laceblade | This is what an ignorant jackass looks like

Okay, so it appears as though Something Awful has deleted the offensive post* made by a Wiscon attendee at her request. Indeed, she is so sorry.

So here is my question. I am assuming that people are going to want to discuss what happened. People should discuss what happened, and IMO, how it can be prevented next time.

I still have the window open on my laptop with the original post. Should I post the text in a public post so that it might be accessible to the interwebs once more? If so, where would be most appropriate: my personal blog, or the Wiscon blog? Is it offensive to re-post the material, or is it more offensive for the perpetrator to hurt people so egregiously and then do a hand-wave because she "did not even begin to consider how much harm it would do to people"?

I'd rather not re-post the pictures in my blog, and I'm not even sure that I could. If the post was deleted, I don't think that I can save them, even if they're still on a web browser window that's been open for hours.

*In case you missed it, someone who attended Wiscon spent her time snapping photographs of people without their permission, removing their faces from pictures, and uploading them to the Something Awful forums with some of the most hateful and ignorant commentary I have ever seen in my life. She attended panels such as "Fat is Not the Enemy," took pictures of people whom she considered to be fat, and then hatefully mocked them for the rest of the world to see, often posting people's names with the pictures. I felt physically ill reading the post, and was nearly in tears by the end of it.

I am disgusted and ashamed that this girl attends my University, and presumably lives in this city. I hope for her sake that our paths never cross. Verily, words would be exchanged.
(Thank God for Facebook, so I know what she looks like, am I right?)

ETA: Read the comments for a link to the first half of the original post. Also, the threads of that post on the SASS forums contain lots more pictures (did people find flickr pools?). People seem to be posting lots of just random photos from Wiscon, including a cute picture of

littlebutfierce,

raanve, and someone I don't recognize. NORMALITY, IT TRANSLATES TO LOLS. I guess I'm just really out of touch with Internet humor. I don't get it.

ETA2: One of the Con-Chairs has posted to the Wiscon LJ community, asking people to please cease violent threats of any kind. The post is here. Please sit tight, people. The Con-Chairs and ConCommittee are aware of the problem and working on it. Please refrain from posting personal information about the person in question, etc.

Also, the thread on SASS seems to be using pictures from the Wiscon Flickr pool in an ever-increasing number of posts. If you have photos of children on Flickr, please lock them. If you took photos of people without asking for their permission, I would recommend locking those as well, until you obtain it.

EDIT 3: Do not threaten the original poster (that's just stupid). Do not post her personal information (there is more than one person with her name in the world). If you happen across her personal information, I would go with: Do not contact her.

EDIT 4: If you want to disagree with my friends and I in the comments, that's fine. But if your comments are in any way derogatory, they will be deleted. I am open to discourse, but will not tolerate slurs.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

Not to be contentious, what sort of law does your employer practice?

Harrassment is really hard to prove (even at the civil burden of "preponderance of the evidence, which is a lesser burden than the criminal, "beyond a reasonable doubt"), because generally one has to show real harm.

For all that the comments are painful, it's hard to see how the reputations, livelihoods, or other aspects of the subjects lives have actually been affected.

Libel is even harder (though making a Time v. Sullivan claim is a stretch, I can see how it might be done... the reasoning would go, "The convention was a political event, the people depicted were taking part in a political event, as such they are players in such an event, and move from the role of private citizen; having entered into the public forum).

Since there has been some back and forthing (in lots of fora) anyone who is pictured, who made so much as one comment, might be so stripped of the protections of Sullivan.

The real problem is that, yes, a case can be made. It's even possible that one might win, but the possible rewards are small (what have the people who are making the harassing comments with which to pay damages. The ISP has the protection of being a common carrier, and so they can't be named in the suit), and the costs high.

Harrassment/libel suits are not taken on spec, they are cash up front. The odds of getting so much as court/legal fees in actual recovered damages are slim (and the best hope is for a default judgement because the respondent's don't contest; because they don't want to pay a lawyer).

Is it possible to sue, sure... anything's possible, and there is enough of a case there to keep it from being thrown out on it's face, but it's far from a certain thing, and (were I a gambling man), I'd lay odds against them winning.

As I said, I am not a lawyer, but years spent with a lot of libel insurance, and studying to be a paralegal make me think there really isn't enough case there.

TK

I work for a general practice firm, and we have taken cases like this before. But I did mean against the individual who first posted the pics and comments (not a com or the IP or anything like that). And yeah, it would be hard, but it's still possible.

We actually just started a case similar a week or so ago. Our client has been having issues with neighbors at his condo, so they went into the laundry room or something, took pics of him, and posted them online with various demeaning comments. He didn't know the pics were being taken so you can't really see his face, but we are probably going forward. Though in his case, the people doing this have behaved this way before, so that lends us some credibility. *g*

Usually when we get cases like this, it's just a matter of a letter and a 'stop that and take these down' and there's no suit, because threats from lawyers often work and anyway, that's usually all the victim wants. Sadly, that won't help in this case.

But she really did open herself up to lawsuits by first posting that stuff. It wouldn't be easy or certain, but if someone felt strongly enough about it and didn't mind the expense (this is our client's stance) it might be worth it just for their peace of mind. Some people just want to hit back, make their case in court, face the person and tell them what an ass they are. That's civil court for you!

Yeah, that's an easier case. The damage is closer to home, and the odds are, (I think) tolerably, in the client's favor.

I'd guess (from past experience... to include the one time I accidentally libeled someone), a case against the OP is, at best, 70-30 against.

Not what I'd be willing to wager money, and time, and blood pressure on.

TK

This is what an ignorant jackass looks like

Re: Because it wasn't working where I wanted to post it

Re: Because it wasn't working where I wanted to post it

Re: Because it wasn't working where I wanted to post it