Should a Black man be allowed to disagree?
I recently found out that a friend of mine had their blog removed from Wordpress.com for disagreeing with Bene Viera about the problem of "dumbing it down" in relationships with Black men. As you can see from the Google cached article/response, he wasn't insulting the writer, just disagreeing with her and approaching the problem from his perspective.
For this, he was rewarded with being silenced. A Black woman used her status to silence a Black man for just disagreeing that intelligence was the problem. I don't think seeking to have his whole blog taken down has done anything to make her or Black women look more intelligent or less harpy-like. In fact, this incident looks like it's going to blow up in her face, and by extension, the rest of us.
Considering the reams of actually racist text that exist in the blogosphere, I think it is very bad form to go after a Black man who obviously loves Black women, and wants to see us become more successful partners to Black men and whichever men or women we're with. It also breaks a kind of a trust that those of us who blog have with one another. There is a spirit of honest dialogue that is taking a serious beating right about now.
...but here's the question: should someone be allowed to disagree with a writer in a well known magazine?
Is someone's relative fame or status a free pass to stomp on others who don't have the same status?
What does this say about us as Black women?
Should all bloggers be afraid that if some Black woman doesn't like what we have to say, we will be silenced?
Are we (Black women) the new thought police of the internet?
Do you want to be the thought police?
I know I don't.
Tags: critique, disagreement, fairness, police, thought
Views: 14
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Pro on -
Nicole,
Your friend was not shut down for disagreeing with a blogger. He was shut down for stubborn, continuous, blatant violation of copyright.
Now, in regards to what you articulate as a mere ideological disagreement was much more than that. Your friend who supposedly "loves black women", and continuously assails feminism on both his blog & the Spearhead, obsessively followed Bene Viera across three websites. He is entitled to his opinions, yet he obsessively commented on her blogs, twitter, etc to elicit a response. When one was not given, he proceeded to tag and attack Ms. Viera via his blog relentlessly, much like you are attempting to do now.
"Relative fame or status"? "Thought police"? No. Your friend, Obsidian, was asked repeatedly to a) stop harassing Bene Viera on her site and elsewhere, and b) to cease & desist posting her photo and place of residence on his site. When he wouldn't comply with either after being asked politely, he was warned that he was in violation of copyright.
He lost his site because he refused to follow DMCA regulations. It is as simple as that. It was reported once, and as he publicly noted on an internet forum, he consciously re-posted it after being 1) warned and 2) I brought it to his attention. How do I know? I'm a publisher. I live & breathe copyright & fair use. When you don't own a photo, don't use it. Having a site brought down is the least of your worries when you violate copyright, and publicly persist to do so in writing with an absolute disregard for the owner of the work. Quite frankly, he is lucky that he is not in court.
Stan for Obsidian all you want. That doesn't make either of you right. Know the facts before you follow a misogynist blindly.
Pro
-
Permalink Reply by Nicole on -
First off, being anti feminist does not mean that someone is a misogynist any more than being anti affirmative action makes someone racist. Intellectual honesty is part of the trust between bloggers, especially on Wordpress, which is why we don't generally go around reporting each other for disagreeing.
Second, posting an article or exerpts of an article for critical review is considered fair use under U.S. copyright law. I recommend you click here for an easy guide on the subject.
Still, there is a degree of leniency we bloggers generally afford to one another, with regards to the use of photos and article exerpts. It's the trust thing. I don't expect anybody on Bene's side in this to understand, but what she has done is considered "hitting below the belt". There are many other blogs that have many other articles and many other photos that are being used without explicit permission, so that the blogger can show what it is they are commenting on.
Some sites like Digg and Delicious are based on reposting articles and photos we find interesting. Obsidian was no more in violation of any law or any implied trust than any poster on any of those sites are.
...and if going to a site where an author you read is posting, and commenting there is suddenly cyberstalking (which is what you're implying), then what was done to him to punish him for speaking his mind is cyberlynching.
