links for 2007-03-31

Continue Readinglinks for 2007-03-31

Stop Cyberbullying Day

Read more about it here…..
In all of this, one of the things that is bothering me is people’s defense of the “mean kids” who put up the two sites that were promoting maliciousness towards various tech people, including Kathy Sierra. Like one of the comments in my previous post, who actually went so far as to make the brazen claim that Sierra’s calling them out was on the level of what happened to her.
As far as the “mean kids” are concerned — boo hoo. They were running sites with a basic premise of mean-spiritedness. Nowhere on either site did they issue a policy about what level of mean-spiritedness was acceptable, and what things went beyond the pale. It’s a bit disingenuous to suddenly say “well gee, we never expected that to happen” when someone takes it way too far. And from the details I’ve been able to see, when death threats were actually posted on their sites, they came from the main participants of the site, not anonymous comments. That makes the claim “it wasn’t us” a pretty tough sell, although I guess one of the participants is trying to make the case that he was hacked.

Continue ReadingStop Cyberbullying Day

links for 2007-03-30

Continue Readinglinks for 2007-03-30

Kathy Sierra, hate comments, and women bloggers

I’ve avoided blogging about this because it’s very difficult to explain, really. I’ll try to keep it really short:

Kathy Sierra is a tech guru who got her start in Java, published some really popular books, and became well-known in the tech community for her ideas about technology and writing user-friendly web applications. She writes a popular blog called Creating Passionate Users, and speaks regularly at industry events. She was a keynote speaker at SXSW, a panel I attended. I’ve been subscribed to her site since last year, when Rich and Jerrod saw her at SXSW and raved about her when they got back.

Over the past several weeks, Kathy has, like several prominent female technogeeks before her, become the target of anonymous personal abuse that rose to the level of criminal threats of violence and murder. The reasons for why that occurred aren’t terribly clear, because Kathy’s about the closest thing to sunshine and puppies that you can get.

But the basic sequence of events seems to be this – some high-profile tech geeks who are more cynical and caustic got together and created a site called “meankids.org” to talk smack about their fellow wonks in the technology world. Kathy and some other women she knew were common targets of their cynicism and abuse, partly because they are women. This online sandbox for maliciousness bred more meanness in the forums and comments of the site as anonymous readers stepped up the abuse to increasing levels.

(Gee, that sounds familiar. I wonder where I’ve seen that happen before? Oh, yeah. I remember, we have our own version of this kind of virulent crap here in Indiana.)

When the women complained, the abuse increased even more, to the level of violent threats posted in anonymous comments on the abuse sites, and on Kathy’s site. The level of the threats were such that Kathy began to feel unsafe, and even canceled a prominent speaking engagement because of it. After she wrote about it on her blog, discussion of the whole incident has exploded across the internet.

One of the interesting things that has come out of this is discussion from numerous prominent women in the tech industry, who have come out with their own revelations of this happening to them. There is, it seems, a systemic problem in the industry.

I’ve been following the story for the last several days, mainly because all the big name web designers who’s blogs I read have weighed in, because either Kathy or the mean kids are their friends. But what made me actually decide to comment on the whole issue is this small quote from a BBC interview of Kathy on the threats she received:

She also thinks it could be time to re-examine whether the blogosphere needs to be completely uncensored.

“There is an unwritten rule in the blogosphere that it is wrong to delete nasty comments. It suggests that you can’t take criticism but now there is a sense that this is nonsense,” she said.

I happened to agree with that sentiment – I’ve practiced it for quite a while. I get 5-10 comments a day that are basically anti-gay trash directed at me. Most of the time, they’re caught in my spam filter (I have some unique keywords entered to catch them) and I simply delete them. Occasionally one or two will slip through live, but I usually delete them pretty quickly. Lately, though, the number of vitriolic posts and anti-gay comments has increased pretty drastically – it’s about double what it’s been in the past, so I have to monitor the comments more closely.

