Public Washrooms: More Than You Ever Wanted To Know

Public washrooms need a makeover. Badly. I can’t be the only one who thinks this! Yes, what follows is kind of a rant, but it’s one I think some people will understand.

Now, I can only speak of these from a male perspective, but it’s perhaps male bathrooms that provide the biggest endorsement for change. Society has changed. It’s bathrooms have not kept pace.

There’s some pretty obvious problems. We’re more modest, as a culture these days.

Do that many guys really want to stand next to one another and urinate onto a wall?

I gladly take the extra 30 seconds to urinate into a toilet, when it means I can avoid:

1. Weird guys sidling up to you with their equipment in-hand.
2. Having urine spray back or mist down on you or your shoes (and not necessarily your own urine, either).
3. People trying to make awkward smalltalk with you while you are nearly shoulder-to-shoulder with your pants undone.

Then there’s the other thing. I’m pretty sure not everyone is liking the current setup only because it’s a time saver. I think you know what I’m talking about here. And before anyone starts thinking I’m homophobic, I hasten to point out that the very reason washrooms were divided by gender in the first place, was in recognition that it wouldn’t be “appropriate” for (heterosexual) men and women to share a bathroom. This was at a time where “everyone” was (assumed to be) heterosexual. Well, we know that’s not the case anymore, and there’s nothing like a trip to the public restroom to remind you of it, in case you’ve forgotten.

And that leads me to my next issue. Apparently women need to defecate twice as often as men, because men’s washrooms have half the amount of toilets.  Despite what you might think, defecating into a urinal is generally not standard practice…  Of course, that’s an easy mistake to make judging by some of the things you’ll see in one.

More often than not, there will be just a single stall, or 2 in a smaller public restroom. Many times those stalls are not available and when they are there is homosexual graffiti all over the walls inside of them…

There is either a whole lot of homosexual male vandals out there or a small group of them who are so obsessively vulgar they bring a black marker with them every time they leave the house. Now, maybe that’s not fair…  Maybe these people aren’t homosexual…  But, if they were writing about how great Obama is, I’d assume they are Democrats.

This only reaffirms my discomfort with using a urinal. I have a problem with having someone’s sexuality thrust upon me in the most invasive and vulgar ways.  I wonder how many mothers would send their sons into the washroom unsupervised if they saw the type of messages and depictions they’d be subjected to, to say nothing of the pedophiles who see urinals as an invitation for a little show and tell.

I’ve asked a lot of women if there is crude references to homosexual sex and drawings of genitalia all over their washrooms, and strangely none of them have reported that is the case.

Sure, some facilities are better managed than others, but these aren’t isolated issues.

Women’s bathrooms have their problems, too, I am sure… But how many men do you know could get away with walking into one, just because they don’t feel like waiting?

Yes, apparently there are thousands of women out there who think it is perfectly acceptable to walk into a men’s washroom if they don’t have the patience to wait for other women to be finished in theirs.

It’s not less offensive or less inappropriate, in fact, it’s worse, because there is even less privacy. Somehow women have gotten the false impression that no guy would possibly complain about having a woman grace them with her presence while they are urinating. Get over yourselves. And fyi, the bathroom being empty at the time does not mean one of you can go in and then one of you can stand guard outside the door and obstruct people from entering.

My suggestion: Do away with the gender segregation altogether, especially since gender is so nebulous now that it’s become voluntary. Build one bathroom instead of two, and make the stalls within it more private. I think given all the extra “complications” we’re facing with gender and sexuality as a society, we can learn to get along and be mature sharing a washroom, if the stalls within it have a proper level of privacy. I also think rather than feeling less safe, a lot of people would probably be more comfortable, especially parents.

Does anyone have any public restroom horror stories to share, or their own suggestions on how things can be fixed?

Anyone out there who thinks things are fine as they are?

And, for the female readers, what are some of the issues you face?

Note: This is a repost of my article Public Washrooms: More Than You Ever Wanted To Know at Open Salon. You can check there for more comments.

