10
11

Male university students make facebook group where they "joke" about violently raping women. University does not expel students or release their names. (cbc.ca)

dont_forget_canada が 投稿

並べ替え:
ベスト
ベスト
トップ
新着
注目
論争中
古い順
あなたは単独のコメントのスレッドを見ています。

残りのコメントをみる →

[–]dont_forget_canada[S] -9 ポイント-8 ポイント  (63子コメント)

Hi! I'm a Dalhousie student too, a lot of my fellow student friends along with myself also want the boys expelled.

[–]why_uneven_bother 26 ポイント27 ポイント  (52子コメント)

This is the start of what I am very, very afraid of. We have been making amazing social justice progress, but we are also starting to become extremely intolerant of anything we perceive as less than perfectly tolerant.

These people are calling for expulsion for what was posted on Facebook. "I demand your future because I disagree with your speech."

Is the next step for me to disagree with your political views on Facebook, take them to your employer along with my friends, and DEMAND that you're fired for what you've said? That isn't very far from what was done here. The only difference is that no one, absolutely no one in any place at any time could defend what was said. The vile, hate filled things said there might be triggering to many and just infuriating to most of us.

TL;DR With the Mozilla CEO fired for his political donations, and us calling for blood over Facebook posts, how much farther does it have to go before it becomes frightening?

[–]Maniacal_Marshmallow [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Saying that you want to rape someone isn't just "free speech" It's dangerous and unprofessional behavior that shouldn't be tolerated. Here's the thing. I am all for people making jokes. But what everyone needs to realize is that when you say or joke about things that are controversial or potentially insulting, you will garner negative attention and criticism; that's just something you need to acknowledge and accept. I feel like a lot of people nowadays just like the idea of stating opinions and wish we lived in a nebulous void in which there were no consequences for said opinions or "jokes."

[–]kindlefirefox 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (2子コメント)

People get fired all the time for using racial slurs. Actions have consequences. If you don't like those consequences, don't preform those actions.

[–]why_uneven_bother 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (0子コメント)

If you don't like those consequences, don't preform those actions.

If you remember, there was a case recently where some people living in a building in a large city had spikes put down to keep people from sleeping next to the door. Instead of it becoming a conversation about homelessness, the lack of civic action, the lack of resources to help these people, the view of homelessness in general, or really anything to do with the homeless, it was all about how HORRIBLE these people are to not want to have people who smell of urine and feces sleeping next to their door.

If you continue the same line of thought, the people campaigning to make it illegal to feed the homeless in parks are intolerant of the concerns facing the homeless. They should be made homeless themselves so they understand it! If THEY had to spend a night outdoors, it would be different.... and now we get them fired? Boycott the businesses who depend on the park for foot traffic? Denounce the city for not cleaning up all the trash scattered about by the feedings?

You shouldn't be frightened of what you can put as simply as:

People get fired all the time for using racial slurs. Actions have consequences.

You should be frightened of what is more nuanced, but carries the same axe.

[–]ThreeLittlePuigs [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

There's a big difference between paying to go to school, and being paid to work somewhere.

[–]ebolika 4 ポイント5 ポイント  (3子コメント)

You keep acting like this is a new thing. People have always faced punishment for breaking rules of school conduct. There's nothing remarkable about this case.

[–]why_uneven_bother 8 ポイント9 ポイント  (0子コメント)

People have always faced punishment for breaking rules of school conduct. There's nothing remarkable about this case.

You are quite wrong.

The difference here is that the school decided the punishment, a large number of people disagreed with the severity of the punishment, and those people are now protesting to increase the severity of the punishment.

There will always be cause and effect. Crime and punishment. Rules and rule breakers. The difference here is that we're starting to say, "That punishment is not good enough. They need to be removed from society." In cases of rape, that is awesome. In cases of objectionable speech, that is frightening.

[–]Kiltmanenator [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

What about the Sony email leaks? What if, because of illegally obtained records, it came to light that a few folks working at Sony were making rape jokes, or used slurs? Are we going to start up a witch hunt over that?

