"A woman's opinion is the miniskirt of the internet"

[HedleyLamarr]

I posted this in Feminism [brave emoticon], and someone has suggested putting it in AIBU.

So, I was sent a link to this article in the Independent. Your thoughts/ideas are much appreciated .

Yes I know threat of violence are illegal. I am just a bit concerned that we've gone a bit too far in penalising written word and I'd rather there were fewer laws restricting what is written although it seems unlikely anyone is going to agree with me on this thread

I agree with you....

It seems a bit odd to talk about penalising the written word when men who do that kind of thing are able to make rape threats against women with impunity Xenia.

I take your point about the rioters, but it was pretty one off. Generally this kind of thing isn't treated with any seriousness.

Do you really believe in free speech for rape threats?

Only common factor is it seems to be people who are unable to articulate feelings or thoughts into words easily and struggle when they have their views challenged in anyway as they see it as a personal attack

That would be spot on in the case of one of the posters I mentioned, the other was very articulate but also a bit mentally unstable. He would occasionally have complete meltdowns and post the most bizarre stuff.

I suppose when I was a target I could see the other stuff they were posting and knew that although they were arseholes, they were equal opportunities arseholes. If I was posting a blog or writing a column and they turned up with one of their comments, out of context I could well feel victimised.

Thunder, I don't agree with things like the BNP however they deserve freedom of speech. thats the point of freedom of speech. Restriction and censorship laws, tend to end up being used against the wrong people. (see anti-terrorism laws and the guy convicted of threatening to bomb robin hood airport on twitter)

You can use the existing laws on harassment/stalking if offenders are persistant. New ones aren't needed.

I haven't said anything about making new laws quietlyafraid.

My argument would be for existing laws to be implement properly and effectively where possible.

I don't think we were suggesting new laws but we have introduced quite a few on and on which can make it harder for people to write freely. We just need to keep a close watch as laws used against someone whose views we do not like might not seem to good if they are then used against us.

Anyway I am not sure why I'm on the thread as I've never really come across threat of rape on line.

I saw a story about a blogger saying they 'understood why people were anti-semitic'. Is this racist? Is this inciting racial hatred?

I totally get you Xenia. Otherwise before you can say Russell Brand and Jonathan Ross, we'll completely kill all things like comedy.

I could see those Harry Enfield clips falling foul of silly laws if you take them to the letter and literal meaning. Common sense also has to come into it.

Common sense also tells you 'sticks and stones' and prosecuting aren't really going to solve the issue...

I thought it wouldn't be classed as cyberstalking because it's not specifically one person doing the harrassing.

But I've had a poke about on Wiki t'web, and cyberstalking 'by anonymous online mobs' is a 'recognised' category.

People are taking part because of the dynamics of the group they're in, making it possible for the attacker to dehumanize the victim by diffusing responsiblity for the act onto the anonymous group.

Wiki T'net puts the continuation of it down to internet service providers/website owners ignoring what's going on.

So I would agree with thunder that the laws already there just need enforcing.

(oh yeah, big arfs at harry enfield, love the driving one as well, it's me to a tee )

My argument would be for existing laws to be implement properly and effectively where possible

Bear in mind that in law, threatening violence in itself is not enough to bring a conviction for assault, there must be a clear and provable threat of imminent harm. Internet threats typically dont fit into this category.

I actually think in this respect UK law is reasonable.

Libel law otoh....

"just support equality under the law and in the domestic sphere for men and women." Exactly Xenia, equality is what I preach too.

thunderboltsandlightning Thu 10-Nov-11 18:40:29

Well I think the first thing to do is to talk about it. To bring it to light which is what is happening here. I think these men rely on the fact that women won't fight back, won't even say what's happening to them.

Spot on. I think these idiots should be pulled up wrt their threats and shown that they are wrong. If possible, get them in court. A few convictions will at least make them think twice about spouting this shite.

This has been a really interesting thread. Only two males (that I recognise by nn) though, which is a little disappointing, but hey ho.

I think these men rely on the fact that women won't fight back, won't even say what's happening to them

With resopect, that is complete crap. they are relying on the fact that the Internet is anonymous, that they are very nearly untraceable, and that a threat via email or comment is unlikely to hold up as prosecutable under law anyway.

Its got nothing to do with women per se.

And of course, what you think should happen to stop the threats depends on who you think is responsible for them.

Is it up to the law to deal with them? - Costs a lot of money, is long winded, and won't actually change anything if you believe the law punishes rather than deters (capital punishment would have worked if deterrents were effective).

Or is it up to people as a whole to change? - as in you have to change the way the attackers structure their view of the world by involving everyone, which I find the most 'Orwellian Newspeak' approach, but shaping public consciousness happens all the time and mostly for the good.

I'd have thought that they would hope that the women would respond in some way. Someone cowering in fear and ignoring you looks pretty much the same over the internet. I suspect that they are as shocking and vile as possible to provoke a response. That'd give them some validation.

Another option to ignoring them is of course to post all their details on the internet (a tactic PZ Meyers took).
The only problem with that is if they're using a hacked email account or something, someone else gets set upon.

Whatmeworry once again your response to me doesn't actually make any logical sense. The reason it doesn't is because you selectively quoted, ignoring the first two sentences in my that put the third sentence that you actually quoted into context.

