Continued: (Ed) Atheism Plus/Free Thought Blogs (FTB)

[A'isha]

Yes, you've made your unconcern over corrupt libelous blacklisting very clear.

And yet, I somehow still manage to sleep at night.

Does that excuse work for the fundie groups who publish names and addresses of abortion doctors? They, too, claim they never intended anyone to use their blacklists for anything other than informational purposes.

No, because that involves doxxing, not blocking select Twitter handles from appearing in your Twitter feed. If it were fundie groups publishing a list of Twitter handles that they consider to be run by heathen atheists so that good Bible-believing Christians could block them, I equally wouldn't give a **** about that, either.

Speaking of hypocrisy, if people saying mean things on the Internet isn't anything to be very concerned (aka "clutch pearls") about, why was there a heavily media-promoted list of people alleged to have said mean things on the Internet?

Because the media loves gossip, particularly technology-related gossip. It's why they made such a big deal about Taylor Swift buying up porn domains.

No, the other involves being publicly blacklisted and branded (either explicitly or by association) things like "racist" and "rape apologist," in most cases without justifiable cause, by an organized, corrupt, and unaccountable system.

So file a lawsuit about BlockBot's libelous statements, and see how far you get. Better do it quick, though....Twitter themselves are looking to horn in on the blocklisters' territory.

The "if you don't like X, don't contribute to X" argument, for any injustice whether it's slavery, homophobia, police brutality, or in this case blacklisting, is always reprehensible. The magnitude of the injustice only determines between great evil and tawdry evil.

Getting blocked on Twitter is not an "injustice".

 

[Kochanski]

Okay, so it allows individuals who use to it to also say mean words about the people being blocked. Now I care even less.



If anyone is using the list to deny employment, that's on them, not on the makers of the list. Unless you're asserting that the list makers are forcing employers to reject applicants who are on it or something.



Considering the nature and purpose of this very thread and the discussion within it, it's a little late (not to mention hypocritical) to start pearl-clutching about one group of people on the internet saying mean things about and condemning another group of people on the internet.



Because one involves involuntary enslavement of human beings, and the other involves getting blocked on *********** Twitter.

The point that you are missing here is that the BBC did a program on it, displayed pictures of the list, portrayed individuals on the list as abusers and bigots. James Billingham who created blockbot was interviewed on the show. So, rather than their private little block list for their own purposes they have publicized the list, actively involved themselves in a broadcast about it which failed to provide the full story about the list, which can lead people who don't have the full story to conclusions about people on the list that are false and could have consequences for the individuals on the list.

If they had just kept it as a tool for their own purposes, I really would not have cared at all, I don't really care what the A+ people think about me.

The A+ people are entitled to do as they please, but they have to accept the consequences for poor decisions on their part and we know they don't think they should be held accountable for anything they do.

 

[A'isha]

The point that you are missing here is that the BBC did a program on it, displayed pictures of the list, portrayed individuals on the list as abusers and bigots. James Billingham who created blockbot was interviewed on the show. So, rather than their private little block list for their own purposes they have publicized the list, actively involved themselves in a broadcast about it which failed to provide the full story about the list, which can lead people who don't have the full story to conclusions about people on the list that are false and could have consequences for the individuals on the list.

So now you can file a libel suit against the BBC as well (or contact Ofcom to complain, I suppose).

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I think the key thing that that article misses is that any suits being threatened or brought aren't defamation suits, but suits based on data protection laws.

 

[A'isha]

I think the key thing that that article misses is that any suits being threatened or brought aren't defamation suits, but suits based on data protection laws.

Yes, but that's the purview of ICO, not of the people who think that their data has been improperly handled. If you think you've been libeled by the BlockBot maintainers, you can file a suit yourself to that effect. If you think they've violated the Data Protection Act, however, you can file a complaint against them with ICO and hope ICO both agrees and decides to do something about it (and if they don't, you're just going to have to lump it).

And in any case, while that's certainly one of the things that has been brought up regarding BlockBot, it's the libel issue that's apparently the main concern of Kochanski, devnull, Myriad, and others.