I realize I'm talking about private correspondence whereas this story is about a Facebook group, but where do you draw the line?

[–]knatxxx 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

This happened tho outside of school tho, not within it.

[–]dont_forget_canada[S] 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (37子コメント)

The boys were making jokes about raping girls violently, using chloroform on them and so on. They decided to post these "jokes" in a very public space, knowing that the Internet could see them. I think that because they were unintelligent enough to think creating this public group was a good idea (or atleast failing to acknowledge that it was obviously a very bad idea) warrants their expulsion.

[–]get_real_quick 10 ポイント11 ポイント  (10子コメント)

What if the boys just thought the jokes in their head? Or if they just messaged them to one another privately? How about if one boy sends a snapchat to another of a bottle of chloroform that says "gonna use this on a bitch tonight"?

What these guys did was distasteful and offensive as hell. They'll be publicly mocked and ridiculed. Why do we need to police what they say and think when they haven't committed a crime, they haven't done anything to hurt anyone, and they haven't somehow interfered with or imposed their views on anyone else?

[–]ebolika 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (8子コメント)

They've broken the school code of conduct. You break rules, you face consequences. Sorry but that's life.

[–]get_real_quick 13 ポイント14 ポイント  (7子コメント)

You keep asserting that they broke the student code of conduct. Can you indicate to me where in the code of conduct it says that students cannot make jokes about rape on a private facebook group?

http://www.dal.ca/content/dam/dalhousie/pdf/university_secretariat/policy-repository/CodeofStudentConduct.pdf

Actually, I did you the favor of going through and finding colorably applicable provisions for you. You'll want to take a look at provision A.5. in the Definitions section.

Nothing in this Code shall be construed to prohibit peaceful assemblies and demonstrations, or lawful picketing, or to inhibit freedom of speech.

So, in fact, it would actually be contrary to the code of conduct to punish them for their actions. Even so, Dalhousie recognizes just how shitty of a human being these guys have been, so they've still punished them. But don't put down your pitchfork just yet, there's more!

In addition, may also help you to develop an informed opinion on the subject to look at Section C.1. Offences Against Persons. That provision actually provides for crimes against specific persons, even in the case of discrimination or intimidation, except where these guys knew or should have known that someone would be intimidated or feel discriminated against. Private facebook group? Not sure that falls into that category of offences, but happy to hear your argument on the point. And this isn't an act against a specific person, so there goes that as well. Feel free to highlight which other provision you think may colorably describe their conduct.

At the outset, I'd point you to the first page:

In the exercise of its disciplinary authority, the University treats students as adults free to organize their own personal lives, behaviour and associations subject only to the law, and to University regulations that are necessary to protect:

  • the integrity and proper functioning of the academic and non-academic programs and activities of the University or its faculties, schools or departments;

  • the peaceful and safe enjoyment of University facilities by other members of the University and the public;

  • the freedom of members of the University to participate reasonably in the programs of the University and in activities on the University's premises;

  • the property of the University or its members.

Other than this, regulation of student behaviour by the University is neither necessary nor appropriate.

[–]truisms [非表示スコア]  (3子コメント)

the peaceful and safe enjoyment of University facilities by other members of the University and the public;

If a group of students are discussing committing violent crimes against other members of the university, it might be reasonable to say those students are "hindering the peaceful and safe enjoyment of University facilities". I imagine it could be quite frightening to have to regularly interact with people who have publically stated their desire to harm you.

[–]get_real_quick [非表示スコア]  (2子コメント)

That's a rather broad interpretation of what peaceful and safe enjoyment means. In the first place the statements were private, not public. They were posted to a private facebook group, requiring administrator approval to see those statements. The intended recipients of the statements were not the general public, or any of the people who are now offended at the statements' existence.

