My Defamation 2.0 Experience(intelligentdesigns.net)
intelligentdesigns.net
My Defamation 2.0 Experience
http://intelligentdesigns.net/blog/?p=101
6 comments
Here's a startup idea:
A centralized forum where people can respond to potentially defamatory content. Log in via OpenID or FB Connect, enter the offending link, and then tell your side of the story. Freemium model lets anyone do this, but you can verify your identity for a small fee.
Alas, clearmy.name is currently squatted.
A centralized forum where people can respond to potentially defamatory content. Log in via OpenID or FB Connect, enter the offending link, and then tell your side of the story. Freemium model lets anyone do this, but you can verify your identity for a small fee.
Alas, clearmy.name is currently squatted.
A site like "Clearmy.name" would be useless unless Google brings that site up at the top or unless readers bothered to fact-check every allegation against that site.
If you've ever gotten a chain letter by email, you know that people can't even be bothered to check Snopes.com before sending a dubious letter to hundreds of "friends", so I sadly doubt that a lot of people would check Clearmy.name.
If you've ever gotten a chain letter by email, you know that people can't even be bothered to check Snopes.com before sending a dubious letter to hundreds of "friends", so I sadly doubt that a lot of people would check Clearmy.name.
Some jurisdictions have proposed a 'right of reply'. Online, this could mean potentially compelling online writers (such as bloggers) or aggregators (like search engines) to include prominent links to, or the text of, official responses from disputants.
See for example:
http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/i...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply
See for example:
http://yalelawjournal.org/the-yale-law-journal-pocket-part/i...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_of_reply
Thanks, that's exactly the kind of thing I had in mind.
[deleted]
This incident is symptomatic of some of the special problems of online communication:
decontextualization: it is easier than ever to remove excerpts from their original context, thus creating a more controversial interpretation, which is then rewarded with attention.
differential propagation: salacious distortions travel faster than balanced understanding, because they're more interesting and compact. (They also resurrect spontaneously, the moment a distortion that's not paired with its antidote is rediscovered by a new forwarding-happy audience or new traffic-over-ethics aggregator.)
Canonical reference and debunker sites (like Wikipedia and Snopes) help, but still can't outrace outrage-as-entertainment and the bonanza of profitable traffic it brings.
decontextualization: it is easier than ever to remove excerpts from their original context, thus creating a more controversial interpretation, which is then rewarded with attention.
differential propagation: salacious distortions travel faster than balanced understanding, because they're more interesting and compact. (They also resurrect spontaneously, the moment a distortion that's not paired with its antidote is rediscovered by a new forwarding-happy audience or new traffic-over-ethics aggregator.)
Canonical reference and debunker sites (like Wikipedia and Snopes) help, but still can't outrace outrage-as-entertainment and the bonanza of profitable traffic it brings.
> the anonymous smear letter ... quoted three sentences out of context: “What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it [sexual contact], is neutral or ambigious [sic], it’s inappropriate.”
If the only time that pedophilia is wrong is when the child does not want it, or is neutral about it, this makes it pretty clear that the writer thinks that sexual contact with children is acceptable if the child "wants" it (or claims to want it).
It doesn't seem to be much of a stretch at all to conclude that the writer does defend some pedophilia.
If the only time that pedophilia is wrong is when the child does not want it, or is neutral about it, this makes it pretty clear that the writer thinks that sexual contact with children is acceptable if the child "wants" it (or claims to want it).
It doesn't seem to be much of a stretch at all to conclude that the writer does defend some pedophilia.
It's clear in context (and you've again taken the quote out of context) that he's referring to edge cases, like where a 16 year old was prosecuted for having sex with a 13 year old, and so on.
From what I read in the article, I think what he thinks is that a child would never want sexual contact with an adult. Additional he explicitly says that if he had written something on the subject today he would be more explicit about his views om pedophilia.
And he does explicit say that he "by definition" believe that pedophilia is wrong. (the "by definition"-part would probably best be changed to "always").
He can't really change what he wrote back then, and while I agree that there, in the quotes, he and you cited, are the posibility that he thinks some child/adult sex contact is okay, the entire article makes it rather clear that this is not his view.
And he does explicit say that he "by definition" believe that pedophilia is wrong. (the "by definition"-part would probably best be changed to "always").
He can't really change what he wrote back then, and while I agree that there, in the quotes, he and you cited, are the posibility that he thinks some child/adult sex contact is okay, the entire article makes it rather clear that this is not his view.
While I'm definitely willing to give the author a benefit of a doubt, I don't see how he says his writing got taken out of context... In fact, context is even worse than the quoted words.
