Slashdot Mirror
Disorderly Conduct Charge for Offensive Classmate Ratings
Hatta writes "A Chicago-area teenager who posted a demeaning list of female classmates on Facebook has been arrested for disorderly conduct. Is this an appropriate response to online harassment, or a threat to free speech?"
Is this an appropriate response to online harassment, or a threat to free speech?
There should be consequences to being an asshole. Glad this guy found that out too. As someone who's gone through high school in this country, I don't feel bad about that guy at all.
"The teenager is believed to be responsible for a list that ranked 50 female students — using racial slurs and ratings of body parts — that circulated around the school and on Facebook, police said. The teen is accused of handing out hard copies of the list Jan. 14 at various lunch periods and posting a copy online, according to police."
This list was spread both through Facebook and throughout the school. Is it valid to address this as an online harassment case when the article does not even make clear which distribution method the teenager is being charged with disorderly conduct for?
He didn't get arrested and charged because he posted it on Facebook, TFA says he distributed hard copies at school.
Things like this are becoming much more difficult for any rational person to reach a sensible conclusion on. My initial reaction would be that you don't censor or criminalize thoughts. Even mean or vile ones. As long as it is not libel, you just need to have thick skin and move the fuck on.
On the other hand, it's a different thing when it's something that has a global audience of potentially billions, will be archived and indexed by search engines, possibly have a longer life than the person it is about, come up in searches for that person for the rest of their life by future friends, mates, and employers and otherwise follow them around indefinitely. You can't graduate the internet and move away from the "attack" and you can't just go to a new town. You are stuck forever with whatever some ignorant idiotic juvenile wrote years ago or whatever some spiteful twat might write about you today.
If I had a kid and this happened pre-internet, I would tell them to ignore it and know they're better than that and that the words aren't true and to move on and eventually it will go away. With the internet, I don't know what I would do. As a parent, I think I would be helpless and stuck. How do you stick to the ideal that nobody should be able to dictate what you can do or say short of actual libel or threats and reconcile that with words or images that will be there under google for your name for decades to come?
Perhaps more importantly, how do we make sure that we deal with this in a rational way and don't just say "that pisses me off, so I'm going to make a blanket law about it" like with that stupid bitch and her family that drove that little girl to kill herself over myspace? A case where it was so tempting to have so much anger and hatred over the incident that even the completely logical person was tempted to say "fuck it, I don't care what the lasting legal consequences are for the rest of society, as long as we come up with a way to stick that bitch in a max security prison for life".
So a d-bag teenager put a 'demeaning' list of his fellow female classmates on-line and got arrested for it. Rather than the social stigma, female students, and student body appropriately handle this idiot, law enforcement decided to step in.
If this doesn't prove we've come full circle into a nanny state, I'm not sure what will. He's 17 for cry'in out loud, and in High School! How does an arrest benefit society here?
We've never had free speech in the US and probably never will, as long as people can make excuses to suppress it like "national security," "cyber bullying," and "copyright." So, how could anything be a threat to what we haven't got?
Great Intellect...
"Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs."
It only protects speech you like, right? Sorry, there is no free speech if it comes with strings attached. I might disagree with what they say - even find it sickening - but it is their right to say it, and not yours to say otherwise. Why? Redefining "free" to be only what you want is more despicable than anything a person could say.
Great Intellect...
Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs.
Yes, it does. Free speech is a right to believe and express whatever beliefs you wish. That expression is only rightfully limited when it amounts to actions rather than just expression.
Once people in power can regulate what you're allowed to believe and what you're allowed to argue, it is an inevitable slippery slope to them using it to control their opponents. Luckily, in the US, the first amendment has provided a rather effective guard against this.
Wait, what? That's the most batshit definition of "free" I have ever heard. So it only is a restriction on free speech if you do it beforehand, and call it that? Well, North Korea must be the freest fucking country on the planet - they just kill you after the fact if you say what they don't like!
Great Intellect...
Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs.
Oh yes it does. For instance, in National Socialist Party of America v. Village of Skokie the US Supreme Court ruled that the Nazis had the right to march through a predominently Jewish city. It's perfectly legal to call Hillary Clinton or Michelle Bachman (to pick a couple of random examples) a "cunt" or a "cracker" if you want to. And the various modern versions of the KKK can spew their rhetoric and have cross burnings all they like without government interference.
I'm not saying I approve of any of these, just that they are most definitely protected by free speech and assembly.
