American Power: W. James Casper's Demonic Band of Progressive Totalitarians,
American Power: Roundup on Progressive Campaign of Workplace Intimidation and Harassment — UPDATED!!,
Nasty Progressives Try to Get Conservative Blogger Fired | The Lonely Conservative,
American Power: Those Wanting to Silence Donald Douglas Are the Ugliest of Human Beings,
Zilla of the Resistance: Stand Against Evil - Never Let it Win,
The Pagan Temple: Donald Douglas-Struck By The Poison Of Progressive Ideology,
Is American Power Blog Under Attack From Satan? | Lisa Graas,
American Power: Zilla of the Resistance! — 'Stand Against Evil - Never Let it Win',
When Flame Wars Spill Offline,
American Power: Huge Shout Out to Ladd Ehlinger!,
They Truly Hate Liberty : The Other McCain,
Right Wing Bloggers Under Relentless Attack: The Battle Rages On - The Camp Of The Saints,
Beware the Howling Mob : The Sundries Shack,
Shout First, Ask Questions Later: Calling All Browncoats, Join The Fight For Free Speech.,
WyBlog -- Free Speech for thee but not for me?,
Invincible Armor: Stand With American Power Against Intimidation And Harassment,
Marooned In Marin: Standing With A Fellow Blogger & Friend Against Vicious Attacks By Leftists,
Stand Against Evil – Never Let It Win - That Mr. G Guy's Blog,
American Power: Conservatives Stand Up! — Zilla's Resistance Honor Roll Keeps Getting Bigger! (and sadly, so does Donald's swelled head and ginormous ego),
The Independent Realist: Liberal Socialist Attacks College Professor,
A Progressive Attack on Conservative Blogger | Midnight Blue Says,
but specifically inspired by one:
Zilla of the Resistance: Stand Against Evil - Never Let it Win,
who is gathering signatures and signers-on to a manifesto critical of behaviors taken against Dr. Douglas--some real, and some, well, "less so"--that have occurred over the last four years.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
"Did you offer Zilla the chance to put us on the bloglist of Douglas supporters?"Those who know me know I seriously considered it...
But the fact is, I'm not really a Douglas supporter. I don't often agree with him politically or socially, and more importantly, I don't like how he treats people who dare to disagree with him politically or socially. I support Donald Douglas' right to speak. I also support the fundamental idea that those individuals who disagree with someone online have no business taking an online disagreement offline except in very specific cases involving threats to person or property, and even then, there are specific authorities to contact, and one's place of employment isn't one of them.
Secondly, Zilla has so many sweeping generalizations about and invective toward "The Left" in her manifesto, as well as swallowing whole-heartedly every paranoid conspiracy theory and version of truth that Don has offered, without the slightest bit of skepticism or rational thought about any of it, that I couldn't in good conscience sign on there, even if Zilla would deign to allow it.
However, as I said above, I do support the right to speak one's mind online without having folks drag irrelevant things and uninvolved people from one's offline world into the discussion in response / retaliation. So, with all respect due the individuals past and present who('ve) frequent(ed) this place and who've threatened to or actually engaged in such behavior, here is my statement of principles on the subject...
-------------------
Aside trying to prevent violence or exploitation, there is no good reason to contact the employer (or friends, family, neighbors, place of worship, school, ..., ...) of a person one is having an online disagreement with. Online disagreements should stay online.
Words and deeds that violate one's use and enjoyment of their blogging or social media platform (like online stalking or harassment) should be reported to the terms of service folks of those platforms, or the aggressor's ISP.
Threats of violence or vandalism, whether made offline or on, as well as any incidents of ACTUAL violence or vandalism, should be reported to the police.
Online slander and libel is best handled by one's lawyer.
The response to bigotry and other such character flaws is bright sunlight, shone and spotlighted in the same kind of media venues where the bigoted speech or action takes place.
As best as I can recall, these reasons--or variations on these themes--were the ones offered by the folks who threatened to or did contact LBCC about Donald Douglas. NONE of these are sufficient reasons to get a person's employer involved in an online dispute, no matter how ugly it gets. While I don't believe that all of the people who each individually contacted LBCC over the last four years was doing so to get Donald Douglas reprimanded or fired (regardless of what Donald claims), every person who did so made an ethical error in judgement and wronged the poor guy.
That's my statement, more or less. It's not contingent on the political or social beliefs of the victim or the aggressor. Taking an online disagreement offline and directly into a person's real life relationships and dealings is ALWAYS wrong. It doesn't matter how poorly the victim behaved before folks started contacting his/her place of employment. It doesn't matter if the person threatened to do it to you, first. Two (or more) wrongs don't make a right, or justify bad behavior.
