US Controversy over canceled sex talk at hacker convention

[Freesia]

What must not be forgotten, is that it was the convention host who made the decision by himself, not Violet or the Ada woman.

And there is no evidence that she was going to do the harm reduction speech. It doesnt seem to me that someone would write such an inaccurate summary and she would just decide to change the title too after using the Harm reduction title when she performed that talk in other places.

 

[das_nut]

I'm very against almost all forms of censorship.

One of those exceptions being, as we have already established, Blue's attempts to quash online criticism of herself.

I tend to err on the side of caution when someone is seeking a restraining order.

 

[mlp]

I'm asking for you to show me the information that B-Sides SF is a situation that has a problem with systematic sexual harassment which proves its attendees are not capable of discussing sexual harm reduction in an adult manner.

I'd like to see some evidence that Violet Blue is capable of discussing sexual harm reduction in anything approaching a substantive manner. From the video that has been posted in this thread, I don't see anything of substance being presented by her at all, which begs the question - how are your hapless hackers being harmed? Is a failure to present a seminar which doesn't actually contain any information a disservice to people who supposedly can't obtain the information elsewhere?

 

[Spang]

I'd like to see some evidence that Violet Blue is capable of discussing sexual harm reduction in anything approaching a substantive manner.

Violet Blue's talk in the YouTube video isn't about sexual harm reduction.

...how are your hapless hackers being harmed?

Ms. Blue mentions the risks of being a hacker in her C3 talk. Suicide is one of those risks. It isn't about sex. Again, I think the BSides description is inaccurate.

 

[das_nut]

I'd like to see some evidence that Violet Blue is capable of discussing sexual harm reduction in anything approaching a substantive manner. From the video that has been posted in this thread, I don't see anything of substance being presented by her at all, which begs the question - how are your hapless hackers being harmed? Is a failure to present a seminar which doesn't actually contain any information a disservice to people who supposedly can't obtain the information elsewhere?

What's your beef here - is it just about Violet Blue? If she was, as you define it, a more "substantive" speaker, yet otherwise was the same person, would you be for her giving her talk?

 

[mlp]

I'm very against almost all forms of censorship.

One of those exceptions being, as we have already established, Blue's attempts to quash online criticism of herself.

I tend to err on the side of caution when someone is seeking a restraining order.

Even well after her case was dismissed for failing to state a case, I see.

This is kind of a fun read: http://ajk-redgarternetwork.com/SDChronBlog2dot5/2009/02/23/the-violet-blue-controversy-an-addedum/

 

[mlp]

I'd like to see some evidence that Violet Blue is capable of discussing sexual harm reduction in anything approaching a substantive manner. From the video that has been posted in this thread, I don't see anything of substance being presented by her at all, which begs the question - how are your hapless hackers being harmed? Is a failure to present a seminar which doesn't actually contain any information a disservice to people who supposedly can't obtain the information elsewhere?

What's your beef here - is it just about Violet Blue? If she was, as you define it, a more "substantive" speaker, yet otherwise was the same person, would you be for her giving her talk?

I just think it's amusing that you're up in arms about the harm you're claiming is being done to the poor hackers because they're not getting necessary information, when I have yet to see (from the video posted by the Blue supporters) that Blue actually provides any substantive information.

Seems to me that you decided that she was some sort of heroine, and you're having a hard time backing off of that. Personally, I'm siding with the porn star. It seems to me that she's one of Blue's victims.

 

[mlp]

I'd like to see some evidence that Violet Blue is capable of discussing sexual harm reduction in anything approaching a substantive manner.

Violet Blue's talk in the YouTube video isn't about sexual harm reduction.

No, but it doesn't provide the audience any substantive information. I gather you're assuming that if she talks specifically about sexual harm reduction, substantive information will magically be forthcoming?

[

...how are your hapless hackers being harmed?

Ms. Blue mentions the risks of being a hacker in her C3 talk. Suicide is one of those risks. It isn't about sex. Again, I think the BSides description is inaccurate.