Google “News” New Features: Profanity In headlines, more

Google News now includes profanity, parody, bigotry.

Something happened to me last week that I am not proud of. I was momentarily fooled by an Onion News story headline. In my defense, though, it was appearing on the front page of Google News under it’s “Spotlight” section, along with the “real” news.   At the time I thought including parody on the page was some sort of oversight.  Since then, I’ve been seeing more and more changes taking place with Google News.  It seems the requirements on having content that is actually “news”, are being lifted, and every online hack who can mash some keys is now rushing to take advantage of it.

Just minutes previous to this article first being posted, the above screen shot was taken showing the headline “I will not read your fucking script” on the main page. It demonstrates a notable slackening in Google’s vetting process, as the article from the Village Voice, an ego-driven rant by an obscure self-proclaimed “professional” is being featured.

The Village Voice, which is not “news” by any reasonable definition to begin with, is now providing Google News’ front page with profanity laced headlines.  Is it possible some high school dropouts over at the Voice are having some sort of competition with college dropouts at the “Daily Mail”? I imagine it’s for readers of Google News to judge which of the two use the most juvenile-shock tactics in their headlines. To the Daily Mail’s credit, it only implies profanity (within the context of quotes) in it’s headlines, rather than stating expletives itself for no other purpose than to attract attention.

Lately, I’ve been perplexed as to why private blogs and opinion pieces, or amateur trash-tabloid like “Glosslip”, keeps being endorsed by Google as “news”. I’m now finding myself wondering if these are oversights, or a deliberate attempt at keeping “current”, in a society exercising less and less discretion over, and adopting lower and lower standards of, information sources. At least we can find some solace that these “merchants of chaos”, make little attempt to mask their motives and tactics, but does Google really benefit from giving them a platform to do it?

It’s not the profanity I necessarily take issue with, though I don’t think it belongs in a headline, and find it ironic considering Google’s attempt to remain family friendly through filters.  The profanity is just the latest inappropriate content to be heralded by Google News’ front page as “news”. I suspect if this trend continues, many people will begin to look elsewhere for news aggregation.

Click here for original screen shot (without commentary).

.

Update: Google appears to have removed the link to the Village Voice article from it’s news page around 9:00 pm EST.  As of this time, Google has not responded to a request for comment, upon being made aware of this issue.

Update: As of 11:02 pm EST today, the article is back on Google News. It appears as though it was initially pulled and then a decision was made to reinsert it. Click here for an archived version of the entire front page in zip format (uses MegaUpload). In addition to it’s return, it is now being listed as one of the most popular news articles by Google. Apparently, the attention-grabbing use of profanity in a headline is paying off for the Village Voice, as more and more people click the article out of curiosity, or to voice their disdain in it’s comment section.

Update: Google News eventually removed the headline.  It’s also notable that it appears Google also removed this article from the index of their search engine.  I can confirm it was indeed indexed, and appearing in searches.  There is now no direct link to the article from Google.  I’m not sure how much more underhanded they could possibly get.

Question for readers: Is this just smart marketing on behalf of the unskilled writers over at the Village Voice, or will a reader backlash lead to better judgment in the future on their part? Do you believe Google News should be putting headlines with profanity on the front page?

See Should Google News Be Swearing At You? for more comments.

Update 09/13/09: Google refused to acknowledge requests for comment, though it’s clear they received them.  This article was banned from Google’s search index a few days after it was posted. I can confirm it was originally appearing in search results.  There is no no direct link to this article. A Google employee responded to a user complaint of this issue by saying “Thanks for bringing this inappropriate content to our attention. We’ll contact the Village Voice following your alert.” This is a laughable deflection of responsibility. Village Voice did not make a mistake with their headline. Google made the mistake, by featuring it, and ignoring complaints about the inappropriate content, then trying to cover-up the story by removing articles about it from their search engine.  Give me a break, Google.  “Do no evil”, alright.

