So I don’t want to make this all about me–which it is, it always, truly is–but if I may, I would like to highlight this comment from belledame in zuzu’s post (emphasis mine):
I am having an increasingly hard time interpreting any of this as “friendly.” Friendly warning; like, “bad things happen. just saying. over and over and over. by the way, I REALLY DON’T LIKE what you just said. oh, and i know who you are. don’t shoot the messenger, though. just…bad things happen, sometimes.” There are words for people who do this; “friend” isn’t one of them.
so, wait, did she SERIOUSLY serve you with papers, or is this all just creepy secondhand wankage so far? Not that i wouldn’t take it seriously, of course, but um. i mean to even hint-threaten to sue *you* of all people…
is she, like, just totally losing her shit?
fuck, am i gonna be slapped with a libel suit just for asking that? It was a question. Not an assertion. Really I have no idea about how much shit she has, or, had to begin with.
Yup!
I mean, yeah, exactly, facetious though the line (mostly) was. For perhaps the first time, I am really feeling worried about what I say here. Intimidated, threatened, anxious, pissed off. And that sucks. Maybe it’s naive on a couple of levels, but that’s my greatest fear about the evil internets, honestly: the worry that we’ll all be too terrified to reveal any personal experience, passionate emotion, or candid opinion for fear that someone will use it against us. What would be the point of a conversation conducted like a job interview?
I’m sorry for zuzu’s trouble, and for whatever part I might have played in bringing it here. And I hope this doesn’t damage feministe, or the excellent commenting community you all sustain.
Similar Posts:
- Project Guest Blogger Comment Policy by Jill June 3, 2007
- Finally. by piny January 25, 2006
- He did not just say that! Yes. No! Yes. by piny June 12, 2006
- Friday Cat Blogging by zuzu July 14, 2006
- Cat Mommy Driveby by piny June 5, 2006
Well, you know, it’s so ironic, because obviously she’s (AB) been operating out of fear -herself- this whole time; or that’s what she says (she’s been stalked, i think? something). and unlike some people, i tend to take such statements in good faith until proven otherwise. Because, i don’t use the legal standard for “truth” when talking on the Internets, see; just common courtesy. Which, yep, can include flamewars. Even really nasty flamewars. It’s not about being -mean-. Hurt feelings=! the possibility of losing one’s job or even safety. You’d -think- that not only a lawyer but a lawyer who -is devoted to precisely this issue- would be more aware of this; but sometimes, i dunno; the right hand knoweth not what the left is doing?
Well, my point being: whatever’s going on with her, she got there through fear. And armchair psych alert, but my suspicion is that she’s doing this increasingly freaky shit because she’s already freaked out: her covers were pulled, she’s not as nice or maybe even as forthright as once thought. Perhaps. So of cousre the -rational- response is to make it worse and worse and worse, right? Unfortunately legal smarts don’t really cover such matters…
AND my point being: no, I for one am not gonna let this frighten me into silence. Not her; not the general increasing zeitgeist of paranoia and and fear. Not because such fears are unfounded; the times we live in are the times we live in. Because it will only make things worse if we do (go silent). And because, as we see here, one runs the risk of becoming and/or bringing on the very thing one fears, when one operates out of fear. But most of all: life’s just too fucking short.
As zuzu says:
So sue me.
We’re none of us as helpless or powerless as we think, I think.
and goddamit, Ann, that went for you, too, you know? Just calm the hell down already. It’s the Internets. People thinking badly of you or saying meen things ultimately isn’t the problem here, and I think at some level you know that, too. Now put down the tort and step away from the car.
Not much you can do to keep someone from suing you, really. You can WIN, but they can still sue.
But what is it Ant wants? Seems like the only thing she could desire is for you to stop referring to her posts and/or her by name and to stop commenting on them (er, perhaps “shredding them” would be more accurate).
Not that I don’t enjoy reading the “pile on Ant!” posts, but there’s lots of other interesting stuff to write on. You can even share your “personal experience, passionate emotion, or candid opinion” as it relates to a subject she’s written on, if you leave her name out of it.
Mind you, I think what she’s doing is despicable. But there seems to be a way out. And the wonders of the Net mean that your failure to mention or link to Ant Anthouse’s site will probably damage her and her blog in the long run-especially if you spark a grassroots link/cite/”Ant Anthouse” boycott.
(yes, the misspelling is intentional. And I think “Ant Anthouse” is funny. though maybe “An Anthouse” is better. Lots of mindless ants, asking “are you done or not done?” every time they see each other. Hmm….)
Sailorman, it’s not Ann Althouse. It’s Ann Bartow, a feminist blogger.
Don’t feel bad. I increasingly confuse them myself.
