with a government known for being Orwellian in their approach to civil liberties, writing out threats toward high government officials -- or anyone else -- even in jest, is unwise. It's akin to making joky references to hijacking while waiting to board an airplane. Simply asking for trouble.

aitchellsee channels her inner Treebeard in a rant about orc-talk in public discourse">

Also, it's like the issue of 'coarsening of public discourse' that was a factor in that whole hoo-hah over Daniel Okrent at the NYT 'outing' in his column the name and town of the guy who'd e-mailed Adam Nagourney that he 'hoped Nagourney's kid got his head blown off in a Republican war'. I'm thinking of the discussion of all that in Kathryn Cramer's blog,
http://www.kathryncramer.com/m2/newarchives/2004/10/come_on_people.html
and her position (as I understand it) that people too often seem to feel free to express themselves in terms that really are, for want of a better word, vile. Unnecessarily vile.

Orc-ish thoughts in orc-ish words, you might say (hoom hommm...burrarrum etc)

Understand me: I AM a child of the Sixties, and I'm OK with using the 11 nasty FCC-banned words in some profusion in casual conversation, for emphasis or earthy humor. And I'm convinced that true obscenity and indecency lie in the deeds and words of those whose policies poison the common air, earth and water, exploit the powerless, kill the innocent, and lay waste the world for material gain or partisan power. Not in the words of those who need strong language to approach the depth of their disgust/anger with the despoilers. (I loved some of the raunchier protest signs I saw in this August's big Protest March in NYC, or some of the stuff on Fafblog). But.

But I noticed, back in '95 when I finally got on the Internet, middleaged innocent that I was, that it had become more common "in the heat of discussion", for people to spew forth violent, degrading,derogatory, venomous language, real verbal assault, towards strangers, people they perceived to be on the other side.
Well, Usenet trolls, of course, but also folks with whose positions I was in sympathy; decent human beings, but who felt free to e-mail me that, e.g., if I took a moderate stance on a governance issue threatening to destroy a particular organization, I was simply bending over to be sodomized (in graphic detail) by the particular leader whose alleged misdeeds had helped to spark the scandal du jour.

And it felt like hate speech to me. And I don't think the proliferation of hate speech can be used to improve the world, even if its use sometimes represents the lancing of a boil and the necessary release of pressure. Because that may get the pus out of a particular wound, but it can set it free to infect anyone it contacts. And that can't be healthy, can it? (Argh! Mix those metaphors!)

Oy, sorry to hijack your LJ off on this tangent -- this is an issue about which I've been conflicted for 30 years, sometimes coming down more on the Free Speech side and sometimes on the "but it poisons the conversation" side. And it's made me tongue-tied to the point that I'm more likely to lurk than to try to wrestle my thoughts into a succinct format. But I'm trying to be less silent this year. So whoops! Feel free to delete, or ask me to take it to my own LJ or something.

And I do truely believe that, in the Secret-Service-At-The-Door situation that sparked all this, the original poster did handle the issue responsibly once it blew up -- warning the community of the possible consequences of careless talk. I just feel there's a trend today to believe "oh it was just words I wasn't serious" and ignore the fact that, er, Words Really Do Have Greater Power Than One Might Imagine.

But hey, no one knows THAT better than Writers!

Harriet/HLC

Re: Yeah, what Suri said.

[lagilman]

hey, this is The Place for Rants, pretty much.

And the fact that you take things on a case by case basis is a major point in your favor, rather than coating everything Red or Blue, as it were.

(colors I chose just to avoid Black or White, but hey, apropos, no?)

Re: Yeah, what Suri said.

[aitchellsee.livejournal.com]

Oh! hello there!

I was trying to squeeze a couple more LJ-cuts into my screed, but I haven't mastered the technique. Or accidentally deleted something while cutting down from 5800+ characters to the 4300 char max. :-)

HLC
who was also distracted in mid-rant by the
arrival of a box containing Turn The Other Chick ;-)

Re: Yeah, what Suri said.

[aitchellsee.livejournal.com]

Er, the fellow who verbally assaulted me in '95 felt like hate-speech to me, was what I meant to write. Not that Annie's post felt that way. Though, now that I see the link matociquala posted...hmmmm. But no, I was not using the term hate-speech for her.

Harriet
(wishing to clarify)