I am officially gone from
having consequences attached to attacking and demeaning others is not a violation of free speech. Free speech is meant to enable you to voice your views not as a means to attack someone without repercussion's
Libel is not protected free speech.
You are partially protected when it comes to libel: affected private citizens can sue you for it, but the government cannot bring criminal charges against you for it. It's solely a civil matter, not a criminal matter.
I am officially gone from
Laws restricting what you can legally say or placing penalties upon certain forms of speech are restrictions upon free speech. It is as simple as that, and I don't really see why the concept is so confusing to some people.
If it is an acceptable restriction on free speech is an entirely different discussion, although one that I personally believe should not be given serious consideration. However, it is, without question, a restriction upon free speech to create any laws regulating free communication. That's why it is called what it is. Once you cut out certain kinds of speech, it is far to easy to expand the definitions. We've seen it happen again and again across the world and right at home.
So please, be honest and say what you mean: you disagree with this particular freedom, at least to some extent. I find it offensive to the entire human race to go about redefining freedoms to only what you personally find acceptable.
Great Intellect...
having consequences attached to attacking and demeaning others is not a violation of free speech.
What? Of course it is. Since the constitution mentions nothing about exactly what is free speech and what isn't, it is assumed that all speech is free. By free, it means you can say it without consequences. Otherwise, what would be the point of free speech at all? You could say anything you wanted even without the first amendment. Its job is to guarantee that you can say these things without consequences.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
strictly speaking your correct. But such a concept of free speech has never existed and nor should it, free speech has always been defined in legal terms as freedom to express your views and hear the views of others within reasonable restrictions, those restrictions differ slightly from country to country but personal attacks on individuals has always been excluded. (at least I can't think of any country that has freedom of speech and allows it)
"THis guy is just being an abusive idiot."
Perhaps, but a restriction upon free speech still is one. I am not necessarily saying it is wrong necessarily to have a law restricting it, but that it is wrong to lie about your intentions. Redefining free speech to not include what you dislike is dishonest and despicable.
"Outright abuse is another. Only an immature twit can't tell the difference."
Or a person who actually knows where this kind of thinking leads. Not long ago did we have committees to determine if you were a communist. It isn't immature to know that such a travesty is only a few "well intentioned" laws away from returning, especially with the constant assault on our freedoms from every angle. Neither political party cares about them, and people like you are too clueless to realize when they are at risk.
"Being permitted to say something does not protect you from the consequences of saying it. The typical example is yelling "Fire" in a movie theatre. That's illegal and I'm fine with that, not because I don't like free speech or only like some free speech, but because acting to harm others should be against the law."
Do you people have like a book you get this crap out of? People thinking that statement is an argument for why they can pick and choose what certain freedoms mean is way too common, especially here on slashdot.
Great Intellect...
I endured worse than what this kid is described as doing from more than a score of kids on a daily basis, and NO ONE in the school district rushed to my defense like this. Not a single one of my tormentors was ever arrested, suspended, or even disciplined.
I wonder: if this had been a GIRL shopping such a list about boys, would we have even had a Slashdot article to read about it? Would we even if it had been a boy with a list tormenting other BOYS?
Sigh.
IAAJBTINLA (I Am A Judge, But This Is Not Legal Advice) I have not yet seen the actual charges in this case, but I think this charge will be laughed out of court, and rightfully so (at least if it came before my judge).
In most states, 'Disorderly Conduct' is defined as a person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally: (1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct; (2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or (3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;
None of the above apply to the conduct of this kid. And even if by some twist of logic they do contort the letter of lat to apply, it would still have to stand up to both due process and first amendment challenges, which set a VERY high burden for the prosecution.
"Free speech doesn't protect racist or sexist slurs."
It only protects speech you like, right? Sorry, there is no free speech if it comes with strings attached. I might disagree with what they say - even find it sickening - but it is their right to say it, and not yours to say otherwise. Why? Redefining "free" to be only what you want is more despicable than anything a person could say.
Fine, then you'd have no problem with people standing outside your house and yelling abuse at you day and night for weeks or months on end??? Because it's free speech right. You wouldn't bring noise pollution laws, or harassment laws to bear? No you'd defend them to the death. NONSENSE.
When's the last time you or someone you cared about was harassed to the point of being suicidal? If you have children are they fair game? Would you be fine if your children were disabled or mentally impaired? What if your wife/girlfriend/mother was on anti-depressant pills and suicidal?