Thousands Protest Government Today In Washington, D.C.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Some reports are putting numbers of protesters on the streets of D.C. at over a million. Even mainstream media is now reporting the event, after what could be a “delay of conscience”, or a deliberate blackout. The Washington Post gives an estimate of “tens of thousands”, and says the focus of the protest was “the over-expansion of the federal government under Obama.”

Details are still hard to come by at this point, but as the media has finally started to acknowledge the protest, we can conclude it must be winding down as Saturday evening approaches.  Taxpayers seem to still be frazzled over the “banker bailout” with it’s trillions of dollars in cost, and no obligation by the institutions who received it.

From promotions of mandatory military service, to allegations of hypnotism during the election, Obama is proving to be one of the most controversial presidents in U.S. history, but was this protest really about Obama?

Though some protesters may have had a decidedly anti-Obama motivation, the majority seem to be frustrated taxpayers, who point out that the tax rate before the American Revolution was significantly lower than it is today.  Whether this is an indication of a growing discontent that could herald the advent of a Second American Revolution, is a matter for debate. What seems certain is that the perception is growing that the government, rather than serving the people, is working to their determent for it’s own interests.

FreedomWorks, a grassroots organization whose slogan is “Lower taxes, Less Government, More Freedom”, has more information regarding the protest and related events on it’s web site.

It’s important, however, in tense times like these, that people remember that the government is not the enemy.  As L Ron Hubbard said in The Way To Happiness, “It is, after all, the people and their own opinion leaders who sweat and fight and bleed for their country — a government cannot bleed, it cannot even smile: it is just an idea men have. It is the individual person who is alive — you.”

Vodpod videos no longer available.Click here for more Way To Happiness videos and a free e-book.

The Cult Of Wikipedia

From the internet debut of the anti-Scientology group “Anonymous”, Wikipedia became one of several “cyber battlegrounds”, and perhaps the most significant. With the unprecedented announcement by Wikipedia that IP addresses used by The Church of Scientology would be banned, “Anonymous” has found itself virtually uncontested in it’s campaign of internet vandalism. It wasted little time in filling all Scientology-related articles with the same handful of spurious claims, in many cases not even bothering to falsify citations as usual.

Wikipedia is perhaps one of the most insidious creations to come about online, due to the perception among many of it’s users that it is a legitimate encyclopedic source, and relies on “user submitted content”. The reality is, as any college or university student can attest to, Wikipedia is not recognized as a valid information source academically. Unfortunately, those that most rely upon Wikipedia for “facts”, have little experience with formal education, and subsequently do not seem to be aware of this.

Wikipedia is not run on user submitted content. It’s a closed and controlled forum, where information is designed to have an appearance of openness, solely for the purpose of creating the illusion that it is not micro-managed by administrators. Wikipedia itself has shed any last vestige of impartiality or neutrality, with it’s ban on Scientology staff members. There is little doubt that Wikipedia does on a larger scale, what private micro-managed web forums due on a smaller scale, it manipulates public opinion by creating an appearance of a consensus. To that end, users and information that clash with the agendas of it’s controllers, are eliminated.

Though there are numerous examples of Wikipedia’s clear bias and lack of credibility, the Scientology issue has brought greater attention and scrutiny to the shell game that is being played. Just a cursory overview of Scientology articles, demonstrates a clear and malicious intent on Wikipedia to allow libelous false claims to receive publicity and protection.  Though Wikipedia seems to believe third party content protections may void it from responsibility for the fabrications it hosts, it’s ban of the Church of Scientology may complicate that defense, should legal action eventually be taken.

That Wikipedia itself fits many of the “warning signs” of a cult listed by Anti-Scientologist and convicted felon Rick Ross, whose personal web site appears regularly as a valid source in Wikipedia entries, is perhaps ironic. Upon reading the article by Paulo Correa, M.Sc., Ph.D., et al, titled Wikipedia: A Techno-Cult of Ignorance, I’m wondering if “fitting” is a better term.