Mentioning the risks of being a hacker isn't the same as providing information about how to mitigate those risks. Mentioning the risks of mixing drugs and sex isn't the same as providing information about how to mitigate those risks, especially when she herself
says (in the video) that people are going to do it regardless of whether they know the risks, "because it's fun."

Das_nut is claiming that the poor hackers were harmed because they weren't allowed to hear from Blue. I'm asking how they were harmed, when in essence what she's saying is "People are going to do drugs and sex at the same time because it's fun. They're going to do it even though they know it's risky, because it's fun."

 

[das_nut]

Even well after her case was dismissed for failing to state a case, I see.

She could very well be in the wrong. If that's the case, I wouldn't support her actions.

I tried to hunt down the actual transcript of the case. The person involved, "BenBurch", has information on his Wikipedia page, but all his links go to dead transcripts.

Finding details about the actual claims that BenBurch made about Violet Blue is easier, since they show up in Wikipedia's edit history. He has edited the page to allege that Violet Blue stated the following: "I am appalled that I am being confused with a *****, and that anybody would consider that I was so vile as to have sex for pay.” The citation is for a court transcript, no link provided. I cannot find that court transcript online.

According to Violet Blue, BenBurch (actually David Burch) did such acts as linking to documents containing her name and address, while redacting his own address out of documents he linked to. Once again, the links don't work, so I can't judge the merits of that claim. BenBurch does imply he has possession of Violet Blue's social security number, and implies that he's paid to run a background check on her.

I'm kind of thinking David Burch is a tad obsessed. Maybe I'm wrong, but the part where he implies he's run a background check on her is disturbing.

 

[Spang]

I gather you're assuming that if she talks specifically about sexual harm reduction, substantive information will magically be forthcoming?

No. I think it would be very, very difficult for Violet Blue to impress you. I think your standards for her are set unnecessarily high.

Mentioning the risks of being a hacker isn't the same as providing information about how to mitigate those risks.

Ms. Blue does provide information on mitigating those risks, though.

Das_nut is claiming that the poor hackers were harmed because they weren't allowed to hear from Blue.

That's neither my argument nor do I agree with it.

 

[mlp]

I see that on her site, she claims to have edited or written "over 35 bestselling, award winning books." On the video posted by Spang, she claims "over 40." And the real number seems to be well under either. I think she's cut out to be a politician - she seems to have a problem being consistent with even the simplest facts.

 

[das_nut]

Das_nut is claiming that the poor hackers were harmed because they weren't allowed to hear from Blue.

If I implied that, I'm sorry, but that's not my claim.

I will state that trying to remove talks about sex and drugs, even if they are approached from a harm reduction viewpoint, as being inappropriate, is harmful to society.

 

[Freesia]

I honestly have nothing against her, I even think her name is kind of cool and I like her fashion sense. But I think she screwed up here and decided to do a talk which wasnt appropriate for this particular venue, and instead of admitting it she went off in the other direction. Anyway, to err is human, and to be so embarrassed about erring that you wont admit it is even more human I guess.

 

[mlp]

Even well after her case was dismissed for failing to state a case, I see.

She could very well be in the wrong. If that's the case, I wouldn't support her actions.

I tried to hunt down the actual transcript of the case. The person involved, "BenBurch", has information on his Wikipedia page, but all his links go to dead transcripts.

Finding details about the actual claims that BenBurch made about Violet Blue is easier, since they show up in Wikipedia's edit history. He has edited the page to allege that Violet Blue stated the following: "I am appalled that I am being confused with a *****, and that anybody would consider that I was so vile as to have sex for pay.” The citation is for a court transcript, no link provided. I cannot find that court transcript online.

According to Violet Blue, BenBurch (actually David Burch) did such acts as linking to documents containing her name and address, while redacting his own address out of documents he linked to. Once again, the links don't work, so I can't judge the merits of that claim. BenBurch does imply he has possession of Violet Blue's social security number, and implies that he's paid to run a background check on her.

I'm kind of thinking David Burch is a tad obsessed. Maybe I'm wrong, but the part where he implies he's run a background check on her is disturbing.

Court cases are only transcribed if someone pays to have it done. If you file an appeal, you have to have the transcript done (it's filed with the appeals court as part of the appeal), but even then, the transcript isn't published, only the decision of the appellate court is published.

