Tuesday, June 25, 2013

Lucia Private messages regarding recent online harassment case

I will no longer read or respond to private messages or emails that seek to convince me that I'm on the wrong side in this whole issue, or that I am aiding in the harassment, or that I being disrespectful, or the implication being made that I am a bit simple and didn't know what I was doing. Say what you will in public where everyone can see, or don't say it at all.

I am really pissed now, and I'm certainly seeing how this whole thing spiraled out of control in the first place.

13 comment(s):

scrubone said...

Lucia, this is not a good step.

I ask you this: take a deep breath, delete this post and email directly the people who have upset you and lay how and what they have said that you find so offensive.

Shutting down private communications is no way to act towards anyone, especially fellow Christians. I am sure no one intended to offend you, least of all me.

Madeleine said...

1 Corinthians 6:1: "If any of you has a dispute with another, do you dare to take it before the ungodly for judgment instead of before the Lord's people?"

Matthew 18:15-17: "15 “If your brother or sister[b] sins,[c] go and point out their fault, just between the two of you. If they listen to you, you have won them over. 16 But if they will not listen, take one or two others along, so that ‘every matter may be established by the testimony of two or three witnesses.’[d] 17 If they still refuse to listen, tell it to the church; and if they refuse to listen even to the church, treat them as you would a pagan or a tax collector."

Catholic Catechism on the 8th Commandment on Lying
"... 2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury.278 He becomes guilty:

- of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another's faults and failings to persons who did not know them;279

- of calumny who, by remarks contrary to the truth, harms the reputation of others and gives occasion for false judgments concerning them.

2478 To avoid rash judgment, everyone should be careful to interpret insofar as possible his neighbor's thoughts, words, and deeds in a favorable way:

Every good Christian ought to be more ready to give a favorable interpretation to another's statement than to condemn it. But if he cannot do so, let him ask how the other understands it. And if the latter understands it badly, let the former correct him with love. If that does not suffice, let the Christian try all suitable ways to bring the other to a correct interpretation so that he may be saved.280 ..."

Please prayerfully consider Scrubone's request.

Lucia Maria said...

Sorry, not taking the post down. It's for my own protection. Like an insurance policy, I probably won't need it, but it doesn't hurt to have it.

When it comes down to it, all I ever wanted to talk about were the implications of the recent case - not the actual case itself. Take that as a starting point, and you'll both see why I'm so annoyed.

Madeleine said...

I do not see. I do not understand your actions towards me or your response to the above.

I am sorry if I said anything that offended you or did anything that in any way hurt you.

Grace and peace to you.

Goodbye.

Lucia Maria said...

Hey Madeleine,

The thing is, I'm looking at this from a blogger's perspective and how dangerous for me personally it might be to disagree with you about anything that you take offense to. That tempers everything. Every interaction will now be through the lens of personal safety, now that I can see how easy it could be for someone to be legally targeted because what they've posted could be seen to have caused a reasonable person personal distress. That's also making it very difficult for me to actually do what I wanted to do, which is to expand upon my first post on this topic on the topic of free speech.

As a blogger, that's a big deal to me. My free speech is now being affected because I have to think to myself - is it worth it to say anything? When I wrote my first post I wondered how much trouble I would get into for it, as trivial as it was and as little as I actually did say, and then I thought - that's cowardly, and so I went ahead after thinking about it for a day or so, because to not do so would be to ignore something really big that's happened here in NZ that matters, that needs to be talked about in detail.

And then I get the "intervention" of private comments seeking to guilt me into removing the post (making all sorts of moral judgements and using inflammatory and patronising language as if I'm an idiot or evil) and this post as well, which at least is public due to me having to drive you guys out into the open.

So, don't worry about having hurt me, you haven't. I'm not hurt, but I am seriously annoyed. And so I take breaks so that I don't post things I regret later.

However, I refuse to get herded into a corner on this, and I'm not going to shut up about the potential clampdown on bloggers and free speech, and I'm not going to get guilted into not talking about this because of why you thought the harassment case was necessary in the first place. They are two completely different things - one being cause and the other effect. Yes, they are related, but it would be good to be able to talk about the consequences of this without a whole lot of emotion being constantly thrown around to drown out the conversation.

So that's where I at. Give me some time to calm down and let me post on what I want to post and we'll be good.

Scalia said...

"I'm not going to shut up about the potential clampdown on bloggers and free speech"

Lucia Maria, what risk?

Unless you defame with impunity to the point it causes real harm to another person there is no risk. Upsetting someone with your comments is not what happened in this case.

You linked to a page containing defamation of another Christian. You speculated on the truth of that defamation out loud. You publicly threw her to the enemy because of a fear that is not real. I can't see her being good with that anytime soon. I wouldn't be.

Lucia Maria said...

Not read the judgement, huh, Scalia? The test is what would cause a reasonable person "distress" after two incidents in a year - the incidents being referred to are blog posts and comments. Most people wouldn't bother, of course. But it's like the Sword of Damocles that could fall on anyone on any moment. Most bloggers tend to annoy people. Wait till some of those people figure out what type of weapon this could provide them.

Scalia said...

I have read both judgments, the Harassment Act, various journal articles and commentaries all quite carefully.

Your grasp of the law, the legal tests and the precedent set by this case is quite innacurate.

leftrightout said...

Hi Lucyna. This is a little OT, but also related, a great argument from Kenan Malik in support of free speech.

http://kenanmalik.wordpress.com/2013/06/17/the-pleasures-of-pluralism-the-pain-of-offence/

Nil est corborundum.

Muerk said...

Lucia - I think your right to free speech is still as strong as ever. Free speech has never been absolute, we can't yell fire in a crowded theater, we can't incite people to do violence, we can't defame, and neither can we harass with impunity.

A systematic campaign of harassment can't be allowed to happen to people. The harm of the harassment outweighs the harm of the remedy of shutting down the freedoms of the harasser IMO.

Muerk said...

Lucia - I think your right to free speech is still as strong as ever. Free speech has never been absolute, we can't yell fire in a crowded theater, we can't incite people to do violence, we can't defame, and neither can we harass with impunity.

A systematic campaign of harassment can't be allowed to happen to people. The harm of the harassment outweighs the harm of the remedy of shutting down the freedoms of the harasser IMO.

scrubone said...

The test is what would cause a reasonable person "distress" after two incidents in a year - the incidents being referred to are blog posts and comments. Most people wouldn't bother, of course. But it's like the Sword of Damocles that could fall on anyone on any moment. Most bloggers tend to annoy people. Wait till some of those people figure out what type of weapon this could provide them.

Ah, I see your problem.

I think that is a *very* valid concern, as you have raised it, and deserves some consideration and explanation. If I have my facts correct here, that's the new test that's been established (don't have time to read the judgment) but it's not something in isolation, it merely joins the other tests, all of which must me met.

If that were the only one, heck, I'd be joining you!

Lindalee Smith said...

I think Lucia just wanted to consider the implications of limits on free speech re blogging. I for one am not party to any issues in the particular case so how can we really take a side or comment?

Free speech is being attacked there is no doubt about it. No doubt there are distinctions - defamation is a factual thing and the only public lie which can't be protected by free speech.

It is a problem when complaints are talked about in all sorts of spheres based on people taking offense...even if what is said is true.

Post a Comment

Please be respectful. Foul language and personal attacks may get your comment deleted without warning. Contact us if your comment doesn't appear - the spam filter may have grabbed it.