ShelbyC: Not just the public square… Here you’re talking about one one’s own property inside a private business.

See, though, this is where we get to the root of this issue.

Certain individuals almost always want to use censorship to accomplish some sort of political goal. I will admit that being served with equal dignity by public businesses regardless of race is a noble goal, but I am not sure that censorship is the way to do it. Similarly, ending human trafficking is a noble goal but saying everyone must crack down on all pornography (especially with phony arguments to support such) to do it poses similar (and indeed arguably more severe) problems.

So now we have panellists suggesting that “outrageous” conduct as a law student might be censored by threatening to interfere with bar membership. It’s the same thing. And it doesn’t work. Because it doesn’t work, it will be a stepping stone to a more severe policy.

Let me put it this way: you can’t legislate that everyone is just going to get along and be respectful to eachother.

Chris Travers: (I also don’t think it should be actionable to call a black customer of one’s business a “nigger” or to tolerate other customers doing so. Unfortunately our first amendment liberties seem to be greatly degraded in the public square….)

Not just the public square… Here you’re talking about one one’s own property inside a private business.

Julian: And do you enjoy your entitlement to access images of incested girls and raped women, 24/7? Because you know who ends up in pornography disproportionately, I hope. And you know pornographers are pimps with cameras, yes?

Be careful about tarring with too broad a brush. Yes, human trafficking is a problem that needs to be dealt with. That doesn’t mean that pornography itself should be any less protected under the First Amendment. Whether or not I or my wife enjoys porn has very little to do with the overall issue (and indeed I will neither confirm nor deny either).

In fact, as someone who has had to give advice to people about issues and perils of internet porn, I have often told people that the evidence points to a substantial subset of porn sites which are somehow affiliated with some sort of organized crime (not just human trafficking, but illegal drug sales, smuggling, spam, and probably more).

However, we don’t ban shouting “kill the niggers… we intend to do our part” at a KKK march simply because of the fact that some people somewhere actually engage in racially motivated murder (see Brandenburg v. Ohio). Merely because pornography is sometimes associated with other crimes does not make it immune to first amendment protections.

Too bad you aren’t there to push for obscenity prosecutions for distributing movies like “Silip” (admittedly quite a disturbing movie, and quite improperly marketed as erotica, but that is beside the point— my wife did make me get rid of the movie but due to the very grizzly murder scene, not the sex scenes or even the rape scene. At the same time, the murder scene was a brilliant addition to the move which added a great deal of symmetry— If you are interested in very provocative movies that will keep you thinking for weeks, I highly recommend it whether or not you are bothered by the widespread nudity, violence, rape, sex, etc).

Julian: And if one third of women now do also, does that make society better, more just, more free–for whom?

The initial question is whether pornography displayed, say in the workplace, is a civil rights violation. The overall theory is that it causes a hostile workplace environment for women sufficient to make it functionally discriminatory against female employees as a class. I am saying if a third of porn customers ARE women, then it is hard to justify that argument. Since women are the fastest growing demographic among porn consumption, I expect that difficulty to grow.

I recognize you hate porn, but trampling on everyone’s Constitutional first amendment rights is not the way to fight it.

(I also don’t think it should be actionable to call a black customer of one’s business a “nigger” or to tolerate other customers doing so. Unfortunately our first amendment liberties seem to be greatly degraded in the public square….)

Sorry, as tempting as your posts are (after a quick review of rape statistics and offender/victim stats, along with pertinent subcultural analysis, your premise appears unsubstantiated) I do not believe that this is the proper thread to discuss such issues. If you wish to remain on-topic I will gladly respond, but don’t feel it appropriate to bring in unrelated issues (a stretch to go from speech restrictions in law schools to the rapacious nature of caucasians). Even the claim “but you should be concerned” is not germaine IMHO – we should be concerned about many things, but not in this thread. Feed the world!

You’re saying that epidemic is over, of rape against American Indian women by white men? I don’t think white men who are still raping Indigenous women got the memo. And I sincerely thank you for any work you have done to alleviate this form of white male supremacist atrocity, to the extent that you have.

Sorry? “Where do you teach and what have you written?” I’ve seen you post this frequently — as a new commenter here may I ask the same of you? Evidently the only valid points are those of people in the academy and those who publish, so you undoubtely have a prestegious chair at an Ivy and publish peer-reviewed work continuously, yes?