EDIT: https://ico.org.uk/concerns/handling/

If you have a concern about the way an organisation is handling your personal information – perhaps they hold information about you that is incorrect, they have held it for too long, or they are not keeping it secure – we may be able to help you do something about it.

What can I expect?

If we think the organisation has not complied with its obligations we can give the organisation advice and ask it to solve the problem. We cannot award you compensation. Our main aim is to improve the information rights practices of organisations, where there is an opportunity for us to do so.

We will not usually investigate concerns where there has been an undue delay in bringing it to our attention. You should raise your concerns with us within three months of your last meaningful contact with the organisation concerned.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

Yes, but that's the purview of ICO, not of the people who think that their data has been improperly handled. If you think you've been libeled by the BlockBot maintainers, you can file a suit yourself to that effect. If you think they've violated the Data Protection Act, however, you can file a complaint against them with ICO and hope ICO both agrees and decides to do something about it (and if they don't, you're just going to have to lump it).

That's what the original article recommends you do.

 

[d4m10n]

Does anyone seriously believe that the Block Bot (or its volunteer staff) engaged in legally actionable speech? If so, do you have a specific example?

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

Does anyone seriously believe that the Block Bot (or its volunteer staff) engaged in legally actionable speech? If so, do you have a specific example?

The Breitbart article gave Dawkins being labelled a racist, rape apologist, etc. as an example. This is under U.K. law, which is important because their laws are unique, to say the least. BlockBot's current defense (they have made many changes) seems to be that they are just collecting what people put into it, but repeating defamatory claims are still libel under U.K. law. As for which nation's laws should apply or even which laws of said nation, it gets murky.

http://www.inquisitr.com/1945627/richard-dawkins-addresses-blockbot/
http://matthewhopkinsnews.com/?p=1193

 

[d4m10n]

Calling someone racist is defamatory in the UK? Jesus. They must have Tumblr fully firewalled.

 

[Meed]

Considering the nature and purpose of this very thread and the discussion within it, it's a little late (not to mention hypocritical) to start pearl-clutching about one group of people on the internet saying mean things about and condemning another group of people on the internet.

I don't get this. Their tendency toward condemning people and saying "mean" things (e.g. "someone disagrees with me on some minor point so I better call them a rape apologist") has been one of my major problems with FTB and A+ from the beginning. Presumably I'm not the only one. And personally I think I've been fairly consistent on this. I've defended people like Melody Hensley and been critical of people like thunderf00t.

I do have a problem with block bot (not in principle but in practice). That said, I'm not sure if I'm okay with it being forcibly shut down with legal threats. It all depends on the specifics of the complaints, as far as that goes, and I haven't seen enough evidence to have a strong opinion yet. I'm leaning toward having a problem with it but supporting its right to exist at this point.

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Calling someone racist is defamatory in the UK? Jesus. They must have Tumblr fully firewalled.

It's defamatory in the US too.

 

[d4m10n]

It's defamatory in the US too.

Who prevailed on that one?

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Who prevailed on that one?

Don't know.

 

[d4m10n]

Don't know.

But you're sure someone could.

 

[Tsukasa Buddha]

In the US I found:

At the outset it is important to make clear that there is only one defamatory statement
at issue in this case; Defendant’s statement that he was told (or that he knew for a fact) that
Plaintiff was “a dangerous member of the Ku Klux Klan.” There is no dispute that this
statement is both false and derogatory within the meaning of the elements set forth in Haley.
However, it is important to stress that it is the allegation of membership in the Ku Klux Klan
that is actionable; the allegation that a person is a “racist,” on the other hand is not actionable
because the term “racist” has no factually-verifiable meaning. See Overhill Farms, Inc. V.
Lopez, 190 Cal.App.4th 1248, 1262 (4 Dist. 2010) (“charging a person with being racist,
unfair or unjust – without more – [. . .] constitute mere name calling and do not contain a
provably false assertion of fact” as is required to state a claim for defamation).