I’d actually even take this one step further and consider it as a chance–a chance– for what’s called “reintegrative shaming” (nod to BL). This is someone being called on her shit. She has the opportunity to become a little more self-aware, stop doing it. Let it go. If she does, well, honestly i think her cred has already taken a good-sized hit (which is why she’s spinning out in the first place; no, it doesn’t make sense, but it’s there), but: she has the opportunity to minimize it, here. Say, “you’re right, what was i thinking,” stop skulking about trying to get goods on people, and most of all knock it off already with the hinty-and second-hand threats.
This is what one sees as one of those turning points.
if she DOES actually go ahead and sue, or (more likely, based on her past M.O. as i’ve seen it) some more furtive way of making trouble for zuzu or BL or whomever, well, then yah: big shun. and maybe…well.
She knows damn well what the stakes are. Her job may be secure but her reputation matters. So far, all we have is that she’s, well, been acting dodgy; but no fatal steps taken yet.
So what’s it going to be, Ann?
And to echo what Belledame said, I did think that Ann was acting in good faith a few months ago when she let me know that it was fairly easy to discern Zuzu’s identity from information she had posted. I passed that information on to Zuzu, not to be threatening, but because I thought it merited a heads-up. However, after now seeing that Ann has made attempts to track down the identities of numerous anonymous bloggers (zuzu, bitch lab, and I would assume others), I’m a little more skeptical. And now that she’s used her knowledge of these bloggers’ identities to threaten legal action against them, I’m angry.
or, well, Ann herself puts it best, maybe:
>Sounds very sensible. Few people mind anonymity when issues are being addressed substantively. I certainly don’t. I just get tired of the vitriol that has been flying around. It’s as if a small group of commenters are Harry Potteresque Dementors, sucking all the light and joy and laughter out of the feminist blogoshere. We can’t allow them to capture our souls!>
I think she might mean me!! Can I sue?! Please?? Please??
and I am *not* a…
SSLLUUUUURRRRRRPPP
oh. excuse me.
(“Girl, I’m just a vampire for your lo-o-o-o-ve…
and i’m gonna SUCK YA!…”)
o. that wasn’t funny at all. no. we must be very Serious. yet filled with joyful laughter. well, i hate that shit myself, but i’ll do my best. so, okay.
well, we could sing something else.
requests?
“A Girl Named Sue”?
(Sorry, that was just bad.)
She’s totally projecting.
What is there to say, except wtf? No offense to any lawyers or law studetns who may write here (I’m sure nothing of the sort is going on, but just to make sure)–every time I hear about another one of these law professors, John Yoo makes more and more sense to me. Not that his ideas seem any less terrifying and crazy, but I just think, yeah, I guess that seems reasonable in law schools. I mean, who appoints oneself High Sheriff of the Internets, and rides around looking for pseudonymous bloggers to “expose” and freaking sue? Maybe this answers piny’s post about how pseudonymous bloggers and commenters, as distinct from anonymous ones, are not a problem, because they have a distinct online persona. But maybe all along AB was thinking in terms of suing people who said mean things, not just knowing who they were so they would get a “real-life” bad reputation or something.
Incidentally, and not to rehash all the arguments for why people use pseudonyms on the internets, but anyone searching for work in any number of fields will want to stay hidden. It’s the easiest thing in the world for a search committee to google your name, see that you write stuff on the internets, and decide, for literally dozens of reasons, not to hire you. And then all the personal identity issues, etc… The idea that having a nom de blog is somehow louche is ridiculous.
wait, what if i -want- to be louche? i like the sound of it. mmm, louche.
OMG, did I just do that AGAIN?
lol. sorry. I flip them pretty often, my mistake.
But I still think that, like “pron”, “Ant” would be a good nickname.
Sorry, heraticlus, but
1) I’m a lawyer.*
2) That was offensive to me, though I refuse to say why.
3) You can expect service of my suit this afternoon.
.
.
.
(*) This one is true. The other ones are a joke.
Hee.
On a related but serious note, a layperson is behaving horribly when they file a frivolous lawsuit, but someone in the legal profession has no excuse.
You know, she increasingly sounds like a concern troll. “I’m just worried about the quality of the discourse. It’s not *my* fault you all sound like agitated children who launch pointless ad hominems and then hide behind anonymity! I am a real feminist because *I* (unlike you other peons) use my real name.”
The only thing going for that argument is that we’d finally have an answer to who has feminist credentials. My name is Catherine Anderson. No, wait, it’s Jamal Williams. Or it’s Alejandra Morales. Maybe it’s J. Thurston Marshall III. Next week, I think I’ll be Lauren Jillian Pinzu. I can borrow other people’s cred, right?
*headdesk*
There also seems to be an attempt to link feminist credentials offline with worth as a feminist blogger/commenter/debater/community member online. I don’t think that washes.
