Jezebel 
Enter your username and password.
New York, 8:06 PM
Thu Dec 24
50 posts in the last 24 hours
Tip your editors:
Editor-in-Chief:
Anna Holmes
| Twitter
Deputy Editor:
Dodai Stewart
| Twitter
Senior Contributing Editor:
Tracie Egan Morrissey
| Twitter
Contributing Editors:
Anna North
| Twitter
Sadie Stein
| Twitter
Reporter:
Irin Carmon
| Twitter
Editorial Assistant:
Margaret Hartmann
| Twitter
Contributors:
Rich Juzwiak
Email | Twitter
Latoya Peterson
Email
Jenna Sauers
Lizzie Skurnick
Interns:
Katy Kelleher
Twitter
Weekends/Commenter Moderator:
Hortense
| Twitter
Original material is licensed under a Creative Commons License permitting non-commercial sharing with attribution.
11/23/09
11/23/09
It's not about Lori Drew. It's about Megan Meier and the legacy she left us. We have an obligation to focus on the kids like Megan who are, at this very minute, needing our help and support and protection.
11/23/09
I'd rather not people harass her, but I wouldn't cry if no one wants to give her a job.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
@IBleedGlitter: The High Priestess of Tinsel: This.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
Yup, because "karma" has certainly worked wonders on other criminal miscreants like Roman Polanski, OJ Simpson, guy released from prison early and killed dozens of girls... Yup, nothing more comforting than Christianized karma.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/25/09
You're right, Karma is not Christian but Hindu (and Buddhism mind you), but I did say ChristiaNIZED... as in your concept isn't the eastern kind.
Eastern Karma is strictly NON-RETRIBUTION. Let me Google that for you:
[lmgtfy.com]
"Eye for an eye", "do unto others as you would yourself", "sinners get theirs in the end"... Christian, not Karma.
The idea that karma is about someone getting payback is a Westernized cultural appropriation of karma.
It must be fun for you to use other people's beliefs to satisfy your trivialization.
PS. Polanski's out on bail. Yup, this stuff really works doesn't it?
11/25/09
Why, hello, omnipotent Jerkface, seer of all! Did you like that sweater I wore earlier? I picked it out especially for you. And you got to use the snarky little link you've probably had bookmarked in your browser for over a year now. Good for you! The universe works!
Now we can go back and forth cherry-picking Google links to prove our points on karma, but...well, actually you can. I have a karmic reward coming over in a little bit. I've been such a good girl!
11/23/09
Some part of me thinks that the prosecution just wanted Lori Drew to suffer.
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
If it had been merely another teenager doing this it would be par for the course for growing up. Shitty yes, no doubt.
Not to say that someone shouldn't be concerned with it but its just too subjective for criminal law. I think.
Creating a false identity with the intent to decieve or defraud someone online should be against the law.
11/23/09
How about libel cases? Or harassment cases? Aren't these all varying degrees of "hurting someone's feelings"?
11/23/09
11/23/09
I understand that we can't legislate "being nice" or even behaving in a non-harmful way, but really, this case is, IMHO, way, way beyond that. What this woman did was reckless and abusive.
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
Who said anything about criminalizing unpleasantness?
11/23/09
I don't think the government should be in the business of keeping people from making you feel bad. It doesn't mean they're not scumbags for saying hateful things, but it does mean that hate isn't criminal.
You say that other countries pull it off just fine? Have any examples? The only ones I'm aware of are cripplingly oppressive.
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
Hate speech isn't simply making someone "feel bad".
Hate speech is a "type of speech which is used to deliberately offend an individual; or racial, ethnic, religious or other group. Such speech generally seeks to condemn or dehumanize the individual or group; or express anger, hatred, violence or contempt toward them." Not "insulting" someone. Not "being unpleasant".
When I think "oppressive nations" I don't think of most European nations.
France pulls it off pretty well. If any Europeans want to correct me, feel free, but I rarely hear them talk about the oppressive laws. I'm also fairly sure they don't prosecute people for "private" speech. Just their public stupidity.
[en.wikipedia.org]
11/23/09
11/23/09
There is a rather bizarre trend amongst that side to claim that if we somehow "acknowledge" how severe this particular subset of offensive speech is, criminalizing it, we'll somehow protect the innocent recipients of the hate.