“What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it [sexual contact], is neutral or ambigious [sic], it’s inappropriate.” It omitted the sentence immediately following: “This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact.”
He wants to defend the original writing with showing the next sentences, where he writes "this excludes MOST adult/child sexual contact"? Really? Which adult/child sexual contact is ok, then?
And then: "A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young woman" ...
When one uses such language to talk about kids.. sheesh.
“What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t want it [sexual contact], is neutral or ambigious [sic], it’s inappropriate.” It omitted the sentence immediately following: “This excludes most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact.”
He wants to defend the original writing with showing the next sentences, where he writes "this excludes MOST adult/child sexual contact"? Really? Which adult/child sexual contact is ok, then?
And then: "A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young woman" ...
When one uses such language to talk about kids.. sheesh.
Technically, an 18 year-old girl and a 17 year-old boy would be an adult/child relationship.
Also, based on what I just read, it seems he is using pedophilia to describe sexuality between children. Playing doctor.
Regardless, it is clear that the spirit of Gawker's "He supports child abuse!" is way, way off.
Also, based on what I just read, it seems he is using pedophilia to describe sexuality between children. Playing doctor.
Regardless, it is clear that the spirit of Gawker's "He supports child abuse!" is way, way off.
[deleted]
> And then: "A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young woman" ... When one uses such language to talk about kids.. sheesh.
Where I come from, people of that age can get married. There are current proposals, which will probably become law, allowing them to vote in elections. As others have pointed out, people of that age are generally fertile.
To call someone who can get married, vote and bear children a child is, quite simply, silly.
Where I come from, people of that age can get married. There are current proposals, which will probably become law, allowing them to vote in elections. As others have pointed out, people of that age are generally fertile.
To call someone who can get married, vote and bear children a child is, quite simply, silly.
Only developed countries have the idea that you're an adult at 18 instead of 13 (or puberty). An irresponsible 16 year old might still be called a kid, but a responsible 16 year old deserves to be treated as an adult.
I'm pretty certain from the larger context that he's saying that most adult/child contact is inappropriate (excluded from being okay) whereas little child/child contact is inappropriate.
Maybe it's a grammar problem with those sentences. In all his writings his stance is consistent and well-defined.
Maybe it's a grammar problem with those sentences. In all his writings his stance is consistent and well-defined.
Which adult/child sexual contact is ok, then?
It seems to me that Moeller was making a subtle point that I have also made in discussions about the subject: that it is perfectly possible to imagine a situation where sexual contact between an child and an adult takes place with mutual consent and without coercion. One can imagine a 12 year old seducing a 30 year old neighbor, without either of them being harmed by the experience. In many discussions, this can be a relevant point, that defuse blanket statements. This does not change a thing about the fact that you want the law to forbid such things.
And then: "A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young
woman" ...
When one uses such language to talk about kids.. sheesh.
These "kids" are also old enough to be put to death for criminal acts as adults. It is a silly, illogical double standard. Somehow we have no problem saying that that they are completely incapable of making decisions about something relatively harmless like sex with their peers, yet we have no problem making them inhuman monsters who are perfectly capable of having made cold decisions in a completely capable light when it is a person's death?
"These 'kids' are old enough to bear children and have done so during the majority of human history."
Historically children have been given less and less responsibility as the grow up and maturity has followed the same path.
Historically children have been given less and less responsibility as the grow up and maturity has followed the same path.
> One can imagine a 12 year old seducing a 30 year old neighbor, without harming either of them.
"One" can imagine that?
I, for one, CAN NOT imagine that sexual contact between a 12 year old and a 30 year old can ever be anything other than a grave problem.
"One" can imagine that?
I, for one, CAN NOT imagine that sexual contact between a 12 year old and a 30 year old can ever be anything other than a grave problem.
There has been plenty of research into the way both men and women that have experienced early sexual contact rate those experiences later in their life, with many case stories. You would be surprised by the amount of positive experiences. They are only a minority and it doesn't change the way the law should be or the fact that we should disapprove of such encounters. However, it does change the 'ultimate evil' view that people tend to have of pedophilia. Like in the case of theft or murder, there are plenty of exceptions, where we can understand why someone would break the law. We may even sympathize with someone that kills an abusive husband or steals from Goldman-Sachs after losing everything. In the same way, we should be capable of sympathizing with some of the people that have committed an act of pedophilia.
This is a common problem already, but as the web evolves to allow for more easily discoverable anonymous comments about average people (and it will), it will become an even more pervasive one.