I despise the academy, for many reasons. Primarily for its lack of commitment to teaching people how to fight sexist and racist oppression. Generally speaking, I see the academy as part of the problem and activists such as MacKinnon are rare in the academy.

That is such a specious argument that I hesitate to reply. But I have been teaching and publishing since 1976 under my real name. I write opinion under this name because, with a practice in the SF Bay Area, I find I keep clients happier if I do not mix politics with business. You may Google to answer your question (hint: I did not write the Doc Savage pulp novels).

Thanks for letting me know you weren’t that author!! lol I figured that, but I’m glad you clarified.

I can appreciate your wish to keep your practice and other work separate. I don’t have a practice other than challenging white heterosexual male supremacy, and the atrocities of genocidal, ecocidal Western civilisation, so I don’t have the same concerns. But I support you doing your life that way.

You still seem to not grasp the concept of “right” or the fact that a “right” cannot be created but only recognized. The confusion over what are “rights” and what are “desires”, “values”, “aspirations”, “imagined slights”, “financial opportunities to be exploited”, “irrelevent appeals to authority”, etc., seems common today among those who seek to impose the tyranny of their prejudices and political correctness on other, “wrong-thinking” people.

What you write above is so loaded, in an unowned and intellectually dishonest way, with Western white male supremacist concepts. I recommend you read Yurugu, by Marimba Ani, before engaging with you further on the whole matter of “Rights”.

As for myself, I was active in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and women’s rights in the 1970s (de rigueur in Berkeley in the ‘70s). I suspect that, unlike you, I have a different perspective on what was originally sought by these movements and what the industries based upon these concepts (including a large swath on nonsensical faculty positions and curricula) have devolved into. While many good-willed individuals are caught up in this movement today, high-profile actors are often hucksters, in my opinion and experience.

I’m sorry that fighting for women’s rights has ever been seen by anyone as de rigueur. Surely ending the rape and other methods of social and sexual subordination of half of humanity ought not be something that falls into and out of fashion. The rape of women by men, as a form of class terrorism, is something that men I know either commit, calling it something else; don’t commit and don’t do squat to end; or men don’t rape and fight to end rape. That latter population of the three is a fraction of a fraction of of the total male population. Why is that?

At least MacKinnon cares to work towards ending rape. I wish everyone writing here did, as much.

I am opposed to this in principle, btw. Especially now that a third of porn consumers are women. All you are saying is she is eroding our free speech rights and creating a pseudo-right to be free of offence.

On the other hand trying to stop human trafficking is good work and she should be commended for her efforts there.

And do you enjoy your entitlement to access images of incested girls and raped women, 24/7? Because you know who ends up in pornography disproportionately, I hope. And you know pornographers are pimps with cameras, yes?

And if one third of women now do also, does that make society better, more just, more free–for whom? If one third of African Americans are in favor of slavery, does that means society is healthier, freer? It is, disproportionately, women and girls of color who are bought and sold and are photographed and passed around as sexxx things and as pornography. Is that “good”? You’re clear distinction between pornography and sexual trafficking and slavery is not manifest in the actual world of human suffering and oppression. These are profoundly enmeshed forms of exploitation and harm.

BTW, I was personally responsible for ending the “epidemic of rape of American Indian women by U.S. white men”, so that should give me some street cred with you. Solidarity!

Sorry? “Where do you teach and what have you written?” I’ve seen you post this frequently – as a new commenter here may I ask the same of you? Evidently the only valid points are those of people in the academy and those who publish, so you undoubtely have a prestegious chair at an Ivy and publish peer-reviewed work continuously, yes? That is such a specious argument that I hesitate to reply. But I have been teaching and publishing since 1976 under my real name. I write opinion under this name because, with a practice in the SF Bay Area, I find I keep clients happier if I do not mix politics with business. You may Google to answer your question (hint: I did not write the Doc Savage pulp novels).

You still seem to not grasp the concept of “right” or the fact that a “right” cannot be created but only recognized. The confusion over what are “rights” and what are “desires”, “values”, “aspirations”, “imagined slights”, “financial opportunities to be exploited”, “irrelevent appeals to authority”, etc., seems common today among those who seek to impose the tyranny of their prejudices and political correctness on other, “wrong-thinking” people.

As for myself, I was active in the Civil Rights movement in the 1960s and women’s rights in the 1970s (de rigueur in Berkeley in the ’70s). I suspect that, unlike you, I have a different perspective on what was originally sought by these movements and what the industries based upon these concepts (including a large swath on nonsensical faculty positions and curricula) have devolved into. While many good-willed individuals are caught up in this movement today, high-profile actors are often hucksters, in my opinion and experience.

