Feeding the Trolls: an open letter to Vox Day.

[la_marquise_de_]

Not everyone on the internet agrees with each other. Not everyone is kind or nice or decent. Some people are controversial, for good or for bad. It's part of how we are as a species -- we argue, we confront, we question. Some people are painful to know, to read. Some people speak frightening truths

Comments

[mevennen]

He's a very weird bloke. He's also prone to posting links to the Daily Mail to prove his points, which as we all know, has the drop on crazed hordes of Moslems over-running this country.

Profoundly intellectually dishonest. His 'sigma male' definition sounds like the common-or-garden sociopath so I suspect that one's answer is right there.

I'm not up for withdrawing his membership, as it supports his view that women writers (who, as we all know, rule the entire universe with an iron oven glove*) are Out To Get Him, but in the UK, this would be hate speech and he almost certainly would be booted out for it. I'm not sure where US law stands on this.

*BTW next Wimmins' Illuminati Cabal is on Monday, my place. Bring cake.

[la_marquise_de_]

I don't know what the US law is on that, either. And I don't care if he thinks the wimminz are after him: this one *is*, and what he wrote is disgusting.
Cake and wine :-)

[dancinghorse]

I'll bring the cheesecake. And the cauldron. Who'll bring the double trouble and the bubbles?

Good lord. That idiot. He is, alas, not alone in his, ahem, views.

[mevennen]

I'll supply the double trouble. I usually do.

[la_marquise_de_]

I will bring bubbles.

[aberwyn]

You can count on me for the eye of newt.

[icedrake]

Pretty sure that even exceedingly racist speech is considered protected in the US, so long as there is no actual incitement to violence or threats against people. The line is blurry, but is drawn far more on the "free speech" side than it iswas in Canada. Which used to have hate speech laws, but had them overturned a few years back.

[barbarienne]

Statements may be legal, but SFWA (and other orgs) are not required to continue membership for someone who says things they disagree with. The government cannot suppress free speech, but nongovernmental groups are not required to tolerate just any old thing among their members.

SFFA's bylaws even provide a mechanism for expelling a member under Article IV, section 10. They do not indicate what sort of offenses warrant such action, but I'm inclined to think that "Being a complete asshole to the point where you actively drive away current and potential members" is a damn good reason.

[la_marquise_de_]

Yes, precisely.

[icedrake]

Of course the rules of a private organization are what they are and first amendment constraints don't apply to his continued membership in the SFWA.

However, I was replying to "in the UK, this would be hate speech[...] I'm not sure where US law stands on this. " which I took to be a question specifically on the legality of Day's speech, not on whether the SFWA can or cannot kick him out.

[tazlet]

I'll overnight a finny snake filet.