The second point here is that if you don't think intended recipient matters, then we can think of a lot of interesting counterfactuals that dispute your principle:

  • girls go out to brunch, one girl downplays an ONS she had with another student because the "sex was bad, like really, really bad". Does the man now have a claim that his humiliation at a relatively private affair, should he ever find out about the statements, made him feel unsafe?

  • student with law enforcement ties travels to Ferguson, MO to stand in solidarity with police officers there. Black students on campus declare that his return to campus after that hinders their peaceful and safe enjoyment of University facilities. Should he be expelled?

We can keep going here. The principle doesn't work if we don't think that intended recipient, coupled with steps taken to ensure that unintended recipients don't receive the statements, matters. The statements were also just puffery, shows of what they mistook for masculine bravado. It's not like they were actually plotting to rape anyone, or at least that much is not indicated. You center your claim on the fact that these were violent crimes, but they weren't threatened. They were discussed. Law student in an evidence class disputes the claim that sexual assault victims should not be cross-examined about their prior sexual history. Expel him?

[–]truisms [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

None of those examples you give involve discussion or threats of harmful criminal acts. Saying someone is bad in bed, either to their face or to friends is certainly rude, but it is neither illegal or a safety threat. If some white students were "joking" about lynching their black classmates, even if it was not directly to their faces, I think that would merit some severe repercussions. To compare violence to gossip seems a bit disingenuous.

[–]get_real_quick [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

The statements weren't made with an intent to commit an act of violence (there was no plan to in fact rape), or evoke a response in unintended recipients (people outside the group). They were made in a context, and that context was in celebrating a distorted and warped concept of masculinity that is obviously foolish, and wrong, and misguided, but the recipient of those statements presumably understood the statements in that jocund context. Neither the maker of the statement nor the recipient of the statement at any point intended or even should have known that the statements would be heard by unintended recipients.

[–]Maniacal_Marshmallow [非表示スコア]  (2子コメント)

Free speech protects you from the government. It does not protect you from facing negative consequences for saying you wanted to fucking rape someone. Quit defending them.

[–]get_real_quick [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

The school made a commitment to free speech. Do you have anything substantive to add or is vitriol all I can expect? You can face consequences for your actions, but nobody would say that you should be lynched, beaten, stabbed, raped, or otherwise assaulted. I won't quit defending them because while I think they're reprehensible individuals, I think the fact that in our culture we find it appropriate to mob justice when it is patently clear to me from this thread alone that people jump to conclusions about other people without knowing facts or even being able to string together a cogent explanation for why expulsion is a worthy punishment is fucking WRONG and makes us all sound and act like a bunch of Nancy Grace watching self-centered IDIOTS.

Time and again I am told that actions have consequences, and I agree! But why are these the consequences?

[–]Kiltmanenator [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Show me what part of the School Code of Conduct they violated, and where it says that violation is an expellable offense.

[–]why_uneven_bother 6 ポイント7 ポイント  (9子コメント)

I understand that their objectionable speech was vile, undefendable, and irredeemable. No one is trying to say anything different. This is a very clear case where everyone can see the line between black and white on the ground along with the clearly marked moral high ground for everyone to climb onto.

It is just like the case of the Mozilla CEO's political donations opposing gay marriage. There was a clear line on the ground between black and white with a very clearly marked moral high ground for everyone to climb onto. It is easy to agree with a popular progressive opinion casting shame and judgement at someone else for what they did. The frightening part is where they say, "I want you fired, expelled, or removed from society for your speech."

The reason this is frightening? You may fall on the wrong side of the line, moral high ground, and judgement one day for not being progressive enough. While the "freedom of speech" may not legally apply, the idea of it is very much applicable. It was not meant to defend the speech we agreed with, but the most vile, reprehensible, hate filled speech that makes our blood boil. If we can censor the KKK, we can begin political censorship as well.

TL;DR Do you want to live in a world where someone disagreeing with your Facebook post about welfare has the moral high ground against you via your employer, family's food on the table, and home because you don't want to see the homeless fed in the park next to your home?

Do you want to live in a world where someone disagreeing with you has the option to remove you from society?