People talk such NONSENSE and BUNK when it comes to free speech. No one decent human being would find the above examples acceptable or defensible. There is a reason that these things are illegal. There are reasons for harassment and stalking laws. These are good things even if they violate your overly broad view of what free speech means.
But hey sandlotters, continue to mod this drivel up!!! Because slashdot has come to mod up only mindless groupthink drivel. (The irony is these defenders of free speech will mod me down!!!!)
These posts express my own personal views, not those of my employer
For instance, when nooses were left in the schoolyard and nothing was done until the kids who left the nooses were beat to a pulp, the natural reaction was to say the white kids were just funnin' and did not deserve to beat up. OTOH for many who understand the rules of high school, and understand that some things between boys require a level of physical interaction, the outcomes were unfortunate but predicatable. The school chose not to stop the bullying, so the kids took the issue into their own hands. A kangaroo court was prevented due to publicity.
Likewise when an a 11 year old girl was repeatedly gang raped over some time, The community was willing to brand her a slut. Many saida1 she wanted to be raped, and the alleged rapist, one a star athlete, should not be held responsible. After all, what would it do to the scholarship opportunities? Again, easy publicity fo the internet and a video means that the community will have a hard time blaming the victim.
We see this publicity everywhere. Conservative radio wants to call women sluts and black men stupid and liars. How much father would Trump's birther thing have gotten, and his accusation a black man could never have been the best a Harvard without cheating gotten without the easy access provided by the internet for contradictory facts. The powerful have always had the bully pulpit. In school these are the agressive boys, sometimes girls, and star athletes. But the internet is the real world, and the real world does not operate by adolescent rules. Humiliating another person has never been the right thing to do. It is just that it used to be easier to get away with so we ignored it. Now a bully has the world as his or her judge.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
Wikipedia has a article on disorderly conduct.
Actually, I read this and think we are finally seeing officers of the law figuring out how the internet fits in.
Clearly, this is disorderly conduct in a couple of public places, and it sounds like the appropriately class of response is being pursued.
Misdemeanor, as opposed to felony. A bit more serious than a traffic fine, but not nearly on the level of being arrested for grand theft, even.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
calling a black woman a nigger cunt isn't defamation or libel, nor is it discrimination or any other sort of crime.
yes, anyone can sue you for saying it, but they will most definitely be laughed out of court. hurting your feelings isn't against the law... yet.
though denying a black woman a job and telling her it's because she's a nigger cunt would probably be held up by the courts as some type of discrimination.
going around town telling everyone that so and so is a nigger cunt that steals clothes from department stores would probably be held up by the courts as some type of defamation, not because you called her a nigger cunt, but because you actually slandered by claiming she was a thief (unless of course, she actually is a thief. truth is the absolute defense to slander/libel)
to wit, you sir are a nigger cunt.
http://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
Unfortunately, as a judge I'm sure you're well aware that "disorderly conduct" is all too often a stand-in for "annoyed a police officer". Anyone with any kind of legal training knows that annoying a police officer is not a crime, but that doesn't mean you can't be arrested for it.
I am officially gone from
Huh? Maybe someone should post it so you, a 3rd party, can instigate the Streisand effect?
Let me unpack things for you.
First, there are limits that usually are matters of courtesy. If a girl doesn't like your attention, even if you mean to be appreciative with your wolf-whistles and other compliments, she has a certain right to tell you where to get off. If you persist against her wishes, she has a right to ask for help, and if you insist, she has the right to drag the law into things.
By the same token, negative attention that is persisted in too far can become a matter of law.
These are matters of law which pre-date the internet, predate modern computers and even the telephone. It's a bit of a fuzzy area, and definitely can encroach on US 1st Ammendment rights if not handled carefully.
Disorderly conduct is one of the classifications of law that has traditionally been used in such cases (along with cases of screaming fire in a crowded theater, etc.). It is not a felony class offense (although it can become one), but it does allow the law to help defend people who, for whatever reason, need help defending themselves.
Now, why should a person have limits placed on his ability to express himself in this way?
Subjection is a actually a key word, when it comes to sexually demeaning language and behavior.
Which may be why you are arguing. You may well be trying to assert your "right" to use demeaning language and behavior to get your way. Is that what you really mean?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
What you are saying may very well be true in other countries but not in the US. It's perfectly legal to write or say hateful, racist things about people. There are plenty of court cases involving the KKK, Nazi party etc. which clearly show this. Don't assume that the laws in the US mirror those in Canada, the UK, Australia or any other country.