If you’d like to see just one example of Wikipedia’s hatchet job on Scientology, and decide for yourself if it lives up to Wikipedia’s supposed standards, take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientology:_A_History_of_Man. You’ll quickly find yourself wondering what sort of entry supposedly focused on the book it is named after, managed to not cite that book once the entire way through. If that wasn’t enough, the speculation on supposed aliens and uncited (fake) quotations, as well as external links pointing to anti-Scientology websites and books, completely unrelated to “A History of Man”, show what type of content Wikipedia wants to “protect” from Scientologist editors.

No matter your opinion on The Church of Scientology, Wikipedia’s “arbitration committee” working hand in hand with those with a clear anti-Scientology bias to ensure that users of it’s site receive distorted, inaccurate, and patently false data about Scientology, sends a message. That message is certainly not characterized by any notion of “preserving integrity”. While some who, lacking even a basic education, have simply accepted and regurgitated the ridiculous claims made against Scientologists by “Anonymous”, Wikipedia has now handed them a platform to spread their venom uncontested under the pretense of encyclopedic knowledge.

This is just the latest reason that Wikipedia deserves the scorn it receives from the real academic community, whom it plays at being an extension of, or complimentary to. And this is a scorn that is only building with time, as even media has been caught up in Wikipedia’s circus of lies. Several lazy  journalists, relying on Wikipedia to provide content for the articles they were paid to write, ended up in the crossfire, when that information proved false. Even Wikipedia itself has been forced to address the mounting criticisms against it, in what is a surprisingly thorough impeachment of itself.

Also see Digital Maoism: The Hazards of the New Online Collectivism

And while we’re on the subject of “digital maoism”, how could I resist posting this (not exactly related) video from YouTube?

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “On the Occasion of the First Annivers…“, posted with vodpod

Is Bing Better?

Even the wiki cultists over at Wikipedia know “Bing is a web search engine operated by Microsoft.” But if you’re not a Wikipedia geek, and chances are you’re not, since most of it’s user base is probably bots, what does it all mean for you?

“Is Bing better than Google?”, you might wonder. It’s a simple question, but there isn’t really a simple answer.

I reviewed Bing upon reading the announcement it was released.  In fact, I switched to it immediately.  I set it as default in the browser, and over the next few days Bing.com was my go-to-guy (or gal) for search. I was eager to give it a chance. Hell, I even gave Cuil a chance *shudder*. During that time, I found some things to love about Bing.  In the end, I switched back to Google, but barely, and for a reason I never would have predicted.

First, let’s talk about Bing’s advantages.

• Does not promote SEO spam to the degree Google does
• Results seem much more current
• Special result format for certain types of searches
• Shows your blog or web site a lot more love than Google (Unless you’re a spammer)

Bing is doing what Google should have come up with years ago, but in Google’s defense, they’ve been spending most of their time trying to take over the world, rather than tweak the search platform!

Bing is more relevant, more current, gives a better format for many searches, and it’s front page is actually accessible to the little guy, not a result of who bought the most links or page rank. These are not things to gloss over when it comes to search. They make for an overall better experience, and the more you use Google and see pages full of spam sites, the more you realize Bing has a role to play.

But…

• Google’s interface is cleaner and perceptually simpler
• Bing’s blue, white and orange b with a target in it symbol is annoying (at least to me)
• Bing’s sidebar seems more like reserved advertisement space than anything useful
• Bing’s spellchecking is inferior

Now, some of you might say that complaining about Bing’s look is pretty unfair, but it’s a visual internet, and Bing’s look is completely relevant.  There might really be some people out there who like it more, but I strongly favor the minimalist, clean interface of Google to Bing’s busier look. Sure the tri-color (if you count white) “bullseye ‘b'”, and the city scape taking up space in the top left corner might be nice eye candy…  presumably to comic book super hero fans, but it didn’t win me over

Actually, I still really haven’t figured out what the lowercase “b” with the orange dot in it is supposed to be…  Why is it there? It seems impossible to find this graphic anywhere online, even though Microsoft has is using it as the favicon for the site. Maybe that means they’re not too attached to it, and might replace it with something better. Even just a plain (gold), stylistic b would be nice.