Linky (PDF).

However, in the UK there was this recent case:

The comedian Frankie Boyle has been awarded £54,650 in damages after a high court jury found he had been libelled by the Daily Mirror.

Boyle won £50,400 after the jury's verdict on an article that described him as a "racist comedian". Jurors awarded the comedian a further £4,250 over the claim in the article that he was "forced to quit" the BBC2 show Mock the Week.

The publisher of the Daily Mirror, Mirror Group Newspapers (MGN), must also pay an undisclosed amount of costs.

Linky.

That was in 2012, and in 2013 there was reform of the UK libel law, so it may turn out differently.

There are lots of different ways defamation can be argued, and what constitutes defamation has changes fairly regularly.

 

[Squeegee Beckenheim]

I'm really not sure what the issue is with defamation laws that say that if you make a damaging claim about somebody then that claim should be a) true and b) backed by evidence.

 

[Kochanski]

I don't get this. Their tendency toward condemning people and saying "mean" things (e.g. "someone disagrees with me on some minor point so I better call them a rape apologist") has been one of my major problems with FTB and A+ from the beginning. Presumably I'm not the only one. And personally I think I've been fairly consistent on this. I've defended people like Melody Hensley and been critical of people like thunderf00t.

I do have a problem with block bot (not in principle but in practice). That said, I'm not sure if I'm okay with it being forcibly shut down with legal threats. It all depends on the specifics of the complaints, as far as that goes, and I haven't seen enough evidence to have a strong opinion yet. I'm leaning toward having a problem with it but supporting its right to exist at this point.

I agree with you.

As far as having the block bot shut down, I don't think that is the aim at all, but they need to be held accountable for their actions that could cause harm to individuals listed on it. They are all about calling out others for behaviour but don't seem to think that they should be required to behave. Oolon is positively snarky and gleeful about what he has done with block bot, his responses to people included on it show a serious lack of empathy. Irony meters explode regularly from his responses.

I would be perfectly fine with block bot if they kept it as their own private little tool on the super secret back channels of A+, let them block away and block out all of the world and disappear into their tiny insulated echo chamber if that makes them happy. It is that the list is viewable by anyone and everyone online and that they publicized it on the BBC and characterized people on it as bigots and abusers that I have a problem with it.

 

[luchog]

I'm really not sure what the issue is with defamation laws that say that if you make a damaging claim about somebody then that claim should be a) true and b) backed by evidence.

The problem is how you define "damaging", and calculate compensation.

 

[Dissolution]

The problem is how you define "damaging", and calculate compensation.

It's defined by how expensive your lawyer is.

 

[Myriad]

Getting blocked on Twitter is not an "injustice".

You continue to pretend that "getting blocked on Twitter" is the only effect of being blacklisted.

But the blacklisters' own efforts to expand those effects via public media exposure belies that. When the BBC came sniffing for a story, the blacklisters could have explained that it was simply a private effort within a certain community to set their Twitter account settings to their personal liking. Instead, they practically jumped up and down waving the list and screaming "look at these horrible misogynists and racists and rape apologists and death threat issuers!"

This demonstrates why corrupt unaccountable public blacklists are an injustice, and why blacklisting "committees" by their nature tend to become corrupt and unaccountable, as happened in the case of BlockBot. You can look to history for confirmation of that. I note that you have not ventured to offer a historical counterexample.

Equally morally bankrupt is your continued redirection of my pointing out the injustice into demands that I should take legal action about it. Since it is common knowledge that a private citizen cannot file a suit or criminal charges on behalf of someone else, that expectation contains the implicit premise that it is no moral imperative to speak out on anyone else's behalf if one has not been wronged personally.

The counter-argument to that nefarious notion is well-expreseed by the famous verses based on Pastor Niemöller's speech: "First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out because I was not a Socialist..."

One would have thought, given the causes they claim to support, that the blacklisters would take those words and their implications to heart. They did not. Instead they suffered the ironic fate of most haters: to become, without even realizing it, the thing they hate. Will their choice become yours?