But YMMV.

Julian: She pioneered the legal claim for sexual harassment and, with Andrea Dworkin, created ordinances recognizing pornography as a civil rights violation.

I am opposed to this in principle, btw. Especially now that a third of porn consumers are women. All you are saying is she is eroding our free speech rights and creating a pseudo-right to be free of offence.

On the other hand trying to stop human trafficking is good work and she should be commended for her efforts there.

Oh, and where do you teach? And what have you written?

I’ll bypass some of your commentary on Bork the Dork. Below in this comment/response, please see a summary of the career of C. A. MacKinnon.

And what have YOU done to stop the exploitation, subordination, and domination of women by men, globally? Hmmmm? Do you care about sexual slavery and rape of women and children by men? The epidemic of rape of American Indian women by U.S. white men? U.S. white men traveling to Phnom Penh, among other cities, so they can stick their penises in children’s mouths? The connections between the rape of women inside the pornography industry and the sexual harassment of working women outside and inside the pornography industry?

What area of law do you practice? Read on…

Catharine A. MacKinnon, the Elizabeth A. Long Professor of Law and long-term James Barr Ames Visiting Professor of Law at Harvard Law School, specializes in sex equality issues under international and constitutional law. She pioneered the legal claim for sexual harassment and, with Andrea Dworkin, created ordinances recognizing pornography as a civil rights violation. Representing Bosnian women survivors of Serbian genocidal sexual atrocities, Professor MacKinnon won with co-counsel a damage award of $745 million in August 2000 in Kadic v. Karadzic, which first recognized rape as an act of genocide. The Supreme Court of Canada largely accepted her approaches to equality, pornography, and hate speech. In addition to scholarly works that include Sex Equality (2001), Toward a Feminist Theory of the State (1989), Only Words (1993), Women’s Lives, Men’s Laws (2005), and Are Women Human? (2006), she has published widely in journals and the popular press. Her work has been documented to be among the most widely-cited writings on law in the English language. Professor MacKinnon holds a B.A. from Smith College, a J.D. from Yale Law School, and a Ph.D. in political science from Yale. She has taught at Yale, Chicago, Harvard, Osgoode Hall, Stanford, Basel, and Columbia, among others, and spent a year at the Institute for Advanced Study at Stanford. Professor MacKinnon practices and consults nationally and internationally, and works with Equality Now, an non-governmental organization promoting international sex equality rights for women, and the Coalition for Trafficking in Women (CATW). She was recently appointed Special Gender Adviser to the Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court.

Phineas: The AutoAdmit thugs acted with malice and the intent to harm, they caused a good deal of stress to these women, and these women’s lives are irreversibly stained by the whole mess.

I personally think that is an extremely sexist statement. It presupposes that a campaign of harsh comments is sufficient to permanently damage women. By that logic, how long before we basically make husbands the legal guardians of their wives again?

Phineas: To suggest that we shouldn’t try to exclude the culprits from practicing law because to do so we’d have to draw some difficult distinction between, “So-and-so ought to be raped and I want to do it” and, “I believe homosexuality is wrong” is, I submit, lazy and irresponsible.

Well, let’s look at this one more carefully.

The first statement may, depending on context, rise to the level of a true threat. It may not (I wouldn’t categorically suggest merely making the statement would be sufficient to prevent practising law—context matters).

If it does rise to the level of a true threat (and it seems to me that if it was intended to terrorize the object of the threat, it would be), then it is not protected speech under the Constitution, and may well be criminal in nature. I don’t see why existing rules wouldn’t cover that situation in appropriate contexts.

However, let’s look at something that might be on the other side of that. “So-and-so is a rapists dream-victim. Someday someone ought to rape her. Unfortunately I am not the sort to do it.” I am not sure where that falls. What do you think?

What “rights” has Ms. MacKinnon “created?” Now, I understand that you may not accept the dead white male concept of rights coming from God, as written somewhere (can’t recall right off, some dead document or another). But what specific rights has she “created”? How has she enforced recognition of these rights? Why didn’t I get the memo?

And when you make the comparison with Judge Bork above, are you referring to Cronkite as radical leftist versus Imus as libertarian? That may well be a valid comparison, although I do not believe Judge Bork is a libertarian.

Personally, I found Judge Bork to be pompous and ill-mannered the few times we spoke, but I do have some appreciation of his legal experience and perspectives.