In the end, despite the other considerations above, it was one simple search that prompted me to go back to Google. I tried to pull up some information on Bing, not wanting to waste time checking the spelling, I put in a close approximation, and Bing had no results.  I put in the same name through Google, and it knew what I was looking for. As useful as Bing is, getting the “We did not find any results for…” message is a deal breaker for me, since I’ve come to rely on Google’s intuitive nature as far as spelling is concerned.

Sometimes I wonder if I made the right choice though. Sure, Bing cost me a few extra seconds on that one occasion, but how much time has Bing saved me when it comes to all the phishing sites and pornographic spam sites that seem to so easily creep onto Google’s 1st page results?  Every time I see traffic coming through on one word searches, I know they are from Bing.  You see, Bing puts relevant updated content on the first page, Google stacks malware sites and phishing sites upfront. Sure it’s the “algorithm” , but it’s also a choice to turn a blind eye to how they’re system is getting gamed.

Bing seems the more ethical choice…  I always feel just a little guilty when Bing sends me some nice traffic after posting an article.  It’s like choosing between two partners, and the one you left keeps reminding you that they exist and sending you little gifts.  Bing seems to be saying, “Look, just give me one more chance!” every time I check my statistics.  Bing is sending me more traffic and seemingly that traffic consists of more engaged users, than Google ever has.

In the long-run, if Bing keeps giving, I’m going to want to give back, and this could be the type of market strategy that really eats a hole through Google’s near-monopoly on search.  If you run a website or blog, you’re benefiting from Bing’s structure as a content provider, as well as a user.  Most of us can’t say the same with Google, unless we’re using the manipulative spamming techniques the internet has come to know and loathe.

Juror Physically Attacked, Threatened For Position On Merck Trial

NYDailyNews.com reports that holdout juror, Theresa Ciccone, was intimidated, threatened with violence and had a chair thrown at her, in an attempt to force her into a change of position on the case. Upon recounting the illegal tactics used by jurors set upon finding the pharmaceutical giant innocent of the charges brought against it by Shirley Boles, the judge declared a mistrial. Ms. Boles, a retired deputy sheriff, brought the suit after alleging her experience with Fosamax led to her jaw deteriorating.

Ciccone, who has a degree in science, claims jurors had their minds made up from the beginning of the trial, and refused to evaluate the evidence provided. In one case a juror went so far as to literally sit on documents to obstruct others from having access to them during deliberation.

This irrational and criminal behavior further illustrates society’s rabid acceptance of, and dependency on, pharmaceutical drugs, despite their potential harmful effects. Merck certainly seems to have gotten a trial by it’s “peers”, if the criminally violent, pro-drug rabble who found their way into the jury are any indication.  Once again we see that a jury is only as good as it’s worst member, and in this case that dubious distinction is difficult to reward.

Having earlier lost a bid to suppress more such cases from going to court, Merck is facing a growing torrent of lawsuits over the dangers of it’s “osteoporosis treatment” drug.

For more information on pharmaceutical abuses see The Citizens Commission On Human Rights (CCHR).

Did Psychiatry “Treat” Phillip Garrido, Alleged Kidnapper/Rapist?

Vodpod videos no longer available.
Phillip Garrido, who is still making headline news over the alleged kidnapping and rape of an 11 year old girl who remained confined in his backyard for 18 years, may have been on prescription medications and under the care of a psychiatrist the entire time.

Mainstream media has bent over backwards to ignore this stunning revelation that appears in documents released by the FBI.  The documents are a part of what the media is referring to as the “manifesto“, and is titled “Origin of Schizophrenia Revealed”.

In what Garrido has called his “book”, he reveals his ability to explain and reproduce sounds telepathically, gives an overview of his Christian beliefs, and claims his kidnapping and sexual abuse of a child eventually led him to heightened spirituality and a more intimate relationship with his wife, upon repenting of his sins. Mainstream media quickly milked the documents for all they were worth, with a single exception.