As far as I’m concerned, my website is my real estate. If you visit and decide to plant some flowers in my garden, that’s awesome; you’re always welcome back. If you visit and you graffiti my house, you’re not welcome and your contributions will be removed. Just like a newspaper that chooses not to publish every letter to the editor, I’ll choose to publish what I think adds substance.

It’s not a free speech issue as far as I’m concerned – you only have free speech in a public setting. My website isn’t a public space, it’s my space. No one’s stopping you from starting your own blog, or standing on a street corner preaching, or otherwise speaking out in public places. But you can’t come to my house and insult me and expect to stay.

For the past several weeks I’ve had a post rolling around in my head about my feelings about homophobia and anti-gay hatred and abuse, and how my feelings have developed and changed over the past 20 years that I’ve been “out of the closet.” Sometime soon I need to actually sit down and write that post, when I have a bit of extra time.

Continue ReadingKathy Sierra, hate comments, and women bloggers

SJR-7 Language rejected as flawed by ultra-conservative Bork

Bilerico contributor Don Sherffick testified before the recent House Committee meeting on SJR-7, noting that the language for the flawed second paragraph of the bill originally came from an early draft of the Federal version of the amendment – a draft that was later re-written considerably. That revelation caused some comment and concern amongst committee members.

And now Advance Indiana is reporting about why the Fed version was rewritten – Ed Fox has discovered that ultra-conservative Judge Robert Bork realized the ambiguities of the language were too great, and directed the language should be changed.

The question now is whether Indiana Senator Brandt Hershmann chose the flawed original language accidentally, and now just refuses to change it because the process is so far along, or whether he chose it deliberately to restrain the legislature as well as the courts, and is now just lying to his fellow legislators about the consequences of the flawed language.

Continue ReadingSJR-7 Language rejected as flawed by ultra-conservative Bork

Statewide religious coalition speaks out against SJR-7

From iconindiana.org:

Indianapolis – The Interfaith Coalition on Nondiscrimination (ICON) today spoke out against Senate Joint Resolution 7 (SJR-7) in a letter to the Indiana General Assembly.
The letter, which is signed by 130 Indiana clergy, leaders of faith communities, and other religious professionals, opens with, “Our backgrounds and those of the people we serve vary widely. Our views on marriage differ. But we speak with one voice to oppose amending the Indiana Constitution to define marriage.”
Signatories on the letter to legislators all believe that the Marriage Discrimination Amendment would strip civil rights from committed unmarried couples and undermine the guarantee in the Indiana Bill of Rights for free exercise and enjoyment of religious opinions by giving a legal preference to a specific set of religious beliefs. The text of the letter is attached.
“People are growing tired of religious and political leaders using religious teaching to justify discrimination,” said Executive Director Dan Funk. “ICON is identifying, uniting and giving voice to people of faith who believe that religious-based bigotry has no place in the Indiana Constitution.”
ICON, which is based in Indianapolis, is a growing coalition of people of faith in Indiana representing 26 different faith traditions. Members of this coalition believe that each of their faith traditions place great emphasis on the importance of justice. Members also teach that they must respect the inherent dignity of every human being, even those of differing opinions.
Over the past several years, ICON has built a relationship of trust with clergy and people of faith by advocating civil rights for gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people in a dignified, responsible manner. It is supported by Christian, Jewish, nondenominational, and other responsible religious voices throughout Indiana.
“The debate about SJR-7 is too important for us not to register our very strong concerns,” said Rev. Larry Kleiman, senior pastor of St. Peter’s United Church of Christ, Carmel, and a signatory on the letter. “To impose an opinion in the state constitution which denies constitutional rights to any minority group is an injustice. We simply refuse to stand by and let a very small group of Hoosiers create a very large second class citizenry here in our state.”
ICON is a membership organization concerned about the consequences of intolerance against sexual and gender minorities. It is particularly concerned about religious intolerance and lack of acceptance of God’s diversity. Its purpose is to create positive change through education and social action, so that gay, lesbian, bisexual, intersexed, and transgender people will be able to live in peace and equality.
ICON’s work is directed by 20 congregations and religious organizations, including: Affinity (Indianapolis); Bloomington Friends Meeting (Quaker); Broadway Untied Methodist Church (Indianapolis); Central Christian Church (Indianapolis); Circle Unitarian Universalist Fellowship (Indianapolis); Congregation Beth-El Zedeck (Indianapolis); Eastside Peace & Justice Forum of Cumberland First Baptist Church (Indianapolis); First Congregational Church (Indianapolis); Holy Eucharist Orthodox Catholic Church (Indianapolis); Jesus Metropolitan Community Church (Indianapolis); Lutherans Concerned Central Indiana; North United Methodist Church (Indianapolis); Northeast United Church of Christ (Indianapolis); Plymouth Congregational Church (Fort Wayne); St. Luke’s United Methodist Church (Indianapolis); St. Peter’s United Church of Christ (Carmel); The Church Within (Indianapolis); Unitarian Universalist Church (Bloomington); Unitarian Universalist Church (Lafayette); and Unitarian Universalist Congregation (Fort Wayne).

