Open letter to Durova and anyone else it may concern, Dilution of the term "harassment" is offensive Options

[Anna]

Dear Durova and anyone else who thinks that the mere act of sending unwanted e-mails constitutes "harassment",

This is in reference to the information published here:
http://wikipediareview.com/index.php?showtopic=34354

If I understand correctly, you (that is to say, Durova and possibly others), believe that sending unwanted e-mails constitutes "harassment", even when those e-mails are on the topic of a public action you took, and contain nothing obscene, threatening, sexist, racist, classist, homophobic, ablist, etc.?

If that is the case, I am greatly offended, as a person who has known many who have experienced real harassment.

Harassment is when people threaten to kill, recklessly endanger, or do violence unto you, for any reason. Harassment is when the police threaten to take away a lady's wheelchair because she "refuses" to get on a sidewalk that lacks a wheelchair access point. Harassment is when a clerk calls a customer a terrorist because her breathing equipment obscures part of her face and refuses to provide customer service. Harassment is when a man throws a rock through the window of a woman who rejected him. (It is also vandalism.) Harassment is when a group of people call a black man the n-word repeatedly and throw things at him or kick him. (It is also assault and battery.) Harassment some druggie decides to attack someone for no reason that would make sense to a typical non-druggie. Harassment is when a man gropes at a woman he is not in a relationship with, especially if she has clearly indicated that this is unwelcome. Harassment is when someone keeps waking you up in the middle of the night, e.g. by banging on the door at 4AM in the morning, especially after being told that this is unwelcome. (It might also be trespassing.)

You, ladies and gentlemen, do not sound as though you have ever experienced anything vaguely resembling harassment, or you would not dilute the term so offensively. And if you have, well, you know what they say about crying wolf.

Emails of non-threatening, non-derogatory protest are not harassment. If it were, Change.org and other petition sites like it would be shut down. In fact, e-mails of non-threatening, non-derogatory protest are free speech. It could be classified as annoying, but being annoying isn't a crime.

There are, of course, simple ways to avoid reading e-mails which annoy you. You could, for example, use a filter. You could delete the annoying e-mails unopened. Many people keep separate e-mail accounts for friends and for public matters.

Yours truly,
Anna

P.S. To readers who are concerned about being falsely accused of harassment, racism, sexism, etc., on the basis of private e-mails, the best way to avoid it is to communicate publicly with people you don't know personally, especially on any remotely controversial topic. For example, you may observe that I am posting this letter publicly, for the world to see, rather than e-mailing it to anyone privately. This can help avoid he-said she-said arguments.

[Anna]

Well, those are big really big issues. You often have a better chance of winning the smaller battles.

Here's some of the victories people on Change.org helped to achieve:
http://www.change.org/victories

Look, I don't agree with every petition on Change.org. There's a lot that don't look terribly important to me and some I outright disagree with. But I still think people I disagree with have a right to express their viewpoints. Sure, there are exceptions, like if someone wanted to post a sexually obscene petition (which I've never seen happen, but for the sake of argument), but in general, I think that people's voices ought to count. They are people, after all.

Now, if the people receiving the petition e-mails want to ignore them, set up a filter to prevent them from showing up in their inboxes at all, or whatever, that's their right. Freedom of speech isn't the same as freedom to be listened to.

On the other hand, a lot of people do listen, like Congressmen and Congresswomen concerned about keeping their constituents happy. A number of the politicians I have e-mail through Change.org have put me on their e-mailing lists. A few have even sent me physical mail. On nice paper too, I might add. Corporate publicity officers also often care what customers and potential customers think about their company. Public opinion is business.

I don't want some censorship extremists who think that all unwanted e-mail is "harassment" to have a chilling effect that might prevent people from expressing their political and philosophical views to people who might actually care, or at least be tolerant enough to set up an e-mail filter rather than crying "harassment".

Arguably, falsely accusing people of stuff and advocating censorship is free speech too. But the counterpoint of free speech is that my free speech gives me the right to publish an opposing opinion, as I have done.

And no, I'm not a free speech extremist. I do think there ought to be limits, as a matter of courtesy at least, although I'm still on the fence about how far the government ought to go.

[melloden]

Well, those are big really big issues. You often have a better chance of winning the smaller battles.

Here's some of the victories people on Change.org helped to achieve:
http://www.change.org/victories

Look, I don't agree with every petition on Change.org. There's a lot that don't look terribly important to me and some I outright disagree with. But I still think people I disagree with have a right to express their viewpoints. Sure, there are exceptions, like if someone wanted to post a sexually obscene petition (which I've never seen happen, but for the sake of argument), but in general, I think that people's voices ought to count. They are people, after all.

Now, if the people receiving the petition e-mails want to ignore them, set up a filter to prevent them from showing up in their inboxes at all, or whatever, that's their right. Freedom of speech isn't the same as freedom to be listened to.

On the other hand, a lot of people do listen, like Congressmen and Congresswomen concerned about keeping their constituents happy. A number of the politicians I have e-mail through Change.org have put me on their e-mailing lists. A few have even sent me physical mail. On nice paper too, I might add. Corporate publicity officers also often care what customers and potential customers think about their company. Public opinion is business.

I don't want some censorship extremists who think that all unwanted e-mail is "harassment" to have a chilling effect that might prevent people from expressing their political and philosophical views to people who might actually care, or at least be tolerant enough to set up an e-mail filter rather than crying "harassment".

Arguably, falsely accusing people of stuff and advocating censorship is free speech too. But the counterpoint of free speech is that my free speech gives me the right to publish an opposing opinion, as I have done.

And no, I'm not a free speech extremist. I do think there ought to be limits, as a matter of courtesy at least, although I'm still on the fence about how far the government ought to go.

One of those "victories" in your link is titled, "IKEA Workers Win Union Representation in Virginia". I would hardly call that a smaller battle--we all need designer Swedish furniture at exorbitant prices.

Not that Durova deserves much in the way of slack, but didn't she pretty much retire quite some while ago?

From what I can tell, she basically gave in to the fact that Wikipedia is a waste of time and decided to forget about it.

[Milton Roe]

One of those "victories" in your link is titled, "IKEA Workers Win Union Representation in Virginia". I would hardly call that a smaller battle--we all need designer Swedish furniture at exorbitant prices.

So.... you're of the opinion that things like self-assemble flat-pack particle-board bookshelves qualify as "designer Swedish furniture"? What sort of thing is it that you think IKEA sells most of?

Where did you find the "exorbitant prices"? Did you perhaps compare lingonberry jam to whatever jam is cheapest today at Food-4-Less?

I thought maybe you'd confused IKEA with Nordstom, except that mentioned furniture. Perhaps you live in an alternate universe where the names are switched.

[melloden]

One of those "victories" in your link is titled, "IKEA Workers Win Union Representation in Virginia". I would hardly call that a smaller battle--we all need designer Swedish furniture at exorbitant prices.

So.... you're of the opinion that things like self-assemble flat-pack particle-board bookshelves qualify as "designer Swedish furniture"? What sort of thing is it that you think IKEA sells most of?

Where did you find the "exorbitant prices"? Did you perhaps compare lingonberry jam to whatever jam is cheapest today at Food-4-Less?

I thought maybe you'd confused IKEA with Nordstom, except that mentioned furniture. Perhaps you live in an alternate universe where the names are switched.

My sarcasm apologizes for not being obvious enough.