Aside from a brief, incomplete and rather spun mention by CBS, no news organization has revealed what is perhaps one of the strangest elements of the case.  Phillip Garrido appears to have been under psychiatric care during the entire 18 years of Jaycee Dugard’s horrific ordeal. The document released to media upon request by the FBI, states “Concerning Phillip Garrido’s state of mind: Mr. Garrido has been under the care of a psychiatrist for the past 18 years for Attention Deficit Disorder (ADD). If a reference is needed I will supply a release form upon request and you may contact him yourself.” The name of the psychiatrist has either been redacted by the FBI or was not in the document to begin with, though credentials are listed therein.

While many bloggers and journalists are hung up on the apparent religious angle of the story, speaking of Garrido’s founding of “God’s Desire Church”, the unsettling possibility that Garrido is the latest Frankenstein to come from a psychiatrist’s “treatment” of “mental illness”, is being ignored or downplayed. It will be interesting to see what else we learn, since it appears that Garrido is more than eager to share his thoughts, and his history.  As you can see from the above video, Garrido is certainly no stranger to psychiatry, or drug use, and it leaves one speculating on just what role those may have played in his actions, if any.

If nothing else, it certainly does give one pause to find out that Garrido’s kidnapping of young Jaycee may have coincided with a prescription for stimulants.

For more information on Psychiatric abuses see The Citizens Commission On Human Rights (CCHR).

Vodpod videos no longer available.

8th “Anniversary of Sepember 11th”

Vodpod videos no longer available.

8 years ago today, what came to be understood as one of the most significant moments in American history took place.  A country that had grown complacent in the notion it was an ivory tower, learned that tower was made of glass.  Who can blame people for believing Fortress America was invincible?  Afterall, this was the only nation on the planet to use nuclear weapons in war, and twice at that.  And that seemed to work out pretty well…  Didn’t it?  A little rationalization here, and a little remorse there, and the world kept turning, the taxes kept being paid, and the votes kept being cast.

The fact that America had been in a relatively perpetual state of war up to September 11th was not really recognized.  For most Americans, it truly seemed a random occurrence.  It was without cause, without explanation, without justification.  It was a time of destruction, not introspection.  It was the day everything seemed to change.  There might always have been some lingering fears in America…  Fear of flu, fear of killer bees, fear of medical expenses, fear of police.  On that day, the old fears were forgotten, and the new fear became a sort of state of mind.  The realization of our vulnerability and mortality came crashing down upon us, while we watched those towers falling on repeat, each time feeling the unreality of the situation gradually solidify into a new truth.

Sure, cars were statistically more dangerous than terrorists, but somehow that was little consolation.  We wouldn’t have gotten on a plane in those following weeks if Disney bribed us with free tickets. Even the “Magic Kingdom”, was seemingly more like an impending death trap than a vacation spot.  We were conscious…  Conscious of danger being everywhere, but some places more than others.  We were suspicious of everyone, but some people in particular.  I remember seeing a woman in the mall wearing a berka, and despite my best efforts, feeling she was about to explode at any moment…  I wanted to be away from her, and I wanted to be near her at the same time…  To show that I wasn’t one of “those people”.  I was on a plane on September 10th, 2001.  One day before 9/11.  I have not been on a plane since…  And whenever someone I love travels on one, part of me prepares for the inevitable.  Yes, eight years later, I am still a hostage to some of that fear.

No matter your politics, or your religion, or your ethnicity, you could not be unshaken by the events of September 11th.  In fact, I think the world was moved, not just the U.S., and not just North America. It seemed like before September 11th, the question of terrorism hitting home for America was one of “if”, not “when”.  Now one can’t help but feel the clock is counting down…  And I suspect I am not the only one that sees the date on 9/11, and wonders if today will be the day we are reminded once again.

