Stephen Morgan

[barracuda]

I take it you all got Willow's message. Any thoughts? Is Morgan's point of view hate speech? How exactly do we deal with him?

[Canadian_watcher]

I figured this would come up, just not quite so promptly.
I'm going to take tonight to think about it - it's family night here and the movie's just coming on.

I'll respond tomorrow. Have a good night.

[Jeff]

Does he incite hatred or violence towards women? Clearly he has a problem with women, but I don't know that hate speech is a fair characterization of it.

I'm certain I haven't read his posts exhaustively, and if there are unambiguous examples of hate speech then we need to unambiguously act.

[barracuda]

I've had numerous ocassions to read Stephen pretty exhaustively, and as yet there was really just that one time when I felt I could reasonably call him out for hate speech. Not that I haven't felt that his perspective was despicable and basically indefensible. I personally think it is. But he insists he doesn't hate women.

I mean, there are posters, e.g. Sepka, who routinely put forth points of view on issues which it is clear that virtually everyone on the board HATES. Granted, I feel that Sepka is simply trolling, while Stephen obviously has deep-seated emotional issues (mother confined to a mental institution for alkcoholism for the duration of his childhood, if you accept his story at face value) which he has pawned off onto a fairly cohesive, if blind, philosophy which views feminism as destructive. Essentially, he feels that feminism is yet another control mechanism of the PTB, or the Illuminati, and has adopted the polemic of the vast internet of anti-feminist websites for his citations to "prove" it.

My point being that I see no way to ban him without addressing the issue of Sepka, or even some of the hardcore ZOG contingent, whose perspectives I find equally repellant at times. Admittedly, it seems that most of them are actually either gone, or in the midst of a people's uprising.

He's very smart. That makes it that much more difficult. And I hate feeling as if I'm defending him. I'm not. I'm just trying to contexturalise him within the framework of the guideline on gender.

[Canadian_watcher]

I've given this a lot of thought.. even before you approached me, Jeff, and It's a toughie.

Probably one of my strongest convictions is an opposition to censorship, so that's the heart of the matter. Then I remember that this board is somewhat a 'private sphere' and doesn't have to meet the same standards of freedom of speech as the public sphere, so I'm back at the start again.

I'll tell you that hearing Stephen cheer the burning of witches, write that domestic violence has never been legal, and state that he believes that rape has to be violent so marital rape was understandably excused from prosecution at one point in history (and these are just very recent examples) really turns my stomach. That he couches these things in "it's history!" is irrelevant, especially since his history is dubious in the first place.

I'll ask you to reflect on how it would be viewed if he said that discrimination based on race was never legal. Or that since technically Jews weren't persons in 1930s Germany he can understand why the legal system didn't intervene for their protection, or if he justified the slaughter of natives in North America by pointing out that there were some violent episodes started by the natives.

I'll support whatever we decide, because on the flip side I think it's useful to have someone who will act as foil. It facilitates discussion. Although his words are very, very hurtful at times I am of the opinion that we're all grown-ups and should learn the skills to deal with that sort of thing. Life's full of it.

It wouldn't surprise me in the least if we lost a couple of people if Stephen doesn't go .. and we'll have to endure some threads being killed because people just can't stand the way he debates and his prejudices.

Has he ever been warned?

[Jeff]

I've been asking myself if I would be reading Stephen differently if this were about the politics of race or religion rather than the politics of gender. I would still be deeply offended, but I can't honestly say more than that. Because we do have members who make arguments analogous to his female/feminism distinction with respect to Jews and Zionism. Personally, I think Stephen's distinction is sincerely specious, but with respect to the posting guidelines now in place I can't say that he's overstepped them. And I'm always reluctant to use my admin hammer to impose my supra-guidelines values upon the board.

Which makes me think this morning, perhaps the guidelines could use some refinement, as a little over a year ago when we added a prohibition on the use of "zionazi."

[Canadian_watcher]

Will it be you then Jeff who responds to willow? I don't mind doing it if you'd prefer that it come from a woman.

[Jeff]

I'll tell Willow we're looking at editing the posting guidelines.

[Canadian_watcher]

ok great.

For me, this would be entirely different if Stephen had some sort of power to influence the comings and goings of anyone on the board. If we were his students, co-workers, (daughters, heaven forbid), etc, because if that were the case I do believe that his words and his style of dealing with people - his selective debate & such - would represent a real problem.

[Jeff]

To Willow:

The mods and I have been discussing Stephen, and recognize the offense in his views. However, according to the narrow guidelines in place, we don't find that they can be characterized as hate speech. I do believe the guidelines need amendment for gender politics, as they've needed to be amended over the years for the politics of race and religion. I hope we can have a revision in place in a day or two.

I don't expect this will be entirely satisfying, but I hope it demonstrates our intentions and our understanding of our obligation towards tolerant speech.

Jeff

Received:

I didn't expect anything different. I wonder however, just what would constitute hate speech in your eyes.

The board is and remains hostile to women, and now that you have the assent of two female mods., you've got cover. You'd make a good politician.

[Jeff]

Anyway, I'm going to be absent for a few hours, but let's brainstorm about how we could amend the posting guidelines to improve discussion of gender politics.

[Canadian_watcher]

sorry guys, I asked willow for her opinion about new posting guidelines and I guess that was not the right thing to do. Should have cleared it first. I'm sure you've received her message and will see that I made the situation worse.

I have to say though that I think she's right in her points. His is a revisionist history. While he's extremely careful/lucky to not have crossed any hard and fast rules, he certainly tiptoes along the edge of the rule against 'hate speech' knowing, I'm sure, that that definition is more subjective.

[Jeff]

I was thinking earlier today about revisionism, and whether we could apply the principle of what we have in place re the Holocaust to the history of women.

And no, I believe you're making it better, C_w.

[barracuda]

Yeah, implementing a ruling regarding revisionism, or aligning holocaust revisionism with women's history might work. It's kind of cludgy, though, and as we know, a definitive history of women's oppression is rather less obvious, recent or available to all than the history of Hitler's Germany. I would suggest that we run open a thread to the board on this topic and see if we get any valuable input, as well as overall reaction to the idea before we take action. I know you've never really done that before, but this may be a good case for trying a bit of crowd-sourcing.

[Canadian_watcher]

I'm not sure if this helps, but I graduated from Women's Studies @ Queen's University, 2003. The history of the oppression of women is quite well documented using primary sources. I'm not holding myself up as any sort of expert though, don't get me wrong but it simply is NOT the case that 'there were only ever two women killed for witchcraft' or that 'domestic violence was never legal.'

I don't know about asking everyone for input.. do you think it might go much the same way as the misogyny thread? I like the idea of building consensus but I think that the people who have really strong emotional investments either way might end up more pissed off and then sides might get chosen. Just throwing that out there. I don't have a crystal ball.