

My Defamation 2.0 Experience - neilk
http://intelligentdesigns.net/blog/?p=101

======
eavc
It occurs to me that we need a more nimble and inexpensive method for removing
or forcing the correction of defamatory materials online.

This is a common problem already, but as the web evolves to allow for more
easily discoverable anonymous comments about average people (and it will), it
will become an even more pervasive one.

~~~
mortenjorck
Here's a startup idea:

A centralized forum where people can respond to potentially defamatory
content. Log in via OpenID or FB Connect, enter the offending link, and then
tell your side of the story. Freemium model lets anyone do this, but you can
verify your identity for a small fee.

Alas, clearmy.name is currently squatted.

~~~
slapshot
A site like "Clearmy.name" would be useless unless Google brings that site up
at the top or unless readers bothered to fact-check every allegation against
that site.

If you've ever gotten a chain letter by email, you know that people can't even
be bothered to check Snopes.com before sending a dubious letter to hundreds of
"friends", so I sadly doubt that a lot of people would check Clearmy.name.

------
gojomo
This incident is symptomatic of some of the special problems of online
communication:

 _decontextualization_ : it is easier than ever to remove excerpts from their
original context, thus creating a more controversial interpretation, which is
then rewarded with attention.

 _differential propagation_ : salacious distortions travel faster than
balanced understanding, because they're more interesting and compact. (They
also resurrect spontaneously, the moment a distortion that's not paired with
its antidote is rediscovered by a new forwarding-happy audience or new
traffic-over-ethics aggregator.)

Canonical reference and debunker sites (like Wikipedia and Snopes) help, but
still can't outrace outrage-as-entertainment and the bonanza of profitable
traffic it brings.

------
tjic
> the anonymous smear letter ... quoted three sentences out of context: “What
> is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child doesn’t
> want it [sexual contact], is neutral or ambigious [sic], it’s
> inappropriate.”

If the only time that pedophilia is wrong is when the child does not want it,
or is neutral about it, this makes it pretty clear that the writer thinks that
sexual contact with children __is __acceptable if the child "wants" it (or
claims to want it).

It doesn't seem to be much of a stretch at all to conclude that the writer
does defend some pedophilia.

~~~
DrSprout
It's clear in context (and you've again taken the quote out of context) that
he's referring to edge cases, like where a 16 year old was prosecuted for
having sex with a 13 year old, and so on.

------
zavulon
While I'm definitely willing to give the author a benefit of a doubt, I don't
see how he says his writing got taken out of context... In fact, context is
even worse than the quoted words.

“What is my position on pedophilia, then? It’s really simple. If the child
doesn’t want it [sexual contact], is neutral or ambigious [sic], it’s
inappropriate.” It omitted the sentence immediately following: “This excludes
most adult/child sexual contact, but only little child/child contact.”

He wants to defend the original writing with showing the next sentences, where
he writes "this excludes MOST adult/child sexual contact"? Really? Which
adult/child sexual contact is ok, then?

And then: "A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young
woman" ...

When one uses such language to talk about kids.. sheesh.

~~~
Confusion

      Which adult/child sexual contact is ok, then?
    

The problem with sexual contact between an adult and a child is that one can
never be sure that the child wasn't coerced in some way. However, that does
not make the inverse true, that every instance of sexual contact between an
adult and a child is subject to (implicit) abuse of power.

It seems to me that Moeller was making a subtle point that I have also made in
discussions about the subject: that it is perfectly possible to imagine a
situation where sexual contact between an child and an adult takes place with
mutual consent and without coercion. One can imagine a 12 year old seducing a
30 year old neighbor, without either of them being harmed by the experience.
In many discussions, this can be a relevant point, that defuse blanket
statements. This does not change a thing about the fact that you want the law
to forbid such things.

    
    
      And then: "A 16-year-old girl from Oregon, a beautiful, intelligent young
      woman" ...
      When one uses such language to talk about kids.. sheesh.
    

These 'kids' are old enough to bear children and have done so during the
majority of human history. They have all secondary sexual characteristics that
are intended to arouse the males of the species and they are fertile. If you
don't find some of them attractive, something is unusual with your hormones.

~~~
tjic
> One can imagine a 12 year old seducing a 30 year old neighbor, without
> harming either of them.

"One" can imagine that?

I, for one, CAN NOT imagine that sexual contact between a 12 year old and a 30
year old can ever be anything other than a grave problem.

~~~
Confusion
There has been plenty of research into the way both men and women that have
experienced early sexual contact rate those experiences later in their life,
with many case stories. You would be surprised by the amount of positive
experiences. They are only a minority and it doesn't change the way the law
should be or the fact that we should disapprove of such encounters. However,
it does change the 'ultimate evil' view that people tend to have of
pedophilia. Like in the case of theft or murder, there are plenty of
exceptions, where we can understand why someone would break the law. We may
even sympathize with someone that kills an abusive husband or steals from
Goldman-Sachs after losing everything. In the same way, we should be capable
of sympathizing with some of the people that have committed an act of
pedophilia.

