A question of manners

[jhetley]

Been a bunch of nonsense back and forth, both in private SFWA internet discussion groups and in a (non-LJ) blog, about copying and posting stuff in a public place -- that blog -- that was spoken (written) in a private group*.

As far as I'm concerned, this represented a _major_ violation of good manners. Totally boorish. The person took "private" conversations -- ignore questions of Internet security, of which there remains damned little -- and published them. Private conversations in which he did not even take part. As far as I can recall or discover, the person had _never_ taken part in conversations in that group. A lurker.

Two, three hundred years ago, the person would have been challenged to about a dozen duels.

*SFWA members only, password required.

Comments

[ziactrice.livejournal.com]

Actually, two or three hundred years ago, I don't think the causative event would have attracted much attention beyond the principals. Perhaps one duel.

Or more likely, one challenge, since the duel itself would likely have been refused by reason of age. Of course, two or three hundred years ago, few men would have lived to reach that age, so again, the cause might be moot.

I agree that gossip - whether written or spoken - is always vile. Repeating gossip to the four winds? Busybody. But unfortunately, the Mrs. Grundies - and Mr. Grundies - seem endemic to our human condition.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Not talking about the causative event, but about the discussion. Person involved in likely challenges was not He Who I Shall Not Name, but a far-distant party.

[sclerotic-rings.livejournal.com]

You have to love the people within the genre who love that sort of shit, just to watch the storms. I cut off all contact with one such person (who's still inexplicably considered a Name) when I discovered that I simply couldn't trust her...with anything.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

I fully understand your feelings, but I've read the other side, too, and his justification was that he had observed something that went far enough against human decency that it should be brought out in the open.

As I did not see the deleted comments, I cannot profess an opinion on that. I applaud his courage, though - apparently it was not done lightly.

The discouraging thing was that his violation of etiquette (yes, it probably _is_ a copyright violation, but how many things do we see published and discussed that were not intended for public consumption? And aren't there rulings that if it's in the public interest, exceptions might apply?) was compared to Harlan Ellison's groping of Connie Willis in severity of offense, and *that* I just cannot support.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

And yet he did not have enough courage to take part in the discussion. Not one word.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

That is, I think, a different matter. He did not strike me as the most articulate person ever, and I do not wish to speculate why he did not refute the alleged behaviour directly, but what infuriates me is that I cannot judge whether he was justified to publicise things.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

People, male and female, characterized the behaviour in a range from legally assault and sexual assault (depending on jurisdiction) to a boorish bit of attempted slapstick inappropriate for an audience that included children. To the best of my memory, nobody, male or female, actually defended He Who Must Not Be Named. People, male and female, -- who had been present -- said they didn't see the alleged offense. Etc. Etc.

I spoke up, off toward the prosecutable assault end of the spectrum, and _I_ am not the most articulate person ever.

As far as fury in the ranks goes, what part of "private" don't you understand? What reasonable expectation do you have of reading comments in a members-only SFWA group?

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

what part of "private" don't you understand?

I understand that people who post there expect that their remarks won't be carried into the world, just as they would in any e-mail conversation. And I understand their hurt.

However, nothing that involves a second person is ensured to be enshrined in privacy; heck, nothing you write _on your own computer_ is - computers get stolen and hacked into, after all. Something that is shared with hundreds of people, well...

Violation of privacy is a two-edged sword. I'm against anyone - my government, my ISP, my boss - tapping my phone messages, or reading my e-mail, for instance. Yet I acknowledge that there are situations where tapping the phone or reading the e-mail of _someone_ can save lives and is in the public interest.

This conversation does not fall quite into that category. But while the readership is censored, just how restricted is it? Can anyone who writes there expect their legitimate readers not to talk to their friends in fandom about it? Particularly if it's a case of 'I've heard so-and-so say something, but I can't remember in which forum?'

I think this is a slightly grey area, and my moral outrage depends on a number of things, among them the content of the comments. If - and I'm not alleging that was the case, just that it could happen - someone posts in the private forum a vastly differing opinion than they do in public, and not just on a trivial matter like a book or a fellow author, but on one that matters, such as sexual discrimination and powerplay, then I think the public - fandom, in this case - might have a right to know.

I think in this case the poster's judgement was - by what I hear about the discussion from third parties - flawed, but I admire his conviction in putting his money where his mouth is to uncover what he sees as a great injustice.

And some of the fury - ok, a lot - seems to stem from the feeling that the establishment more or less appears to accept the behavior as 'it wasn't ok, but xx will be xx'. That's not good enough. If they're discussing it behind closed doors, fine, but it would be nice to see a bit more of it in the open. pnh put it distinctly: 'It wasn't ok, and it wasn't funny.'

We need more of that.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

"...I admire his conviction in putting his money where his mouth is..."

And I repeat, he didn't speak up _there_. In my eyes, that moves it from "courage" to "coward and poltroon" territory.

[green-knight.livejournal.com]

I think they're two different issues, and my writerly imagination fails me in thinking why he *woulnd't* speak up if he was outraged - what were they going to do? Rip him to pieces?

The people in question found his blog quick enough, and were a great deal more scathing than they probably would have been otherwise. (I've met Jane Yolen, and she's *nice*), so if it was cowardice, it backfired.

[wcg.livejournal.com]

What do you think Jim? Laptops at 10 paces? I'd imagine a well flung Powerbook could do some damage.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Might damage the laptop. One suggestion was made, not by me -- critics' heads at ten paces. Various objections raised, such as not enought weight to do damage, to which reply was made that critics' heads tend to explode on contact with reality...

[cinnamonbite.livejournal.com]

LOL, you're so involved with all sorts of internet drama lately. It's kinda cute to watch ya'll get so upset over things. It's like...like stirring up an ant-hill...no, more like watching while someone ELSE stirs up an ant-hill! Yes, that's it!
Seriously though, does any of it matter? You've already said that you don't do cons and you don't like H.E. so does it really matter to you what he does at a con? Unless that woman was your wife, mother, or sister, it's between them. Either she'll press charges or she won't. I'm guessing this latest drama is somehow related, but isn't it starting to just wear on you? Aren't you getting bored with spending your real time being mad over internet events? Essentially, you're mad at a name on a screen. Sure, somewhere they're real people but not in your reality.
You! Bike ride! Burn off that adrenaline and stress.

[jhetley.livejournal.com]

Oh, this is mostly other people's drama. I'm just irritated at the bad manners involved -- I feel that deteriorating manners will kill us long before Bin Laden manages to bring the Great Satan down. Fools and knaves and poltroons everywhere you look.

And the controversy isn't FITB -- it's more like Son of FITB.

Good to hear from you -- not washed out to sea in the Ernesto deluge.

[cinnamonbite.livejournal.com]

It only sprinkled here. I think you got more out of Ernesto than we did.

I agree with you

[romsfuulynn.livejournal.com]

I'm with you on this one.

Forget copyright, that's a red herring. And forget security issues. I administer a couple of seriously private areas for some mailing lists and I don't care if 100 or 1000 people had access. This was still wrong.

The people who chose to do this have exactly the same attitude toward privacy and complying with standards as the Bush administration. They aren't Woodward and Bernstein, they are spiritual kin to the attitude that says that anyone's phone can be tapped, and it's ok if your motives are pure.

Typical ends justify the means reasoning.

It would even be one thing to say something like -- as a member of SFWA, I am disgusted by what I have read that was posted by X, Y and Z, and I dare them to repeat it in public.

But to excerpt and repost, and when called on it to insist that people must individually request the return of their stolen words, is contemptible. And I'm a pretty mild person who doesn't use that word lightly.