Continue ReadingStatewide religious coalition speaks out against SJR-7

Lilly Opposes SJR-7

As reported in the Indy Star (and by bilerico.com, Advance Indiana and Taking Down Words):
Eli Lilly has joined several other large Indiana corporations (Cummins, Wellpoint, Dow AgroSciences) in opposing SJR-7, the Marriage Discrimination Amendment:

“As a result of this uncertainty (over what the amendment’s impact might be,)” Murphy wrote, “some employees may choose to leave Indiana to work in a state where these benefits are perceived not to be threatened. Given the great lengths Lilly takes to attract and retain top talent from around the world, we oppose any legislation that might impair our ability to offer competitive employee benefits or negatively impact our recruitment and retention.”
In addition, Murphy wrote, Lilly is concerned the amendment “sends an unwelcoming signal to current and future employees making Indiana appear intolerant.”

Bilerico notes that the legislation is still tabled in the House Committee, and although there are rumors about when it will reappear for further discussion and votes, it hasn’t yet been scheduled.

Continue ReadingLilly Opposes SJR-7

Tactics and Techniques of the National Woman’s Party Suffrage Campaign

suffragetteSomething that caught my eye as I was wandering through the Library of Congress photographs of the women’s movement

Tactics and Techniques of the National Woman’s Party Suffrage Campaign
Summary

Founded in 1913 as the Congressional Union for Woman Suffrage (CU), the National Woman’s Party (NWP) was instrumental in raising public awareness of the women’s suffrage campaign. Using a variety of tactics, the party successfully pressured President Woodrow Wilson, members of Congress, and state legislators to support passage of a 19th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution guaranteeing women nationwide the right to vote. In so doing, the NWP established a legacy defending the exercise of free speech, free assembly, and the right to dissent.

The NWP effectively commanded the attention of politicians and the public through its aggressive agitation, relentless lobbying, clever publicity stunts, and creative examples of civil disobedience and nonviolent confrontation. Its tactics were versatile and imaginative, drawing inspiration from a variety of sources-including the British suffrage campaign, the American labor movement, and the temperance, antislavery, and early women’s rights campaigns in the United States.

Traditional lobbying and petitioning were a mainstay of NWP members, but these activities were supplemented by other more public actions-including parades, pageants, street speaking, and demonstrations. The party eventually realized that it needed to escalate its pressure and adopt even more aggressive tactics. Most important among these was picketing the White House over many months, leading to the arrest and imprisonment of many suffragists.

The willingness of NWP pickets to be arrested, their campaign for recognition as political prisoners rather than as criminals, and their acts of civil disobedience in jail shocked the nation and brought attention and support to their cause. Through constant agitation, the NWP effectively compelled President Wilson to support a federal woman suffrage amendment. Similar pressure on national and state legislators led to the ratification of the 19th Amendment in 1920.

Alice Paul Picketing
Alice Paul Picketing

Alice Paul
Alice Paul
Continue ReadingTactics and Techniques of the National Woman’s Party Suffrage Campaign