She was spot on in many critiques tbh
It just got lost in all the acid hurling/shitstain stuff.
So I gave up after I think three posts.
It just got lost in all the acid hurling/shitstain stuff.
So I gave up after I think three posts.
I can imagine cases where I'd consider it entirely justifiable.
Where someone has committed a crime etc, yup I can see that.
Indeed. Problem with Violentacrez is that everything he did was just this side of legal. He was a creep and an asshole, without a doubt, but getting someone fired for non-work-related behavior because you hate his extracurricular activities does make me eye the footing on that slope.
And if she hadn't been doxxed, no one would have threatened the Bees account, yes?That being said, Bees is not receiving death threats because she was doxxed. Bees is receiving death threats because she wrote that blog.
Heh that may depend on which laws you go by. Creepshots are deffo illegal here
US =/= UK =/= the world and all that.
Still, that reporter had an obligation to report rather than vigilante (if he had reported and no one did a thing, fair enough)
And if she hadn't been doxxed, no one would have threatened the Bees account, yes?
All the doxxer did was cause RH's actions to have consequences.
No, not everyone is obligated to report a crime
But I think reporters are -- they are (or should be) held to a higher standard if they want their reporting to be taken seriously. Otherwise the phrase gutter press comes into play. Your actual journalist would note the difference.
It depends on how you define "creepshot" but the short version is that in many cases, there simply aren't any statutes on the books to cover the unforeseen intersection of small, easily-hidden cameras and the Internet. Some jurisdictions are now addressing that, but they can run afoul of the First Amendment if the law is not carefully worded.I'll just boggle over here about creepshots being legal shall I? (how can that be? ???)
So you're Ok with doxxing then?
I'll just boggle over here about creepshots being legal shall I? (how can that be? ???)
I'm not sure about that - this would tend to limit a lot of investigative journalism, as well as the ability of reporters to protect their sources.
It depends on how you define "creepshot" but the short version is that in many cases, there simply aren't any statutes on the books to cover the unforeseen intersection of small, easily-hidden cameras and the Internet. Some jurisdictions are now addressing that, but they can run afoul of the First Amendment if the law is not carefully worded.
There is a good article about this on Popehat.
Ofc, First Amendment(I forget which one that is, sorry) doesn't apply here.
Unfortunately when I google i get a Texas ruling saying upskirts are fine..even when I specify UK.
The big thing for me with RH is (as I mentioned in the other thread in OP that Amadan made) is that her criticisms were often spot in. However...
I too had problems with The Wind Up Girl frex (RH seems to have deleted that review along with many others....) but I don't think it merits (IIRC - I may be mixing up authors here) a shot of acid in the face.
We've probably all had a rant at books that ping our buttons. But there's a VAST difference between that and mentioning how nice it would be if the author got raped by dogs. Crit the text, sure. Inferring things about the author from the text has always been problematical however, and then using that inference as a basis to launch what is basically hate speech....
I understand this completely. Again, it's not whether or not she might like something I'd written(ETA: And if I were say to ever be put on a panel with RH/Bee I'd be, uh, cautious to say the least. Who are you today? Are either of these personas real?) Because being nice under one name and shredding under another -- hypocritical doesn't go far enough to cover it.
This is also true. Two wrongs don't make a right. Some people want their authorial identities to remain secret for perfectly good reasons. And like I said upthread, I can see why someone might want to do a crit blog under a pseudonym, even if their crits are entirely professional. It can be awkward giving someone you know a 2 or 3 star review, even if it's your honest opinion and you word it diplomatically.That RH was outed was wrong (whatever the circs, it's not all that clear yet) imo. Because now she's getting abused -- and abuse is abuse.
I think it's a complex issue.