You've been incredibly rude on this thread - "complete crap", nasty insinuations just because I talked about rape on a thread about rape threats, calling my posts "Exercises in Orwellian speech", and of course there was "handmaiden of the patriarchy".

You don't seem to be using much in the way of logical argumentation, more scattergun insults at what I'm saying or towards me. You seem to be trying to pick a fight.

People have continually said that it's feminists who are rude, dismissive, patronising whatever. I'd like to hear those same people make an assessment of what you've been doing here.

Because my assessment is that what you've been doing is very unpleasant and isn't about analysis or discussion but rather simple nastiness.

Just before I get off to bed, I think the 'Orwellian speech' came from a link to an article a poster ran in, posted, and then fucked off again.

I might be wrong and haven't got time to look, but I'm sure I read it there.

Whatmeworry -agree with many of your points. Articulate and to the point, very interesting, thank you!

Thunder, I'm astonished at you taking offence at having your comment referred to as 'complete crap' when you posted to me earlier
You do what you like, I can still say it's crap.

Was that incredibly rude of you then?

Thunders, you accusing someone of rudeness, selective quoting, misquoting, and not being logical is the funniest thing I've read all week.

Orwell would be proud of you :)

As to accusing people of nastiness, that's another standard trick of yours - I'm surprised you haven't also demanded I apologise yet!

And re Handmaiden of the Patriarchy - I was accused of that on another thread by one of the MN Feminists, that's where I got it from. I was merely returning the compliment.

"And re Handmaiden of the Patriarchy - I was accused of that on another thread by one of the MN Feminists, that's where I got it from. I was merely returning the compliment."

And its relevance here is...?

I think that says all we need to know about your debating style and motivation whatmeworry. More interested in engaging with pointless random generalised arguments against feminist posters, than in genuinely engaging with the subject of the thread with an open mind.

Do you know how dull that is and how much it brings what could be an interesting discussion, down to a Netmums level? Why do you want to do that? Please don't, it's just so pointless and dull. If you could try and put aside any personal feelings of animosity you may have for the evil mumsnet feminists and actually read what they're posting and engage with the discussion in hand, that would make for a more interesting thread. But I acknowledge that you don't just exist in order to make mumsnet threads more interesting, so if you want to carry on in the same vein, that's your choice I suppose.

Eleanor, are you Thunders' alter ego? Your styles are incredibly similar.

I haven't read all this thread except the parts since I joined but are we saying there is a big problem with men posting on public places threats of violence against women? Is that so? I have never seen it once but I may just post in gentle places.

A totally different issue is ex boyfriends and ex girl friends who get at each other on-line either threatening violence or other things. Presumably both could come into the category of the thread and I would imagine the latter is the bigger problem for people.

I don't think it's worth bothering about people in general being a bit nasty. They are all the time. My son and I spoke to a real blunderbuss of a woman last night on our abortive poppy hunt and even with all my charm we couldn't get a smile out of her. Some people are just pretty awful and as with when we handle or children in general it's a better tactic to ignore them and let them go on to show how awful they are rather than engage with those who will not debate things.

My only issue on here is free speech and ensuring we do not remove people's rights to express views others dislike. I would not for example if I were Teresa May have banned Muslims against the Crusades this week.

There are a few interesting suggestions on how to rid the internet of trolls here - and I do think that these rape comments are a form of trolling.

I found the one about creating a 'stupidfilter' one interesting. Harness the power of technology to solve the problem and create an automatic post moderator for blog comments etc. People making vile remarks might well give up if they consistently get automatic messages stating 'Your post has been rejected for submission' and their carefully crafted message never even gets read by a human let alone the intended target. Filters could be tailored by the person running the blog to accept or reject swearing etc. Sure there are arguments about free speech, but blog comments are more the equivalent of the blogger's front room than a public space and they should be able to set the rules of discourse. You could do the same for email.

The final suggestion of bringing an end to anonymity on the internet is a bit more Orwellian.

I found the one about creating a 'stupidfilter' one interesting. Harness the power of technology to solve the problem and create an automatic post moderator for blog comments etc. People making vile remarks might well give up if they consistently get automatic messages stating 'Your post has been rejected for submission' and their carefully crafted message never even gets read by a human let alone the intended target

Any decent blogging/community software will have a filter that can be set to kill certain words (MN chooses not to censor, for very admirable reasons of free speaking IMO) and corporate email filters usually are set to cull obscene mail. You can do it for your own email too, but it takes a bit more effort and knowledge, you set up word filters in your email client.

I think the idea of a return email that tells you your carefully crafted spitemail has been sent to spam is a nice touch

But for a professional like LP, who makes her living by and from the media, to not be aware of/do this is filtering to strip out unpleasant messages is frankly in-credible, which is why I think she is being deliberately disingenuous.

The final suggestion of bringing an end to anonymity on the internet is a bit more Orwellian

I agree, the solution is actually quite simple - and user centered.

I think those who want to censor the freedom of the 'Net must be rubbing their hands with glee when people like LP (and Thunders etc) kick off and call for the governmen/policet to censor, which is why I have been so exercised about this thread.

I'll take that as a compliment whatmeworry, thanks.

I think the problem with that ng is that you couldn't distinguish between people discussing something controversial and using reported speech, and people just being obscene for the sake of it.

I sent an e-mail to the co-op to complain about their continuing display of pornography at children's eye level, and it bounced back to me because of the word "pornography" in the subject line.

Filters would have to be very much more sophisticated than now I think.