I understand that this is okay to you. Your opinion has been noted. I, however, disagree. Are you going to write to my host to get my sites deleted now, because I disagreed with you?
-
Permalink Reply by Pro on
-
I wouldn't expect anyone on Obsidian's side to recognize 1) he was NOT reported for excerpts of text that would be considered fair use. Use of a photograph, unless the photo itself is being critiqued artistically, requires permission. In this case, MY permission, since the photo in question was taken from my website. I asked very nicely for it to be removed as the copyright holder. You can call it hitting below the belt, however it was a shot that was taken and announced WELL before it occurred.
You can disagree. That is your right under freedom of speech. Your friend has a right to his opinions. (BTW, my calling him a misogynist is my opinion, and not rooted in his anti-feminist stances. Moreso, it is a result of a noticed pattern of behavior. It is an opinion that I will hold until he proves otherwise).
Speaking his mind? Not quite. Moreso, it was picking a fight. Tagging someone's name in an unrelated post titled "why are black women such b******?" is hitting below the belt. This was not about one article, no matter what he says, and the Google cache on it doesn't lie.
Good Day.
Nicole said:First off, being anti feminist does not mean that someone is a misogynist any more than being anti affirmative action makes someone racist. Intellectual honesty is part of the trust between bloggers, especially on Wordpress, which is why we don't generally go around reporting each other for disagreeing.
Second, posting an article or exerpts of an article for critical review is considered fair use under U.S. copyright law. I recommend you click here for an easy guide on the subject.
Still, there is a degree of leniency we bloggers generally afford to one another, with regards to the use of photos and article exerpts. It's the trust thing. I don't expect anybody on Bene's side in this to understand, but what she has done is considered "hitting below the belt". There are many other blogs that have many other articles and many other photos that are being used without explicit permission, so that the blogger can show what it is they are commenting on.
Some sites like Digg and Delicious are based on reposting articles and photos we find interesting. Obsidian was no more in violation of any law or any implied trust than any poster on any of those sites are.
...and if going to a site where an author you read is posting, and commenting there is suddenly cyberstalking (which is what you're implying), then what was done to him to punish him for speaking his mind is cyberlynching.
I understand that this is okay to you. Your opinion has been noted. I, however, disagree. Are you going to write to my host to get my sites deleted now, because I disagreed with you?
-
Permalink Reply by Nicole on
-
"I wouldn't expect anyone on Obsidian's side to recognize"
Of course you wouldn't, because anybody who's not into thought prohibition (which is what this is) has to be uneducated and illiterate.
"1) he was NOT reported for excerpts of text that would be considered fair use. Use of a photograph, unless the photo itself is being critiqued artistically, requires permission. In this case, MY permission, since the photo in question was taken from my website."
Lots of people on lots of websites are posting photos that they aren't the copyright holder of. Even so, again, there is a degree of leniency that those of us in the "blogosphere" customarily afford one another with regards to the use of photos. What is legal or illegal has nothing to do with this trust that is internet wide. He did not claim that the photo belonged to him. It was used as a reference.
If you're going to start punishing people for posting photos that are already publically available, and hosting them on their own sites *with links back* rather than sucking up your bandwidth, then you've got a lot of punishing to do.
You can start with Digg. Oh, and StumbleUpon and Google while you're at it.
"I asked very nicely for it to be removed as the copyright holder."
Where? In email? With a snail mail cease and desist notice?
It doesn't look to me like you're being very nice. They could have very easily deleted the image rather than the whole site, and that would have solved the problem.
...but that's not enough, is it? It never is.
"You can call it hitting below the belt, however it was a shot that was taken and announced WELL before it occurred."
It does not matter whether or not you announced that you were going to take the shot.
Al Capone was jacked up for tax evasion, not for bootlegging, but this does not make prohibition morally right.
"You can disagree. That is your right under freedom of speech."
Apparently not since someone can decide that since things done in trust between bloggers is technically illegal, they can use that and their status to get rid of someone who writes things that offend them personally.