There are venues for reporting real incidents of online stalking, harassment, or abuse, online or offline threats of violence or actual violence, and / or cases of libel or tortuous interference. But getting into a person's offline world and involving those with whom he interacts--bosses, coworkers, clients, spouses, children, other relatives, neighbors, clergy, ..., ...--instead of or along with the proper authorities, isn't the way to go. Period.
----------
I would like to address some of the other themes in the posts of Donald and his supporters:
With far too few exceptions, the bloggers and commenters in the posts above treat this as a partisan issue, rather than a declaration of principle, regardless of the politics of either party.
It was wrong when individuals claiming to be left of center did it to Donald. (And one of those links doesn't actually show the offense, but only Donald's description of the offense, written some time later...)
It was wrong when individuals claiming to be right of center did it to Donald.
It was wrong when individuals claiming to be atheists did it to Donald.
It was wrong when Donald threatened to do it to a left of center professor at another college. (I've even heard reports that there was an anonymous complaint filed that was very similar to the one described in this comment, and occurred within a week of it's posting. Free grains of salt for all...)
It was wrong when a whole bunch of conservatives did it to a left of center professor... ...EVEN THOUGH SHE WAS A VICIOUS NUTBAG.
It's not ok when we do it, and wrong when they do.
It's not wrong when it happens to one of ours, but a-ok when it happens to one of them.
It's just wrong, period.
---
And therefore, it kinda goes without saying that I believe all the generalizations and invective about everyone left of center has no place in the posts... It's irrelevant bullshit. If you have a case against a specific liberal (or conservative, or atheist, or white guy), fine. But don't pretend that the bad behavior of the specific liberal (or conservative, or atheist, or white guy) can be generalized to say anything about all or even most liberals (or conservatives, or atheists, or white guys).
---
It seems kinda crazy to me that all of this was inspired based on a new incident in which Donald freely admits "I don't yet know who's once again contacting my employer..." Wouldn't it be ironic if it was a conservative, or perhaps a student or parent or fellow faculty member who lodged the complaint...
---
And that brings me to my next quick point: While I oppose online disputes going offline, there are folks who have a legitimate right to speak to individuals at a person's place of employment, even about online issues--including someone's boss, if that's where it led--assuming the grievance is valid. Were I a student or parent of a student at LBCC, it's likely that I would request not to be assigned into any of Dr. Douglas' classes, based on what I believe to be bigoted attitudes about African Americans, Muslims, gay folks, and those he deems too far left of center. I wouldn't want to be forced into subjecting myself or my child to someone who espouses such views, and were I a student or parent at that school, I believe I would have both the right and good cause to express my concerns. (Whether it's the right thing to do in a given circumstance is subject to interpretation, of course, and different individuals will likely have different opinions. While I'd speak up if Donald was a teacher or a candidate running for office, I wouldn't if he was a fry cook or a shoe salesman, though I probably wouldn't shop/spend money where he worked even then, just on principle.)
The same principle comes into play in the case of Vicky Knox, who was mentioned by one of the bloggers above. Vicky absolutely has free speech... ...but so do the parents in that school district, whether in support of her or otherwise. Free speech doesn't mean you're protected from having folks disagree with you...or even from folks holding you accountable for what you say...
---
The reason most of the folks who contacted LBCC about Donald gave for doing so, was to stop him from attacking them via trolling comments on their blogs and attack posts on his own. That certainly doesn't justify their solution--though ironically, it worked, in most cases; Other than repeatedly going back to the endless well of legitimate outrage and less legitimate victimhood these incidents seem to provide for him, Donald barely mentions any of the people who contacted LBCC, anymore--but it does shed a little more light on the situation... If you explore some of the posts and comments they made about these incidents, a few of 'em sounded pretty desperate to get Dr. Douglas to back the hell off.
---
I'm not going to say much about the whole Satan / demon / eeeeevil bit, except to say that demonizing those one disagrees with--in this case literally--seems kinda pathetic and sad to me. When people cannot treat each other as fellow citizens and human beings, and hash out honest differences of political opinion without turning one person or side into an "other," we're really in trouble. Folks who don't agree with me or believe what I believe may well be wrong... ...but, except for a few cases, they're not evil. (And yeah, I know... Liberals do it, too... When you point one out, I'll say the same to/about him or her, but that doesn't mitigate or change the thoughts expressed by some of the bloggers above... As with the subject of this post, it's wrong, period.)