Terrorism is an issue that now effects all of us.  As disturbing that reality is to handle, it is also an opportunity.  We can now see more than ever, the insanity of war, and the terrible terrible nature of violence on and hatred of our fellow man.  We are a family on this planet, and we need to unite with the majority, who are good and sane individuals. The cycle of vengeance needs to stop before it consumes us.  A nation will never put an end to war, only the individual can do such a thing. Connect with humanity on those terms, and we can avoid the terrible generalizations that have led to justification for the most tragic events of our history.

There Is No Such Thing As “Anonymous” Online

Vodpod videos no longer available.

Although a groundbreaking decision was handed down in a U.S. court last month, few people online seem to be able to grasp the ramifications.  As professional gossiper and internet sniper Rosemary Port has discovered, hiding behind an “anonymous” user name provides no protection from libel.  Ms. Port was unceremoniously unmasked by Google due to a court decision in favor of protecting the reputations of individuals from internet cowards and liars.  Having zero claim to fame on her own merits, Ms. Port hoped to develop a following among like-minded reputation wreckers by defaming the character of Liskula Cohen, calling her a “ho” and a “skank” on her obscure anonymous blog.

Ms. Port appears rather unrepentant, and is claiming to be in touch with her own attorneys (insert laughter here), while threatening to sue Google for releasing her identity per court order.  How this lawyer is still practicing is a question for another article. Port is finding her own moral character and personal attractiveness coming under scrutiny, now that her proverbial ski-mask has been removed.  While some say this is likely a situation of “the pot calling the kettle black”, I think judgment should be reserved until more details are forthcoming, and you better believe they will be.  I’m sure Ms. Port has a few skeletons in her closet that will be quite likely to emerge given her elevated media profile.  It might not have been quite what she hoped for, but if it was publicity she wanted, she’s been somewhat successful.

Despite most people being in favor of not allowing the internet to be a “libel free zone” where “anons” are free to roam the grassy knoll, sniping at whoever they please without recourse, Ms. Port does have a fan club of sorts. 4chan, Anonymous, and Encylopedia Dramatica, rallied to her defense. They are a loosely-organized group of “satirists” who promote child pornography, racism, violence, drugs, and other illegal pursuits. They’ve gone on a little campaign of their own, proclaiming they “govern the internet”, and twisting a case over libel into one of free speech.

An encyclopedic entry posted on ED in defense of Ms. Port’s right to online defamation of character, states about Liskula Cohen, “Not only is Liskula a skank, she’s a miscegenating kike bitch. Like any other Jewish slut, Liskula Cohen LOVES niggers.” At first glance this might seem too vile and disgusting to represent the mainstream views of Ms. Port’s supporters, but upon further investigation it becomes fairly clear that the champions of an internet without the most basic form of accountability and regulation, are absolutely the bottom feeders online.  There’s a reason that they are so vocal about their supposed “right” to slander and libel with impunity while remaining anonymous on the net. Like a group of IRL misfits and cast-aways, they believe that internet is their escape from responsibility and accountability for their words and actions. These really are the people who ruin things for the rest of us, and cause a need for more laws and regulations, but that is currently the only method society acknowledges to restrain their destructive impulses.

The bottom line is this, despite the apparent culture of anonymity and unaccountability that exists online, you can and will be identified and prosecuted if you libel or slander someone who is prepared to assert their rights.  The internet is not a rule free zone.  It never has been. These malcontents need to face the reality that the net isn’t a virtual “get away” from the supposed harsh and oppressive nature of a civilized society, where people can’t be assaulted for “lulz”.  The internet is an extension of civilized society, not an escape from it.  This case simply reaffirms what should have always been obvious from the beginning, if you break the law, no matter the medium, you are still accountable for your crimes.

msnbc.com:Did Texas execute an innocent man?

Recently I blogged about David Grann’s article in The New Yorker about Todd Willingham.I highly recommend you read his article, but if you’re not the “reading type”, check out this interview where he does a masterful job of describing the basics of the case and why it’s an issue that should matter to all of us.

Vodpod videos no longer available.

more about “msnbc.com:Did Texas execute an innoce…“, posted with vodpod