...but there's a saying that became kind of popular on Usenet some time ago, "Never assign malice to what can easily be explained with stupidity.
Perhaps all this is because you are behind the times, and unaware of the thickness of skin required to be a Black woman posting on the internet. Perhaps you should have, I don't know, maybe asked some more seasoned bloggers whether it would be viewed as a cyberlynching for you to target someone who disagreed with you, when there are millions of bloggers who do say some very controversial things and whose commenters do disagree vehemently, who manage not to go running to the hosts to get their opponents' sites shut down.
"Your friend has a right to his opinions. (BTW, my calling him a misogynist is my opinion, and not rooted in his anti-feminist stances. Moreso, it is a result of a noticed pattern of behavior. It is an opinion that I will hold until he proves otherwise)."
No, your calling him a misogynist is slander.
It is an outright lie. However, because I'm not a prohibitionist, I won't go scanning your site for possible violations to get you kicked off of your host.
See how that works? It's called honor. You should get some.
"Speaking his mind? Not quite. Moreso, it was picking a fight."
Disagreeing. Something we all (active bloggers) do from time to time. The right to disagree is essential to honest dialogue. Some of us like honest dialogue and don't want that threatened by prohibitionists.
"Tagging someone's name in an unrelated post titled "why are black women such b******?" is hitting below the belt."
No, you just don't know what a tag is for. A tag is similar to a keyword...Oh nevermind. If you're too lazy to learn...besides, the damage has already been done.
For your own sake though, I suggest you lurk more. Look around the blogosphere a bit, and see how people interact, and how they use tags, and you'll stop taking SEO as a personal affront.
Wouldn't it be really messed up if you cyberlynched a guy over a stupid misunderstanding of how the internet works?
Think before you shoot.
-
Permalink Reply by Pro on
-
Do not presume to tell me how the internet works. If someone did a post called "I hate niggers" and tagged my name in it as a keyword, I would feel some kind of way about it. Period. It's personal.
And he was hit with a cease & desist. He ignored it, scoffed at it. The picture WAS removed. Solely. Then he put it back up. Did I scan the internet, combing through pages for days for a violation? Did I seek out the photographer, snitch & convince? No. I don't have that much free time. I do have time, however, to notice when a picture is being used on a blog post that I disagree with, and ask the author to pull it. If they don't, and his case he didn't, that's on them. He refused, I reported it as a violation of my copyright. He put it back. I reported that it was back up. End of story. Did I demand that his site be eradicated? No. But I'm not going to pretend that it didn't make me smile.
If any record label, individual, photographer, hit me privately or publicly with a cease & desist, I'd comply rather than place a saber in their face. When my request was met with a "go ahead, I have great attorneys, Hebrew ones at that", or a "feel free to pursue this any way you like", then of course I was going to see this through.
I know VERY well how the internet works, and how copyright works. I'm a publisher. You can call my opinion slander, however his character assassination of Ms. Viera borders on defamation/libel. Point for point disagreement? I can digest that.
Honor? I have plenty of it. Which is why I won't tag someone's name as a passive aggressive form of harassment in posts with nasty titles so that the post will appear when their name is searched. There is disagreement, and then there is obsession. If I write a post on misogyny, I'm not going to create a tag that says "Obsidian". That would be childish. However, in essence, your friend did that.
Honor. I don't chase around the internet commenting on posts by people I don't agree with until they retort me. And when they don't, I don't write 3 posts about them, post their picture, and state what city they live in. I suppose that is honorable?
Fact check before you run off at the mouth.
Nicole said:"I wouldn't expect anyone on Obsidian's side to recognize"
Of course you wouldn't, because anybody who's not into thought prohibition (which is what this is) has to be uneducated and illiterate.
"1) he was NOT reported for excerpts of text that would be considered fair use. Use of a photograph, unless the photo itself is being critiqued artistically, requires permission. In this case, MY permission, since the photo in question was taken from my website."