No one in their right mind things the use of a racial epithet as an insult, e.g., isn't hate. But the people who want to criminalize it think that somehow punishing the speaker with jailtime will either (a) prevent future such hate, or (b) somehow heal the victim.
It will do neither.
All it will do is encourage the hateful speaker to do it in a way that allows him/her to circumvent the law.
Even leaving aside the obvious reasons for keeping the government from engaging in content-specific targeting of speech (thankfully this is blatantly unconstitutional), it's just as obvious that the better solution is to teach our children that hate speech is nothing more than unpleasant.
Why do you want your kids to CARE when someone says something hateful? Shouldn't they just disregard it - and the speaker - as nothing? As inconsequential?
#tips
11/23/09
And again, I remind you, I am actually not in favor of criminalizing it. But that doesn't mean I would ever dare write it off as mere "unpleasantness."
11/23/09
11/23/09
You're continuing to speak nonsense. I never said the "victim" is to blame when someone speaks hatefully against them. I said that the victim can, however, be insulated all such harm by just being educated properly. Then, there is no "victim" because no injury can occur.
You cannot apparently distinguish between saying that the "victim" can proactively defend themselves by disregarding hateful speech and saying that the "victim" is the only person at fault.
Again, begging? Every single one of your posts is calling for the government to protect you against scary speech.
Moreover, I notice you are ignoring my point about your vulgarity, hateful slander (the rape comment), etc. I can't help but notice that your posts are still there, containing the precise hateful language you seek to make criminal.
11/23/09
Hey, asshole, putting words into a person's mouth is called lying. And on a feminist website, where the concept of 'no' means no---that's an important line not to cross.
You're even more of an anus than I thought.
#tips
11/23/09
Every one of your posts - at least the ones not dedicated to using vulgarity in precisely the way you think should be criminalized - in this thread has been in support of government censorship of free speech. It's not a lie, it's fact.
So now you've called me a dipshit, asshole, anus, and falsely claimed I blame rape victims for their own assault. Why do you think good of yourself?
Oh, and of course you've repeatedly claimed you were done replying to me, but then continued to post your defamatory, disgusting and vulgar responses. Why isn't that harassment under your definition?
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
in fact, all she's done is engage in personal attacks.
#tips
11/23/09
Sick women, sad case.
11/23/09
Children do not develop proper social values anymore. Community service has gone from being a noble pursuit, to be something one is punished with. Instead of reaching out to others, we are becoming more insular, hiding behind the fortress walls of our homes, paying little attention to what goes on outside. Ranting and shouting has replaced communication and discourse.
Lori Drew represents our new society, a society where people are no longer people, but objects. In essence, our society has a collective case of autism.
11/23/09
You beat a kid on the playground you can see scars...you beat up a kid online you can't see the emotional scars.
The internet has brought with it both wonderful inovations in communication and abject horrors. It's up to Reality to sort out the mess. But remember we are barely 20 years into redefining human communication in this way, and only 100 years or so if you count all of the 20 century( TV Radio ect).
Still in baby stage in the big picture.
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers."
11/23/09
That's just plain ridiculous. It's the same precise complaint lobbed by inexplicably nostalgic people since the ancient Greeks. I'd presume that everyone was doing it before hand, but we only have records of it dating back until then.
11/23/09
Society has changed, and to ignore that fact is to ignore human history, where change is the only constant. The societal divides are sharper and more easily enumerated now, given the unlimited forums that people have to express their ideas. A child is now exposed to things which would have been scandalous one hundred years ago, and parents seem unable to cope with the tide of information. Facebook and MySpace have replaced the TV as babysitter, and neither one of them has the filters that television has. True, even TV is a wasteland of mindless babble, but it's far easier to turn off than the Internet, which is now a ubiquitous part of life that is slowly outstripping television.
Bury your head in the sand if you like, but Lori Drew and Megan Meier are only the tip of a very ugly iceberg.
11/23/09
First, it's irrelevant whether you're a parent or not. Your successes or failures with your children aren't indicative of anything about culture as a whole, positive or negative. Anecdotes aren't data.
