Monthly Archives: May 2023


Speech codes and fandom

The Mastodon site fandom.ink came to my attention because it hosts the account for Pemmi-Con, the 2023 North American Science Fiction Convention. I looked at it a bit to see what other interesting accounts it might have and examined its terms of service. Most of the points are the usual attempts to maintain civil discussion, but one item is disturbing, and it’s part of a trend toward speech policing which I’ve mentioned in other connections.

Item under “Inappropriate Behaviour” is: “expressing or defending derogatory, harmful, and/or contemptuous views of marginalized persons or groups, including in the context of playing ‘devil’s advocate’ (‘it’s not really racist because…’).” (Boldface added, italics as in the original.) This constitutes a prohibition on defending people against some types of accusations. Letting accused people have their say and letting others speak in their defense is a bedrock principle of a liberal society, but it’s one which some people on the political left dislike. In an especially notorious example, Harvard booted professor Ron Sullivan from a position as faculty dean of an undergraduate house because he’d provided legal defense services for Harvey Weinstein. Users on fandom.ink can make groundless accusations without worrying that someone will challenge them. If they get accused in return, then I suppose both are presumed guilty.
(more…)


Ignorance is not strength

“Protected Identity Harm” sounds like revealing that Clark Kent is Superman. At Stanford, it means anything that offends somebody. An associate dean and another person filed a report of “Protected Identity Harm,” the harmful incident being a Snapchat picture of a student reading Mein Kampf. In making their complaint, they urged students to turn in others whom they see engaging in similar “harm.”

It’s not clear whether the supposed harm came from reading the book or from showing it being read on a social media site. Fortunately, Stanford did not punish anyone. A Stanford spokesperson said, “At the request of the student organization, we have been engaged in conversation with a number of students, seeking to provide support and foster communication. However, there has been no requirement that any student meet with or report to a university official to discuss the matter.” It could have been worse, but the university’s response still was not good. It should have just told the complainers to get a life and not given any of them “support.” The biggest share of the blame goes to the dean who decided it was fun to make life a little more unpleasant for a student.
(more…)