Yes, if "Kelly" doesn't want to be rated
So, if someone doesn't like a certain type of speech, it should be restricted?
that is a slur and a racial slur. Sexual slur, too.
And?
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Listen, you sniveling gob of snot, you festering boil on the ass of a syphylitic moron, you sub-moronic fascist: personal attacks on individuals are completely within the realm of free speech. And if you weren't the misbegotten spawn of a retarded chimpanzee and a three-dollar whore, you'd know that.
Err, no offense. :-) But of course personal attacks on individuals are within the realm of free speech, and any nation where statements such as the above was punishable by criminal sanction would be a dire enemy of freedom. Personal attacks are part of the great American tradition, dating back to when the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans started newspapers to have a medium in which to savage the other party.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
Freedom is not an absolute
What's with the straw man arguments? You've repeatedly said things such as this, and I've never even said anything about it. All I'm saying is that the constitution protects free speech and lists no exceptions. It doesn't say "freedom is absolute," but if it did, then that would be a poor constitution, and a majority of citizens would need to throw it out.
When your freedom of speech impinges on the liberties of others, that is crossing beyond your own freedom to express yourself without harassment (which I condone) and to your freedom to harass others (which I do not condone).
That's not what the constitution says. Probably because they knew that anyone could claim that any speech hurts them.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Gibberish. "I didn't rob him, your honor. He simply faced the consequences of keeping his wallet after the fact, when I hit him over the head and took it."
When the state creates artificial consequences for speech via the use of force, that's the opposite of free speech.
You can in fact shout "fire" in a theater. I saw Penn Gillette do it years ago -- he was juggling flaming torches and deliberately dropped one, yelled "Fire!" and made a crack about always wanting to yell that in a crowed theater.
Which is cute, but irrelevant, because the "yelling fire in a crowed theater" cliche demonstrates the idea of limiting the time, place, and manner of speech. It's making a speech under circumstances that can cause a stampede, not the content of the speech itself, that can be restricted; and only because and to the degree that the time, place, and manner of speech might interfere with the rights of others.
And there is not a right to not be insulted, or to not have other people say rude things about you. If those rude things rise to the level of knowingly false statements by someone whose allegations might be believable to the masses, then there may be libel or slander -- which are civil actions, not criminal ones.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
We've all heard the cliche about shouting 'fire' in a crowded theater.
Yes, this is bad. People get trampled to death if you do that. However nobody is put in danger from this kind of speech, they aren't fighting words, and he wasn't advocating criminal activity.
Of course, the fire in a crowded theater argument has always been used to justify crackdowns on legitimate speech. The origin of the phrase was a judge who ruled that people could be arrested for protesting US involvement in WWI.
Liberte, Egalite, Fraternite (TM)
You make a good argument there for a civil tort... defamation or libel or something... maybe even a restraining order to put a stop to it. But criminal charges? For speech; even offensive speech? That goes way beyond the pale, I think.
Imagine all the people...
<p>So, if someone doesn't like a certain type of speech, it should be restricted?</p></quote>
Yes.
It happens all the time. Even slashdot is moderated to remove trolls. Freedom is not a perfection in itself but rather the means to obtain it. Free speech only has value if what is said is actually worth something.
And in general this has nothing to do with free speech, but just being a miserable excuse of a human being.
It happens all the time. Even slashdot is moderated to remove trolls.
What does that have to do with the government or its workers restricting speech (which is what the constitution forbids)?
Free speech only has value if what is said is actually worth something.
I see. Only speech that you think has value is worth something? I could say that about anything. Such as people talking about brand-named clothing. Ban that immediately because I, using my subjective viewpoint, have decided that it is not worth anything for everyone! Or, alternatively, we can always go with the tyranny of the majority.
And in general this has nothing to do with free speech, but just being a miserable excuse of a human being.
Well, that's merely your opinion. And of course it has to do with free speech, since this story is entirely about speech and nothing more.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
So when should we expect Karen Owens to be arrested? Hmm...? She did just about the same thing at Duke last year and instead of bitching about it many people, mainly feminists, held her up on high as the picture of "empowerment".
"On a scale from 1 to 10, people are stupid"
If you want to engage in adolescent behavior here, that's fine.
I'll get a chuckle out of it and we go on.
Adolescent behavior in the classroom is, well, unavoidable. Or the cure would be worse than the symptoms. I'll agree with that much.
