Hacker News Reader

Comment by xrisk | Hacker News Reader

1) This argument works only if the justice system is effective, which is not the case everywhere in the world

2) A lot of sexual misconduct happens behind closed doors and is (I would imagine. IANAL) difficult to prosecute. I’m not saying that one should believe everything at face value but if multiple people make such allegations it’s more likely than not that such allegations have weight.

3) Not all sexual misconduct is “illegal”. But it doesn’t mean that communities should not attempt to censor people who engage in problematic behavior.

View on HN

> 3) Not all sexual misconduct is “illegal”. But it doesn’t mean that communities should not attempt to censor people who engage in problematic behavior.

With all respect, that's nonsense. Where do you draw the line? Your morals? My morals? The victim's morals?

This is why we have a justice system, so that there is one place where you can say "that is wrong" and "that is right".

Forming a mob because "well, that person didn't akshually commit a crime, but we don't like the way they think about sex" is a primitive and regressive viewpoint.

The correct way would be to petition to make a law against whatever act you don't like. Not to say "let's leave it legal and instead simply punish the person".

No one should be facing a societal punishment without due process.

> With all respect, that's nonsense.

It's not at all. The law doesn't cover all forms of community or personal misconduct, sexual or otherwise.

And everyone -- especially businesses in Silicon Valley -- understands this.

Exactly. Sexual relations between adults is rarely illegal but most people have issues with it between subordinates and leaders in a company, etc. Often documented in company policy or other things, so it’s against a rule, but not illegal.

Same with various forms of cheating - adultery is illegal in some states; but not all. And even then rarely prosecuted.

> Often documented in company policy or other things, so it’s against a rule, but not illegal.

Yes, and those rules are enforceable contracts with penalties for breaking clauses in those contracts.

I want to know why, if those penalties are insufficient, is it better to join a mob than to petition the parties drawing up those contracts for stiffer penalties.

This is exactly right. Criminality is a very high bar! There are many behaviours that fall well short of criminality that we shouldn't accept in communities.

Like homosexuality, atheism, blasphemy, miscegenation, witchcraft, vagrancy, and a whole host of other "anti- social" behaviors, right? After all, who polices the morality police?

It’s for (often implicit) communities to decide; communities whose members share a certain set of norms.

Further, legality does not imply correctness.

For example, it’s probably legal to call somebody a transphobic slur in many parts of the world but to suggest that trans people shouldn’t attempt to avoid or “cancel” such people is ridiculous.

And if you sincerely think that the only acceptable action to take is make a petition to change the law, I would suggest you go out and touch some grass. The law doesn’t work that way.

> It’s for (often implicit) communities to decide; communities whose members share a certain set of norms.

This sounds great in theory - where "community" means the small town that you live in. In practice, "community" often means "terminally online social media users", and many of the members of this "community" have little interest in looking for context, facts, or the truth and are instead invested in pushing their worldview or just getting a rage boner.

Edit: A great example of this in action was the "bike Karen" incident: https://archive.is/j0Yr8

How much of the online "community" was all-in on the narrative that she was trying to take the teens' bike until more information came to light?

> I’m not saying that one should believe everything at face value

> For example, it’s probably legal to call somebody a transphobic slur in many parts of the world but to suggest that trans people shouldn’t attempt to avoid or “cancel” such people is ridiculous.

That's not what we're talking about here, are we? We're talking about a public dogpiling.

And, TBH, your example is a poor one; while it's not illegal to slur/slander someone, there are legal remedies that dont' involve a global request to followers of a specific ideology to pile on.

Avoid people you don't like? Certainly. Join a campaign to ostracise someone you never met and never knew existed until your ideologues extended an invitation to mob them does not leave you on the right side of history.

If you really feel that way, you should leave hacker news. The moderation here is quite firm. I can't post more than a few times a day because of Dang rate-limiting my account because of engaging in flamewars. It's not like I broke any laws, but it's their site.

Especially in countries where "free speech" means I can basically say anything I want short of defamation, no matter how hateful, profane, sexually inappropriate, or otherwise offensive, it only makes sense that a community should go beyond the limits of the law to maintain a non-toxic environment.

> If you really feel that way, you should leave hacker news. The moderation here is quite firm.

You need to explain what you mean by "that way", because I did not express any opinion on speech, free or otherwise.

Your comment sounds like a pre-prepared one, for any occasion that someone is performing wrongthink.

I would recommend you asking the women in your life what they think.

well said!

“Communities”, broadly, can do whatever they like. Someone who was consistently starting shit stopped getting invited to my friend group’s rotating Sunday night dinner. They certainly didn’t break any laws, we just decided we didn’t want to spend our evenings arguing. I don’t even remember if there was a discussion. If they make amends they will probably get invited back.

“Communities censuring people for problematic behavior” has been an important human behavior since way before we had states and laws.

I don't see the relevance of your comment.

> “Communities censuring people for problematic behavior” has been an important human behavior since way before we had states and laws.

That's not what we're talking about here, though. We aren't talking about voluntarily ending out association with someone, the specific context is about forming a group and going after someone.

There is a vast difference between "We quit inviting you to Sunday night dinner." and "We made so much grief that you lost your job."

Presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of society since at least Roman times and is recognized as a fundamental right by the UN.

If you cost me my ability to make a living, I should be able to take you to court for damages.

> This is why we have a justice system, so that there is one place where you can say "that is wrong" and "that is right".

In most (all?) Western countries, cheating on your spouse is not illegal. But 99% of the people would say that "it is wrong".

Adultery is a crime in 16 US states: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adultery_laws#United_States

These are probably the only exceptions.

The logical consequence of this would be that all it takes to destroy someone's reputation is collusion between just two people who decide to make false allegations against someone. That is, frankly, ridiculous. Inadequacy of the justice system and the difficulty of prosecuting cases where there is a lack of (or in this case, no) evidence, doesn't justify abrogating the principle of "innocent until proven guilty."

> A lot of sexual misconduct happens behind closed doors and is (I would imagine. IANAL) difficult to prosecute.

Well that’s why so many cases are civil and not criminal. The bar is much lower (“preponderance of evidence” versus “guilt beyond a reasonable doubt”). A man can be accused of some sexual act that occurred decades ago without any substantive information like what day it happened on, and if a jury says “well I believe her”, it’s a wrap.

Maybe unmarried people of opposite sexes just need to not be alone together and if they violate that rule they give up their right to seek any kind of "justice." There might be no peaceful alternative to that.

Does anyone remember how much mocking Mike Pence received over his personal rule to never be alone with a woman other than his wife? Very wise, as it turns out.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com