[–]Pollerwopp [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Minorities or suppressed groups have fallen on the wrong side for centuries, and often seen their lifes destroyed. You are turning the attackers into victims here. For every gay basher that now loses their job there's a hundred gays who are now free to live their life, ending their oppression because society finally starts to look out for them.

[–]ebolika -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

So you don't think people should be held accountable for what they say? Your don't think people should be held responsible for their actions?

[–]why_uneven_bother 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Those questions are too open ended. You'll need to be more specific for any of it to make sense in context.

If you walk into a theatre, yell fire, and incite a panic, you'll be held responsible for your actions. If you walk out into the street, look left, look right, and yell, "I'll murder you all" before going on with your day, you won't likely get a second look in New York City.

If you want to do better with your questions, I'll follow up again. This is all you get for those.

[–]rondarouseyy 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Your don't think people should be held responsible for their actions?

I don't think someone should have his future ruined because of a tasteless joke

[–]dont_forget_canada[S] -5 ポイント-4 ポイント  (4子コメント)

The situation at Dalhousie is different from the situation at Mozilla. The Mozilla event was a difference of opinion. The Dalhousie incident involves perpetrators who provoked a conflict by making offhand and rude sexual remarks which targeted female students, and to exponentially make things worse, this was done on the Internet.

If these adults made these jokes behind closed doors to each other then I would feel more forgiving. Instead they posted them online where they could be redistributed to others. There is a line between a closed door comment and deciding to create a group online with the intent of making rape jokes at the expense of girl students who do not welcome such remarks.

[–]Kiltmanenator [非表示スコア]  (2子コメント)

What if those jokes, which were intended to be private, were leaked to the public by someone within the group who had a change of mind? What if those communications were obtained illegally, via hacking, maybe?

[–]dont_forget_canada[S] [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

If adults taking a degree in dentistry couldn't figure out that the inappropriate things they said on the internet weren't private then maybe they should be expelled on grounds of stupidity?

[–]Kiltmanenator [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

Maybe I didn't phrase the question correctly. Let me try again.

  1. What if these were simply private emails, or comments on a closed FB group?

  2. Would it matter if they were leaked by a whistleblower of sorts, as compared to an illegal hacking operation?

[–]Chingasa 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (14子コメント)

I don't agree with your philosophy that people who don't share the same sense of offense or humor you do should have their livelihood challenged by a frothing mob.

[–]Maniacal_Marshmallow [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

Joking about raping someone isn't "humor" it's disgusting and unprofessional. Quit defending them.

[–]Chingasa [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

It's not humor to you. Fortunately, you don't decide what everyone can and will find humor in. Disgusting and unproffesional? Sure, subjectively. A trespass worth ruining his life over? Not even close.

[–]kindlefirefox 1 ポイント2 ポイント  (1子コメント)

Sorry that you don't think students should have to follow rules or face consequences for their actions.

[–]ThreeLittlePuigs 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What rule did they break in the code of conduct? Someone cited the rules above and it seems they were actually explicitly operating within the rules.

[–]connections22 -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (9子コメント)

well, they actually broke their school's code of conduct by posting what they did. By breaking the code of conduct that they agreed to, they can be expelled.

[–]Chingasa 3 ポイント4 ポイント  (7子コメント)

Yes. Breaking rules can get you in trouble/expelled. But it clearly says in the article the university has already decided to take certain steps for punishment. That is not good enough for the angry mob. They are demanding expulsion. Mob mentality from the loudest shriekers deciding your punishment is not my idea of just.

[–]ebolika -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (3子コメント)

Oh but isn't the mob entitled to their free speech?

[–]Chingasa 9 ポイント10 ポイント  (0子コメント)

They sure are. Are you as quick to stick to the mob mentality when some loud religious group wants a homosexual fired from their private school?

Edit: a word

[–]ThreeLittlePuigs 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Sure, doesn't mean they aren't wrong.....

[–]knatxxx -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

What does that have to do with anything?