But such lists should not be simply ignored by teachers. Girls can be seriously scarred, emotionally, by such lists. In an ideal world, we might wish that all girls should be tough enough, or get tough enough. This world is not such a world. Moreover, such lists, especially when given the appearance of tacit approval from the adults, can be used as emotional blackmail, resulting in physical abuse.
("You want your rating upped? I'll tell you how, ...")
The adults also matter. School is not some sort of sandbox where kids get to do all the wrong things to each other and always come out unscarred, and the adults are not just ornaments necessitated by the Victorian ideas of the parents. I don't care how idealistic you are, but kids are vulnerable, and adults have responsibility to see that things don't go too far.
Misdemeanor criminal charges are not the only way to deal with such disorderly behavior. They are one way and may be necessary. The little we know of this case, I'm telling you that I cannot say they are not necessary.
Since someone who claims to be the brother of one of the girls on the list responded here, we can theorize that we know some of the problems in the system in this case, and guess a lot of things about why the author(s) would make such a list, and we'd probably miss something important. No, we'd surely miss something important.
Criminal charges at the misdemeanor level may be appropriate here, and the school needs to have the option. Not saying that he should be found guilty. We'd hope they do not abuse the option, but that they have the option is not a bad thing.
Maybe I should say it this way: We know the school system could abuse this. But the cure that would prevent the possible abuse is just as bad for all involved as the cure for preventing children from doing anything bad to each other would be.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
What's wrong is that the "disorderly conduct" charge is completely discretionary. It's used for a "we don't like you or what you did, one or both" bullshit catch-all charge when no particular law has actually been broken. If the cop had a bad day and didn't get any nookie the night before, he can have you arrested for no reason at all. It will usually not stand up once you get before a judge, especially if the crime was just pissing off the officer, but that will be small relief after you have gone through the criminal system, been booked and fingerprinted, and got to share a cell with Bubba for a few hours or days. Anyway the problem is it's not society's opinion, it is that of a fallible, human cop.
-- You are in a maze of little, twisty passages, all different... --
No, the Constitution does not forbid restrictions of free speech. The First Amendment says that the government shall not make laws abridging the freedom of speech. The Constitution itself provides for promoting the arts and sciences by certain activities which would be restrictions on the freedom of speech if that freedom were absolute, even without the current ridiculously draconian (mis-?)interpretations of copyright and patent law.
The first paragraph of the Constitution specifies the purpose of the Constitution. The purposes include establishing justice, ensuring domestic tranquility, promoting the general welfare, and securing the blessings of liberty.
Therefore, the Constitution provides for some things that take precedence over freedom of speech claims. I am sure you know this, even though you seem to chose to ignore it.
There is no way, in the real world, that the freedom of speech can be untangled from the other rights and responsibilities of citizens. If you talk about the rights of freedom of speech, you also have to talk about the responsilities, and citizens do have some responsilitiy to refrain from using the freedom of speech as an end-run around protections of another persons rights.
When opinions remain opinions, they are free. But when they are used to oppress other citizens, there are Constitutional means of recourse when those repressed are not fully able to defend themselves.
Sexual and racial slurs are often used as tools of physical and sexual abuse. The words, "prove it" are one of the cutting edges of the tool, in spite of abusers behaving as if they have the right of having something proved to them.
This is the line that is potentially breached by what the boy(s) here did. I say potentially, because we can't know whether it actually was breached without digging into the facts, but that is not our job. Misdemeanor charges are one way of providing both the offended and the accused an opportunity of trying to figure out whether the line was actually crossed. Sometimes it is appropriate to let a judge figure things like this out.
It is absolutely appropriate to have the option of pressing charges of disorderly conduct, particularly since the conduct was performed in two public places: in the school, made public because the passed the printed list around, and on-line because the forums they used there are public.
It is also essential that the courts be fair, and that is perhaps a question that should be asked, but, unless we have reason to believe the boy in question is not going to get a fair trial, we must recognize the option of arrest. From what we do know, it is very possible that the line was crossed.
I've said it elsewhere, but what is most appropriate here is that the people here are using existing law to deal with it, instead of attempting to use the more recent, very flawed laws that could have been invoked, under which this could have been charged as a felony.
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
Yes, if "Kelly" doesn't want to be rated
So, if someone doesn't like a certain type of speech, it should be restricted?