Lots of people on lots of websites are posting photos that they aren't the copyright holder of. Even so, again, there is a degree of leniency that those of us in the "blogosphere" customarily afford one another with regards to the use of photos. What is legal or illegal has nothing to do with this trust that is internet wide. He did not claim that the photo belonged to him. It was used as a reference.
If you're going to start punishing people for posting photos that are already publically available, and hosting them on their own sites *with links back* rather than sucking up your bandwidth, then you've got a lot of punishing to do.
You can start with Digg. Oh, and StumbleUpon and Google while you're at it.
"I asked very nicely for it to be removed as the copyright holder."
Where? In email? With a snail mail cease and desist notice?
It doesn't look to me like you're being very nice. They could have very easily deleted the image rather than the whole site, and that would have solved the problem.
...but that's not enough, is it? It never is.
"You can call it hitting below the belt, however it was a shot that was taken and announced WELL before it occurred."
It does not matter whether or not you announced that you were going to take the shot.
Al Capone was jacked up for tax evasion, not for bootlegging, but this does not make prohibition morally right.
"You can disagree. That is your right under freedom of speech."
Apparently not since someone can decide that since things done in trust between bloggers is technically illegal, they can use that and their status to get rid of someone who writes things that offend them personally.
...but there's a saying that became kind of popular on Usenet some time ago, "Never assign malice to what can easily be explained with stupidity.
Perhaps all this is because you are behind the times, and unaware of the thickness of skin required to be a Black woman posting on the internet. Perhaps you should have, I don't know, maybe asked some more seasoned bloggers whether it would be viewed as a cyberlynching for you to target someone who disagreed with you, when there are millions of bloggers who do say some very controversial things and whose commenters do disagree vehemently, who manage not to go running to the hosts to get their opponents' sites shut down.
"Your friend has a right to his opinions. (BTW, my calling him a misogynist is my opinion, and not rooted in his anti-feminist stances. Moreso, it is a result of a noticed pattern of behavior. It is an opinion that I will hold until he proves otherwise)."
No, your calling him a misogynist is slander.
It is an outright lie. However, because I'm not a prohibitionist, I won't go scanning your site for possible violations to get you kicked off of your host.
See how that works? It's called honor. You should get some.
"Speaking his mind? Not quite. Moreso, it was picking a fight."
Disagreeing. Something we all (active bloggers) do from time to time. The right to disagree is essential to honest dialogue. Some of us like honest dialogue and don't want that threatened by prohibitionists.
"Tagging someone's name in an unrelated post titled "why are black women such b******?" is hitting below the belt."
No, you just don't know what a tag is for. A tag is similar to a keyword...Oh nevermind. If you're too lazy to learn...besides, the damage has already been done.
For your own sake though, I suggest you lurk more. Look around the blogosphere a bit, and see how people interact, and how they use tags, and you'll stop taking SEO as a personal affront.
Wouldn't it be really messed up if you cyberlynched a guy over a stupid misunderstanding of how the internet works?
Think before you shoot.
-
Permalink Reply by Nicole on
-
Hey princess. Your personal feelings are not enough to justify taking down an entire website because of one photo.
You can try to justify it how ever you like. What you did was dishonorable and against the customs and good faith shared between bloggers. You got your panties in a wad because someone had the audacity to disagree with you and went gunning for him. Period.
If I was that anal about all the photos people have posted around the internet from my sites, one of which is a very popular one about natural hairstyling, I'd be invisible on the net.
You'll learn. I do my best, but if I can't teach someone, maybe it's better that I step back and let life do it.
...and I can presume to tell you how the internet works because I didn't need to go to a major magazine to get my props. I came up when you probably didn't know where the power button was on your computer.
Trust is a hard thing to get back once you lose it on the net.
Now you've earned everybody's fear. Congratulations. Let's see what that gets you out here.
© 2012 Created by Essence Magazine.
Powered by