[–]dont_forget_canada[S] -3 ポイント-2 ポイント  (2子コメント)

Oh so when it's something you agree with it's "democracy" but when it's something you disagree with it's a "mob"

Right. Forgot how it worked there for a second, my bad.

[–]Chingasa 0 ポイント1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

I have no idea what you are talking about or where I said anything about this was democratic at all.

[–]ThreeLittlePuigs -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

Well it's not democracy when it's 200 people, if it was a democracy in this case it would seem you lose.

I think it comes off as a mob because there is no cited rule that they broke, they just pissed these people off.

[–]Kiltmanenator [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

What part of the school code did they break exactly? I'm not familiar with this institution.

[–]bananera 2 ポイント3 ポイント  (2子コメント)

anything we perceive as less than perfectly tolerant.

A bit of an understatement when we're talking rape threats.

[–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

[deleted]

    [–]bananera -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (0子コメント)

    Aren't we talking about the linked article?

    [–]newscontrolsthemedia -2 ポイント-1 ポイント  (2子コメント)

    People are perfectly free to say and believe whatever horrible things they like. Nobody in this story is using the force of law to marginalize them.

    We are passing the point where people can expect to be coddled and protected when expressing bigotry against women in the public sphere. We are under no obligation to tolerate the intolerant, and all we are doing is denying a platform for their hateful, backwards views. The women (or minorities, or poor people, etc) that they despise and fear cannot stop being who they are. If they don't like it, they can always stop being bigots.

    This is the case with the Mozilla CEO. He was not fired, but resigned from Mozilla because, in his own words, he could not be an effective leader. He was not respected by his employees because people at Mozilla would not work for an intolerant person.

    We also see this in matters of race. Donald Sterling was forced out of his role as owner of the Clippers because he made bigoted statements about black people.

    It's our duty to speak up and demand that such hateful speech be addressed through nonviolent means. By demanding change, by demanding accountability, we take power away from the haters.

    [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

    [deleted]

      [–]newscontrolsthemedia [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

      Good luck with that.

      [–][削除されました]  (1子コメント)

      [deleted]

        [–]ebolika -1 ポイント0 ポイント  (0子コメント)

        How is this evil?

        [–]CockLaser [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

        Why stop there. The fuckers should be taken outside and burnt

        [–]dont_forget_canada[S] [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

        Lets not get too carried away with ourselves. Firewood is expensive in the winter.

        [–]cherbear002 [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

        Oh, well as a Dalhousie student advocating for expulsion, you must know a lot more than just what the media is telling us? Because all I have seen so far is like 5 inappropriate comments all of which have been explained by commentators. And Hate sex =/= rape, last I checked on Urban dictionary. But surely, as a Dal student, you must be better informed than I.

        [–]Notsureaboutaring [非表示スコア]  (3子コメント)

        Wow, the fact that you would urge real world consequences for an opinion is disgusting. Have you no empathy? Why do you have so much hate inside you?

        [–]dont_forget_canada[S] [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

        It seems to me that the real people with hate inside them are the boys who made a facebook group to make not one but multiple "jokes" concerning the abuse and rape of their fellow classmates.

        You can have the opinion that the sky is green and while that's nice, whatever your opinion is wont change the fact that innocent women were unjustly targeted by these boys, and that they should be made to suffer consequences for their inability to behave like the adults they claim to be.

        [–]Maniacal_Marshmallow [非表示スコア]  (1子コメント)

        Joking about raping someone isn't an "opinion." It's dangerous as hell and can have real world consequences. On top of that its just plain unprofessional and disgusting. Quit defending them.

        [–]Notsureaboutaring [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

        Joking... isn't an "opinion." It's dangerous as hell and can have real world consequences.

        Wow. Do you ever just sit back and listen to yourself?

        [–]puppet22 [非表示スコア]  (0子コメント)

        Humour is subjective and free speech is protected. You are trying to censor and punish people for their own tatse in humour. Go support a real cause.