It isn't a matter of simple preferences, and you know it isn't. Girls have a right to tell guys no. They don't have to be subjected to verbal abuse from boys who have been turned down, and they don't have to be subjected to the splashback when boys get their feelings hurt.
When a boy's opinion has been refused, and the boy persists too long in forcing his opinion on a girl, it becomes a tool of emotional abuse. Emotional abuse can be a reason for children to appeal to adults. If a boy further persists, it is abuse, and can become a wedge to enable physical forms of abuse. That is the point where this kind of thing crosses the line into criminal behavior.
that is a slur and a racial slur. Sexual slur, too.
And?
Racial and sexual slurs are most often used in precisely this way.
Seriously, what other reason would one have for using racial and sexual slurs, other than as an attempt to strip one's opponent of emotional defense?
Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
the internet is the real world
No, it's really not.
The problem is that when you go to a job interview or otherwise interact in the real world, the comments don't follow you at every turn and you don't have to rely on that third party being willing or able to discern which comments they read on the internet are legitimate and which are just asshats. The website or facebook site someone made about you being a complete whore and genital-wart-riddled slut maybe pops up in the top few results of every search on your name for the rest of your life. Or maybe the more clever and devious take the less obvious route and complain about you as an individual they did business with, so that because you dumped some vindictive guy you dated for a couple weeks, he has now made sure you have plenty of results showing up online with every search that implicate you as a deceitful fraud.
I suspect that it becomes more difficult to react to things on the net where they have a greater audience and permanence with a mere shrug and an "I'm above all that".
I agree that words are just words and as a libertarian, I despise any attempt to regulate or control anything that doesn't have to be, but it's becoming increasingly difficult for me to reconcile that ideal with the current reality, where a single angry person that you turned down advances from or had a bad experience with or just plain don't get along with can significantly impact your reputation in meaningful ways and yet still not be considered to have reached the point of "libel" (or even if it does, be so difficult to follow-up as an individual in libel cases as to make it so).
I may not agree with what he said, but I'll defend to the death his right to say it. In other words, it's a threat to free speech
You are a clueless idiot. You may not agree, but you'll defend to your death my right to say it. In other words, you're a clueless idiot.
Not so. He's willing to protect your right to call him a clueless idiot unto death (damned generous, I say!), but it does not follow from this that he's a clueless idiot. It is true only that you evidently think he's a clueless idiot. Your claim may or may not be true, but we will have to await a conclusive deductive proof to assess its truth value.
Great men are almost always bad men--Lord Acton's Corollary
it's like how for years now hordes of girls have been regularly arrested and charged for making lists of the males in their classes along with gradings of their physical characteristics.
No changes here.
This certainly isn't a case of simple "it's different when it's a male doing it" sexism and treating it differently because "computers".
step back and apply the "sanity" filter for just one second.
first, it's not forever, at best this sort of crap may end up on the wayback machine in the deep archives.
second are you drunk? what kind of insane job interviewers do you think care about what someone you knew when you were a teenager thought of your breasts?
This will never ever ever ever cost her a promotion.
You're just applying the same insane approach of "well it's on a computer so lets throw all logic out the window" that is normally derided on slashdot for good reason.
Your fantasy: 20 years down the line someone realises that jane doe scored only a 2 for her boobs when she was in highschool: SOUND THE ALARM SHE MUST BE FIRED only those with boob scores of 7 or over from the age of 15 onwards are allowed work here.
Reality: a bot trawls through a copy of the archive of her facebook page and fails to turn up any racial slurs, passes someone talking about her boobs without stopping and nobody ever cares again.
it's exactly as permanent as the same lists and bathroom-wall crap that ended up on newsgroups 15 years ago and how much of that is even available now and of that how much if it does anyone still give a flying fuck about.
No it is not magically different just because it's on a computer, that piece of paper could end up in someones notebook and end up being read by someone years later who knows her but nobody cares because no sane human cares what jimmy smith thought of Jane Doe's boobs 20 years ago any more than they care if he thought she had cooties or if she thought he smelled.
Bots are the only thing that have a chance in hell of processing the petabytes of bullshit that gets generated
on the web and may survive in an archive somewhere 20 years from now.
When you're trying to preserve some documents for a lifetime people are always fast to jump in and point out that digital copies are no good and really hard paper is the way to go to preserve something for decades because of data corruption and format changes but as soon as anyone wants to justify an idiotic example of treating something different or treating the actions of children differently for no reason other than it's ON A COMPUTER then suddenly those objections get turned on their head.