---
There has been no coordination or conspiracy in these six (now seven) incidents. They have occurred independently over the last four years (and only the last two at anywhere near the same time), and were committed by liberals in three cases, right-of-center folks in another two, and atheists (who last I knew, were not beholden to either political extreme, but are found among the right and left alike), in response to a specific offensive little post about the death of Elizabeth Edwards, in the last one about which we have any info... (As yet there is no concrete information about the seventh incident, making it very difficult to address with anything more than largely unfounded speculation.)
While Donald can claim anything he wishes, all of the players say they acted independently, and in response to posts Donald made--in most cases repeated attack posts on his blog and/or trolling comments on their blogs, though the atheists were responding to a post depicting the heartlessness of this "Christian"... ...and of course, the idea that any of them were acting on my behalf or under my instruction is quite simply paranoid nonsense.
If I forgot anything, I'll address it in the comments or a subsequent post...
More on where I stand: Workplace Harassment - (btdt FAQ files)
ADDED: In the first comment below, Truth reminds me I did forget a little somethin'... The main purpose of the post...
If after reading this post, you agree that, with the exception of the police or lawyers in more extreme cases, it is wrong to involve offline people in online disputes, no matter who the victim or the perpetrator is, please contact me to add your name to the list below. I don't intend to go elsewhere to solicit signatures and support from the authors and readership of other blogs, but I will accept any and all who come here and express the desire to stand up and be counted, even if it's just Kevin, Truth, and I. (I know... Kevin hasn't yet actually said he'd sign, but he's been a co-blogger here for a long time, and based on previous conversations, I strongly expect he'll be on board...)
On agreeing to the Statement of Principles posted above:
W. James Casper (repsac3) -- Wingnuts and Moonbats / American Nihilist
Truth 101 - Truth 101 / American Nihilist
Kevin Robbins - Hometown, USA / American Nihilist
Who will be the next person to sign on "defending Don's right to be a shithead" (and my right to be a shithead, and your right to be a shithead, whoever you are) online, without fear of offline reprisal? Will it be YOU?
![[photo]](http://rimstation.com/yahoo_site_admin/assets/images/IMG_0501_2.220102653_std.JPG){kind=link}
8 comments:
Funny thing. When I first discovered the nutty professor I was trying hard to be a reasonable guy. I gave him every chance. My boy who recently dropped out of Anthropology school since JBW retired and wasn't around to be a good example for him anymore, was thinking of going out to the area around Long Beach to stay with my Uncle and go to school there and learn to surf. I figured that would be cool for him to go to LBCC and meet the professor. Until he morphed into the shithead we all know now.
Thank God for James B. Webb and his example. My boy could have been under the influence of a shitheaded neocon rather than a socialist libertarian who blogged and drank wine and made sense all day.
My only regret was not being exposed to JBW and Reppy and Kevin before I turned towardas a life of responsibility. Damn responsibility!
Then again, Donald isn't held responsible for the crap his spouts. Maybe underneath it all, Donald is the anti JBW. Or, and this wouldn't surprise me as the posts that get the most traffic at my blog are the ones that I call republicans shitheads or mother fuckers in the title (and the neocon lesbian hotties) Donald is just going for the hit count and glory that comes with it by telling fucking morons shit they want to hear. And it makes them feel smart because a "professor" said so.
All that being said, I'll sign the thing defending Don's right to be a shithead along with you Reppy. Without Donald I'd never had heard of any of you.
Thanks Donald.
Words and deeds that violate one's use and enjoyment of their blogging or social media platform (like online stalking or harassment) should be reported to the terms of service folks of those platforms, or the aggressor's ISP.
Which would be LBCC, Reppie. After all, they (or rather the CC board) paid for the IP and server space. That make them responsible for any and all data that flows from those servers. Suppose ol' Donalde really had stored child porn there. The cops would have seized those server's greps in a heartbeat, and the LBCC administration would have been held responsible.
Since proof was obtained that Donalde was posting from those servers, despite subsequent denials, LBCC was notified of that abuse.
That's all. Well, so was the AG of California, but that was merely to ensure that there was no illegal activity going on on those servers.
Both organizations have given assurances that no such activity is ongoing.
Which was a curious way of putting it... ;-)
People do have freedom of speech, Rep, no question about it.
But that does not abrogate them of their responsibility to behave responsibly. DD wants to push the envelope. He wants to test his limits.
The only way to test limits is to have someone on the other side pushing back.
He ought to grow a set and either calm his act the fuck down or get out of the blogging business.
Sorry Carl, but I don't see it as you do...