Maybe MacKinnon was [blah, blah, blah]. But given her subsequent nutty writing, [blah, blah, blah].

From dictionary.com:
nutty (adjective)
full of flavor or zest; lively; stimulating; meaty: He offered several rich, nutty ideas on the subject.

In the sense that Catharine A. MacKinnon, more than any other living legal scholar/attorney/professor/writer/activist, has done more exceptional work and has been extremely influential, creating more human rights for women inside and outside the male supremacist U.S.

Yes, that’s right. “Nutty”: not meek or mild; having a notable impact; giving greater life.

The same can be said of the Bork decision. The case against his confirmation to be on the Supreme Court was not airtight. But given his subsequent writing, we all should be grateful that he was Borked.

Ah. Well. MacKinnon is to Bork what Walter Cronkite is to Don Imus. One (that would be MacKinnon, in case you’re not following me here) is extremely influential and helpful to humanity in any number of ways, such as by having integrity, dignity, and by being willing, within a profession–U.S. television broadcasting, to speak out against an atrocity far too many privileged people wish to deny. The other (that would be Bork), working within the same profession, represents and speaks in embarrassing ways for those rape-denying oppressors.

At what school were you taught your sexism and misogyny–or should I just say “Igmed”?

Most of those journalists and left wing bloggers aren’t seeking admission to the bar.

True enough. The worry for us civil libertarians isn’t that such distinctions can’t be drawn; it’s that they won’t be drawn. Any time government bureaucrats are given a little bit of power (and character and fitness committees are, among other things, government bureaucrats), the tendency is to increase power and toss common sense.

Phineas says:
This mushroomed into a plain attempt to “googlebomb” the women, with the intention to make the women unemployable in the legal market.

Oh, you mean like the many, many “journalists” and leftwing bloggers who make up bizarre sh*t about Palin, then the rest of the left picks it up and virals it all over the internet, and then the “mainstream” media latches on, all with the obviously plain intention of making her “unemployable” in the political market.

I assume you would be just as aghast at that, too, non? Non? Gosh, what a coincidence.

adam says:
If every lawyer and judge (and probably juror) is required to be a leftist, will not conservative defendants or plaintiffs be hopelessly disadvantaged?

To the left, this is a feature, not a bug.

Ken Arromdee: To you, doing such things “isn’t an outrage”, yet it was obviously enough of an outrage for there to be consequences to the guy (not being welcomed back). The feminists who burned books obviously were welcomed back.

Not an outrage. Just, along with other behavior, indicative of a rather unstable individual seeking too much attention for our liking. Had he had a better rationale besides being hopelessly and wilfully confused, we probably would have not been too concerned about it.

Outrage is wasted in that case. Jokes are not.

Maybe MacKinnon was a borderline tenure decision at Harvard. But given her subsequent nutty writing, Harvard clearly made the right call.

The same can be said of the Bork decision. The case against his confirmation to be on the Supreme Court was not airtight. But given his subsequent writing, we all should be grateful that he was Borked.

Chris Travers: Needless to say he was not welcome back.

The point I am making here is that a lot of people try to express things without really thinking them through. That in itself isn’t an outrage. It is worthy of laughing, shaking one’s head, and walking on.

To you, doing such things “isn’t an outrage”, yet it was obviously enough of an outrage for there to be consequences to the guy (not being welcomed back). The feminists who burned books obviously were welcomed back.

Jardinero1: I would take Doc Merlin a step further and ask what is the worst that would happen if we simply let anyone practice law and let the consuming public decide who is competent to represent them?

Here in south central Ohio, we’ve been letting real estate agents practice residential real estate law for decades. (We’re tough on trust mills, though.)

Daniel Charlies: Some of these long-accepted restrictions include alleged anti-semitism,

Can you give an example of SCOTUS, or for that matter a US district court or a US court of appeal, upholding a conviction for expressing allegedly (or even actual) anti-Semitic statements?

B’nai Brith, being a private, non-governmental agency, cannot “police” laws or enforce them, and I confess to having trouble seeing why Bnai Brith is relevant to this discussion.

Jack D: It seems to me that there is a sly segway going on here

Perhaps as a vehicle for expression?

Your lapse into the classic law-school trope — “Where do you draw the line?” — is cute and has us clutching our pearls over the possibility that future lawyers will feel forced to express themselves to their colleagues in diplomatic ways. But there is a category of speech between the strictly tortious and the sort of sensitive speech you’re worried about, and it’s a category of speech that can and does harm others. It’s the sort of speech that happened in the AutoAdmit scandal.