Second, you claim (without any actual evidence or research) that people can "insulate themselves from their behavior even easier now than the could 100 years ago", but how so? You say that YouTube, etc. have "spurred an increase in negative behavior", but how do you know? Where is your actual study of whether more or less negative behavior is occurring? I've never found a single such claim in any scholarly work I've studied over the last few decades, and I'm pretty sure I never will since it's a specious claim. You're just asserting these things, not arguing for their existence or showing evidence thereof.
Third, you quite absurdly and falsely claim that I'm saying society hasn't changed. Of course it changes; it changes constantly. However, you act as if this somehow supports your conclusion, when it doesn't at all. You think societal divides are worse now than 100 years ago? Are you completely ignorant of what the world was like in the early 1900s? When racism, sexism and other bigotries were not only acceptable but legally enforceable? When bastardized versions of science (e.g. phrenology) purported to actually show that people were better or worse than one another based on their physical attributes?
I think you're just a frustrated parent who isn't happy with their own performance (by your own description) and who is apparently blaming others (i.e. society as a whole) for whatever shortcomings you're perceiving.
#tips
11/23/09
If I do something stupid today, the whole world can know about it tonight. That was not the case before the internet.
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
Humanity: Chasing youngsters off its lawn since 5000 BC.
11/23/09
You cannot scar someone emotionally if they don't care about your opinion. If the child understands why some opinions are worthless, and the speakers even more so, then you don't need a government censor to intervene in your daily lives' conversations.
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
11/23/09
In short, dipshit, you're all about excusing the attackers and blaming the victims. "Unpleasant", you say. "Offensive," you say, as if somebody didn't raise a pinkie finger when sipping tea at the tea party. You do think you're so clever, but I have a news flash for you: the only person you're fooling is, perhaps, yourself.
If you're the big Internet Lawyer, shouldn't you have something Big and Important to do?
#tips
11/23/09
Do you honestly think that's a legitimate way to argue your point? Do you honestly not see the childish petulance in words like that?
Moreover, now you're resorting to vulgarity by calling me a "dipshit".
Honestly, you think you're speaking well here?
By the way, the hate speech regulations you're hoping for would be holding you criminally liable, now, right? Or is it okay to use hateful slurs like "dipshit" and falsely slander someone by suggesting they're anti-victim in rape cases in your mind, but not okay to say something racist?
What a hypocrite.
#tips
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
#tips
11/23/09
11/23/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
I would love to believe that the prosecutors have some super secret legal trick up their sleeves to ensnare Ms. Drew with. But sadly, this is not Law and Order. If they had anything, I'm sure they would have used it already. I have to content myself that Ms. Drew will find her punishment in the court of public opinion. We are far harsher judges, and there is no appealing our verdict.
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
09/29/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
Anyone else feel the same?
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
I was kind of afraid to post my original comment actually, because people get really passionate about this case. I feel for the family, but I don't like the idea of totally blaming and shaming this woman for a teenager's suicide.
05/19/09
Victim impact statements are useful. Just thing of all the easy, light sentences given to child molesters, rapists, etc. It's a lot harder to set down a light sentence when the victim and/or family is telling you how it affected his or her life. Until that happens the crime is more abstract.
05/19/09
05/19/09
@BAngieB: Our Justice system has always been skewed towards protecting the rights of the defendant because they're the ones whose lives are on the line. Victim impact statements take a giant step in the opposite direction.
Let me also say that I'm pretty sure that if you or a loved one where on trial/convicted of a crime you/they didn't commit a judge handing down a harsher sentence because of a victim impact statement would seem like a grotesque twisting of the justice system.
05/19/09
I know that defendants have rights, but so do victims. Often a victim's life and actions is put on trial, and I think this evens the score.
05/19/09
That said, once someone has been convicted of a crime, no matter the circumstances, The State must allow the record of the suffering of the family of the victim or victims to hold some value in sentencing, to see full justice done.
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
I think this kind of thing is going to have to surface and cause a lot more problems before it's in any way regulated, sadly. In the meantime, people will continue to be fucking assholes.
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
05/19/09
God, I just asked a judge to try and be more of a sweetheart.
This is just depressing.
05/19/09
05/19/09