"Which would be LBCC, Reppie. After all, they (or rather the CC board) paid for the IP and server space."
Paying for the IP and server space and being the IP ain't the same thing in my book... ...and contingent on making the complaint to the IP in the first place is showing that the other party is engaging in some activity that you have a good faith belief (if not concrete knowledge, which would obviously be better) goes against the IP's terms of service.
"That make them responsible for any and all data that flows from those servers."
Fair enough... But what was the specific data in question, are you certain it was posted through LBCC's servers, and what term of service did it violate?
"Suppose ol' Donalde really had stored child porn there. The cops would have seized those server's greps in a heartbeat, and the LBCC administration would have been held responsible."
Unless you have a good faith basis to allege he WAS storing child porn on LBCC's servers, or had even sent or received a single illicit photo from/to his laptop through their servers, for that matter--and wouldn't either scenario be something one would call the police about, if you had a strong suspicion based on evidence that either had occurred--it's kind of a moot point.
Besides which, that's not how I understood or interpreted the whole "rule 5" photo thing, either in toto or specifically, anyway... It was never about child porn, but about the appropriateness and professional ethics of posting hotties who're at or around the same ages as one's students on a blog that you even occasionally suggest that they read. (I mean, is there some question as to whether that girl is over/under the age of consent? Sure... ...especially since gSGf's bio turned out to be fictional, and that photo is likely not one of her college friends about which either Donald or cOUrTneY can vouch, age-wise... but the girl is fully clothed, whatever her age...)
And apparently, there was some merit to that professionalism argument... Donald no longer suggests that his students read his blog, though he doesn't explain whether he made that change by his own volition, or had the change thrust upon him, as it were...
"Since proof was obtained that Donalde was posting from those servers, despite subsequent denials, LBCC was notified of that abuse."
I read the e-mail... And other than the ethics / professionalism of the rule 5 posts on a blog one directs his students to read, (which according to Donald, anyway, is no longer an issue) I don't see any behavior in there over or about which LBCC can or should have any control.
You need to know that LBCC has rules about when a faculty member can use the LBCC supplied internet for personal business or pleasure, what those rules are, and have substantial evidence that Donald actually broke those rules... as opposed to say, writing and setting up posts from home, to appear on his blog later in the day, a feature of Blogger. AND you should probably be someone who has a legitimate concern in the affairs of LBCC, besides... (A student, a faculty member, a parent, or a Long Beach or CA taxpayer, even...)
Invasion of privacy is a legal matter about which one calls a lawyer or the police, not an LBCC matter.
I agree that Donald does want to push the envelope, and that he doesn't believe that the rules and standards of conduct he holds others to should apply to him. And there are ways of pushing back, and perhaps legal remedies, if one is so inclined... But unless there is an immediate threat of workplace violence or exploitation about which you have a good faith concern (say, post(s) saying he's going to kill everyone in his POL101 class this morning, or candid upskirt shots of his female students as "rule 5" offerings), contacting his boss isn't one of 'em...
Hard to keep up here since I don't really get around in the tubes much anymore. But, as much as I hate to belong to any club that would have me, sign me up. It all made perfect sense to me.
I'm only here at AmNi to yank Don's chain now and then. But, what's online stays online. Can't we all just agree to be total dicks towards others...online? I'm too lazy and apathetic to bother contacting his employers (whoever they are) anyway.
As far as the hottie pics, pretty sure he would never (knowingly anyway) post kiddie porn. Although the Erin Andrews thing might have crossed a line or two. I just think it's funny because he sets himself up as such a self-righteous blowhard.
Anyway, I'm going back to the drainage ditch. They got Gadhafi, they're not getting me.
And ditto what Truth said:
Thank God for James B. Webb and his example.
I thank God for putting JBW here, everyday. And curse Him for taking JBW away from us so soon. Come back to the 5 and dime Jimmy Webb.
Let me be brief, Reppie, since I consider this a closed issue.
I contacted his school and the AG because I felt crimes were being committed and was unaware of anyone else who I could contact.
The AG is effectively the police, n'est ce pas?
And Kev? Online is online until you start dragging offline into it, as AssProf did. The gloves came off at that point.
I understand where you're coming from, Carl...
We just disagree, is all...
"Let me be brief, Reppie, since I consider this a closed issue."
There's the rub, my friend... Donalde will still be bitching and moaning about the incident involving you (and the ones NOT involving you, of course) the next time the Mets win the World Series... ...assuming he lives that long... "Closed issue" appears to be an altogether foreign concept to ol' Don...
Post a Comment