The AutoAdmit scandal began when some of the fine specimens at that site — behind a veil of anonymity and protected by a site designed to provide that anonymity — posted pictures of women from highly-ranked law schools, without their permission, as part of a hot-or-not ranking contest judged by the members of that site. When a couple of women objected to their images being used in this way, members of the site — many of them law students or prospective law students — decided to post incredibly offensive and false things about these women. This mushroomed into a plain attempt to “googlebomb” the women, with the intention to make the women unemployable in the legal market.

Tort law will stop this sort of thing only if plaintiffs can prove that this kind of behavior caused some kind of damages. As it happens, these women had difficulty pointing to such damages themselves — and this may have been a factor in their settling their lawsuit against their online attackers earlier this year.

But while we may have no problem with tort law failing to prohibit conduct where the conduct fails to harm people tangibly, I really have no problem saying that this kind of behavior is utterly unbecoming that of the fraternity of law. This behavior is in no way comparable to the well-meaning but politically incorrect expression of opinions in the classroom. The AutoAdmit thugs acted with malice and the intent to harm, they caused a good deal of stress to these women, and these women’s lives are irreversibly stained by the whole mess. To suggest that we shouldn’t try to exclude the culprits from practicing law because to do so we’d have to draw some difficult distinction between, “So-and-so ought to be raped and I want to do it” and, “I believe homosexuality is wrong” is, I submit, lazy and irresponsible.

Put plainly, law students shouldn’t be doing things like manipulating google results in order to harm other students they don’t like. Just like they shouldn’t participate in other honor-code violating speech, like revealing exam details to people who haven’t taken the exam yet, “fluffing” the resumes they send law firms, or misrepresenting their criminal backgrounds on law school applications. Do you have a problem defining those categories of speech, as well?

When I was a student at Harvard Law School, I criticized an attempt to give a tenured professorship to Catharine A. MacKinnon, citing her history of anti-male remarks and support for censorship.

Perhaps you were critiqued as sexist for lying about a woman’s feminist stances. MacKinnon’s ordinance was a civil rights law, not a criminal one, and she never spoke “anti-male” remarks, only anti-male supremacy remarks. If you don’t know the difference, go back to school and take a Women’s Studies class.

@The Watcher

The Watcher recalls that MacKinnon became an anti-feminist once she fell in love with Dr. Jeffrey Masson.

How do you explain all those feminist writings and books that came out during and after that relationship, Watcher?

Is there a fact-checker in the house, or do people just get to make stuff up here about a well-respected human rights activist, attorney, lecturer, writer, and professor? Are you fellas jealous? Because I’ve never heard of either one of you.

jj08: I want evidence, not a vague appeal to demographics that may or may not reflect the reality of Internet stalking. If draconian speech codes are to be pushed upon us, I want the pushers to be forced to defend their actions before such demands become “racism” or “sexism” or “homophobia” or whatever the buzzword of the day happens to be.

The statistics on cyberstalking from HaltAbuse.org demonstrate that while women comprise about 70% of self-reported victims of cyberstalking, at least 30% of cyberstalkers are female. There has been a growing trend towards more women as cyberstalkers over the past few years. Far and away, people harassing exes appears to account for the greatest percentage of cases. What this has to do with law students and gender discrimination is… nothing.

Just because women are more likely to report being victims does not make cyberstalking a gender discrimination issue. If one really wants to understand cyberstalking, put the political agendas aside and look at the research that has been done on typologies and the relationship between offender and victim. Also note that approximately half of cyberstalkers have some criminal record.

Not only does the wording of the announcement concern me in terms of the free speech issues, but it also strikes me as a waste of time for anyone who wants to understand cyberstalking if the panelists have a political agenda instead of more scientific curiosity.

http://www.news-sentinel.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20091210/NEWS/912100346

Cyberstalking can mean any of a number of things, which can range from probably-Constitutionally-protected conduct to felonies, for example.

I have found some statistics which confirm your view, but I am not entirely sure I trust them. Issues of definitions and perceptions seem to run across the studies.

Gunboat: I believe in complete freedom of speech. If we don’t allow people to speak freely, it becomes much harderto figure out which ones are the idiots. Same with the clothing bans. At first I thought it a good idea, but then I realized it would make it harder to tell which people are fanatics.

Yep. Agreed there.