This is why I like the Canadian system for awarding costs. If she actually sued you for this, you’d win and then she’d have to pay your legal fees. Given how frivolous and stupid such a lawsuit would be, I’d bet the judge would award costs on the substantial rather than partial indemnity scale, too.
I’m surprised that nobody’s pointed out the obvious conclusion here: zuzu *is* Ann Bartow.
Zuzu could totally sue you for defamation, you know.
Honestly, folks, there is no credible lawsuit here based on the referenced comments. It would last about two seconds in federal court. There is nothing to even take offense at, as far as I can tell. On the outing issue– Bartow, funny enough, has an article in the Penn law review responding to another writer’s privacy paper, basically saying the guy doesn’t emphasize the true nature of the risks to privacy that we face. She is big on privacy I guess, until you insult her, and then all bets are off, bitches. Dementors, indeed.
Where is her blog, by the way?
Actually, go to the USC law website and look at her whole CV. Some of the articles and presentations are just too juicy with irony– lots of privacy issues, of course, and issues with online consumer profiling (much worse than online non-consumer stalking I suppose), but also one about “stereotypes of female lawyers” (like, what, they are supposedly irrationally litigious? The hell you say, Ann). Really, projection is not just for the Republicans anymore. I really hate that this woman is driving anyone out blogging, even temporarily.
Marie of Romania here. There, I finally said it.
It would last about two seconds in federal court.
Like Jeff says – and those two seconds would be the motion to dismiss.
It’s worse than that. She’s like a guy who says that he’s trying to raise awareness about sexual assaults in the subway by grabbing someone’s ass on the El.
Dunno who Bartow is… I am assuming she is a Republican feminist? All these subtle and otherwise threats and pressures to “shut up! shut up! shut up!” to people who disagree with her would seem to say so.
I feel very badly for zuzu, I hope things work out in the long run… but you are correct – each situation like this just adds to the chill that some would be likely to feel speaking online, whether under their real names or not. I don’t buy the real name thing adding more stature or trust, as I believe that the most infamous sockpuppeteers were also blogging under their real names? Would have more of a reason to do so than someone who was anonymous or using a psuedonym in the first place.
Belldame, if you’re Marie of Roumania, can I be Dorothy Parker?
Piny has it. That’s what’s so ironic about this: she’s been miz Concerned Feminist-ier than Thou all this time, sticking up for the likes of…Catherine MacKinnon, is it? She’s authoritarian to the core, i think that’s clear by now, but i’d be shocked if she ID’d as a Republican. she’s *one of us,* right?
what bullshit this is.
Oh, thank G-d. I was starting to think I was the only one who couldn’t keep those names straight!
I’m so confused. It seriously doesnt even cross the mind of a legal expert who’s addressed many cases associated with privacy issues that bringing such a frivolous lawsuit might….ummm….
Say, completely destroy her professional reputation and make her look batshit insane in front of the entire legal community? (In theory. I don’t want to be sued and my kingdom consists of 85 cents and two bus tokens, anyway).
Harry Potter’s Dementors???
Let me throw this chocolate chip into the batter: Is all that stuff really from Ann Bartow? ‘Cause, you know, on the Internet it’s not all that hard to spoof a real person’s real name, and appear to be writing/posting/blogging under one’s “real” name.
Hell, there are people who think my real everyday name is a pseudonym.
I was idly thinking of suggesting to Chris that he paint his name, job title, and blog URL on the side of his truck, and here comes this incident to deflate — from the other end of the blimp — the notion that there’s some value in using one’s “real” name on the Internet. Blogging under a pseudonym doesn’t preclude standing up for one’s principles in “real” life, in the flesh, in the voting booth, or in the content of one’s tattoos for that matter.
It was a metaphor. Poetical, like. no slander toward any actual Dementors, living or…whatever they are…was intended. honest.
Ah. At the end of that first graf, between “name” and the period, insert some phrase about “for a while at least” or “some useful fraction of the people some useful stretch of the time.”
My law professor using metaphors about dementors would reassure me that I’d be learning a lot in her class. Not that I’m in law school, just sayin. Please don’t look for me in the directory.
Ahhhh, that’s a horrible possibility suit-wise. How much would AB freak if someone was posting even at the world’s least visited webpage under her name? I am Spartacus.
No, wait, I’m confused.
The crazy who’s threatening to sue ZuZu? Is the real law prof? In real life, as we say here on the internets?
Suing someone for saying mean things about you online is like pulling the pin on a shit grenade and forgetting to throw it. Surely someone with the rational skills to become a law professor could have figured that out. I think someone is impersonating Ann Bartow, formerly respected feminist scholar.
Maybe it’s Bann Artow, the BizarroVerse twin…