Yeah, Burch is probably a tad obssessed. OTOH, he lives a couple of thousand miles away from Blue, and has never actually threatened her, which is a pretty basic prerequisite for a restraining order. (Unless, like Blue, you perceive his "threat" to continue to tell the truth about her as a "threat.") And in the case of the other blogger, she didn't even allege a threat, only that the woman was insulting to her.

I gather you still don't have anything to say about what she did to the other Violet Blue. I gather the porn industry isn't very fond of her as a result.

 

[mlp]

I've been listening to various speeches by Blue running in the background. Basically, all she talks about is what she's *achieved* - hours of this, and I still haven't heard anything substantive. This is a prime example:

I think I've wasted more than enough time on Blue.

 

[Dedalus]

I think I've wasted more than enough time on Blue.

Ditto. I can't believe we're still even discussing this. Whatever the poor hackers feel they've been deprived of at the conference - they can seek out on their own. Jaysis.

Energy = wasted.

 

[das_nut]

I've been listening to various speeches by Blue running in the background. Basically, all she talks about is what she's *achieved* - hours of this, and I still haven't heard anything substantive.

She does like to talk about her experiences in that talk. Not uncommon for a con talk.

Even despite what you think of Violet Blue (pro or con), it seems that the Ada Initiative is against any presentation on sex at a con. And that's wrong. That's limiting the flow of information, even beneficial information, to avoid offending anyone.

 

[Ansciess]

I can see why people concerned about rape culture, and having a meaningful discussion about it, might have a problem with her -
http://highfeist.blogspot.com/2010/06/violet-blue-versus-stop-porn-culture.html

 

[das_nut]

Watching the video linked to at that site, well it's a little abrasive, I wouldn't state that anyone who has a concern about "rape culture" would have a problem with her.

But I will state that it amazes me when belief systems can have an amazing amount of infighting, even when they agree on most positions. It reminds me of the old joke about Baptists:

Warning: May be offensive towards Baptists. Or it may not be:

Spoiler

I was walking across a bridge one day, and I saw a man standing on the edge, about to jump. I ran over and said: "Stop. Don't do it."

"Why shouldn't I?" he asked.

"Well, there's so much to live for!"

"Like what?"

"Are you religious?"

He said, "Yes."

I said, "Me too. Are you Christian or Buddhist?"

"Christian."

"Me too. Are you Catholic or Protestant?"

"Protestant."

"Me too. Are you Episcopalian or Baptist?"

"Baptist."

"Wow. Me too. Are you Baptist Church of God or Baptist Church of the Lord?"

"Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you original Baptist Church of God, or are you Reformed Baptist Church of God?"

"Reformed Baptist Church of God."

"Me too. Are you Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1879, or Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915?"

He said: "Reformed Baptist Church of God, Reformation of 1915."

I said: "Die, heretic scum," and pushed him off.

Really, the Ada Foundation should have approached Violet Blue beforehand, and discussed the issue like adults, assuming they could. I'm not sure if that would be possible - Violet Blue may have dismissed them out of hand, and it seems that the Ada Foundation has a huge issue about any discussion of sex at a con.

So anyways, this is why we can't have nice things.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I'm all for events being clearly marked to prevent triggering people.

But I'm not for removing serious adult discussions about sex from almost all aspects of society just because someone might have an issue with it.

A compromise can easily be made - mark such material so that its apparent it is about sex, and let people be free to attend or not to attend as they wish.

If you think such actions are disrespectful towards rape survivors, then there's a lot of disrespectful actions you must be against. Any safe-sex campaign that targets the public would be disrespectful. Any anti-rape campaign that targets the public would be disrespectful. Any sex-education that targets the public would be disrespectful.

I agree with this. I wouldn't voluntarily listen or seek out information that I might find triggering or upsetting but I don't expect other people to avoid talking about issues just because I might not want to hear about them. I think if hacker cons are known for being so hostile to women then the solution should be for the organisers to adopt a policy of zero tolerance to any sexual harassment rather than stifle any discussion about sex.