"Don't start me off.com"

[eluc55]

I love how they  think that they have the protected right to say whatever the fuck they want without consequence.  It has nothing to do with freedom of speech and everything to do with freedom from hate speech.

Really they should be allowed to say whatever horrid things they want, though[nb]I mean legally. Whoever owns the webspace is entitled to set whatever rules they like. [/nb].

They had precisely no influence whatsoever in their stupid little corner of the universe. What did it matter if they were sexist, racist pricks? Unless you really believe they intended to rape or kill all those people, of course - which clearly they didn't.

[Neil]

Agreed, I do think they should have the right to say it, and Beard has the right not to read or search for it.

[graffic]

No, it comes up on google and it's public. Beard was just refuting it and the site owners didn't like the attention.  They support their right to say it but not for someone to refute it.

To the people whom cry 'you're being PC' I say fuck you, yes I am. Go and wank off to Jeremy Clarkson and tell me how oppressed you are in your 500k home because you can't say some mysoginistic, racist, reactionary shit without people calling you on it.

Take a tissue.

[Ronnie the Raincoat]

Agreed, I do think they should have the right to say it, and Beard has the right not to read or search for it.

I agree too. Doesn't mean I'll shed any tears over its demise though.

[Mr Eggs]

^^Never use a massive cock ring as a tissue dispenser on a public forum.[nb]I'm 38 years old,Graffs old son...WELL over 18[/nb]

[acrow]

"To the people whom cry..."

"mysoginistic"

HAVE YOU EVER EVEN READ A FUCKING BOOK?

[Mr Eggs]

To the people whom cry 'you're being PC' I say fuck you, yes I am. Go and wank off to Jeremy Clarkson and tell me how oppressed you are in your 500k home because you can't say some mysoginistic, racist, reactionary shit without people calling you on it.

You are one baffling bastard. Are you Scandinavian?

[Depressed Beyond Tables]

I am currently wanking off to Jeremy Clarkson and I have a 500kb home and am awaiting further instruction. s.

[Flouncer]

There's a woman on Radio 4 now whose name I've missed, who is complaining of abuse from a website - particularly the same sort of misogynist stuff Neil was talking about regarding her genitals. They're not giving the site "the oxygen of publicity" but it has decided to shut down. Surely this can't be a coincidence?

Edit - it was Mary Beard. She's on right at the beginning of Woman's Hour if you want to check it out on the iplayer.

[Ronnie the Raincoat]

It's still there.  I think this is just a stunt.

[jutl]

Eleonora Belfiore has a worrying attitude to freedom of speech for an Associate Professor of Cultural Policy.

Unbelievable that @wmarybeard is still having to explain to morons that overimposing a vagina on a photo of her face is NOT 'free speech'!

Now obviously we don't have codified freedom of speech here, but in the US that kind of collage would most certainly be protected by the first amendment. Belfiore gets some push back from other Twitter users, but seems unapologetic.

[Ronnie the Raincoat]

I don't know, I'm finding it hard to be sympathetic.  I think it's utterly ridiculous that people are jailed for Twitter comments; nobody on DSMO is facing that, and they closed the site of their own volition.  They have bullied so many people off the internet (mostly women, who they hate), that I feel like they're getting their comeuppance. The discussion about the abuse people and particularly women get on the internet is a worthy one.  It is horrible being wary of what you post because you know that from somewhere, you're going to get a torrent of abuse or shit thrown at you simply for being a fucking woman. It is so exhausting and people do not take it seriously. DSMO is just symptomatic of that.  And it was not contained to that site- people got abuse elsewhere on their own personal blogs and Twitters from there.

[jutl]

I don't know, I'm finding it hard to be sympathetic.  I think it's utterly ridiculous that people are jailed for Twitter comments; nobody on DSMO is facing that, and they closed the site of their own volition.  They have bullied so many people off the internet (mostly women, who they hate), that I feel like they're getting their comeuppance. The discussion about the abuse people and particularly women get on the internet is a worthy one.  It is horrible being wary of what you post because you know that from somewhere, you're going to get a torrent of abuse or shit thrown at you simply for being a fucking woman. It is so exhausting and people do not take it seriously.

Absolutely; my problem with Professor Belfiore is the narrow one that she seems to object to DSMO's excesses on the grounds that they are self-evidently disqualified as free speech. That seems incorrect to me, so I assume I am one of the morons that she is referring to. I don't sympathise in the slightest with DSMO, in that they traded as a venue for venting and have been chased off the internet by others' anger at what they published.

[Ronnie the Raincoat]

I agree it's free speech, but fucking vile free speech and it deserves a riposte. I think once you're getting out of the confines of the site and abusing people on their blogs etc, it stops being free speech and starts being abuse and harassment.

[graffic]

They have bullied so many people off the internet (mostly women, who they hate), that I feel like they're getting their comeuppance.

True and like all bullies they are obviously insecure and have something seriously wrong with them. They use the line "it's just a joke" but it's not because they intend to upset and hurt people. When women have cried or been upset they declared it as a "victory". It's good that it's closed down not just because it means it's one less shithole on the internet but I think a lot of the people on there genuinely need professional help and posting on that site was not helping their condition.

[Thursday]

Really they should be allowed to say whatever horrid things they want, though[nb]I mean legally. Whoever owns the webspace is entitled to set whatever rules they like. [/nb].

They had precisely no influence whatsoever in their stupid little corner of the universe. What did it matter if they were sexist, racist pricks? Unless you really believe they intended to rape or kill all those people, of course - which clearly they didn't.

I've never had a group of people on the internet write about me, threatening me with rape and all kinds of violence. We know people just write these over the top things on the internet without really meaning it, but DSMO genuinely enjoy the idea that what they write will intimidate and upset people. I know what you're trying to say, but I just think you're being too dismissive of the effect it had on people they targeted.

I'm sure some of the people will still find a way to get together, but the site did act as a means for them get together, enable each other and encourage each other to outdo one another in terms of hate speech. It allowed them to organize movements against any woman who had the audacity to have opinions on an issue. If it makes it harder for them to do that then good riddance.

[Dead kate moss]

True and like all bullies they are obviously insecure and have something seriously wrong with them. They use the line "it's just a joke" but it's not because they intend to upset and hurt people. When women have cried or been upset they declared it as a "victory". It's good that it's closed down not just because it means it's one less shithole on the internet but I think a lot of the people on there genuinely need professional help and posting on that site was not helping their condition.

But you contributed to their site for a couple of months until it closed down?

[graffic]

But you contributed to their site for a couple of months until it closed down?

I got banned from the site last year.

I did leave a few guest comments and post a few times to wind the moderators up for a laugh.

[acrow]

it's hard to imagine you being a troll.

[graffic]

It is hard but I try and really go at life.

[eluc55]

I've never had a group of people on the internet write about me, threatening me with rape and all kinds of violence. We know people just write these over the top things on the internet without really meaning it, but DSMO genuinely enjoy the idea that what they write will intimidate and upset people. I know what you're trying to say, but I just think you're being too dismissive of the effect it had on people they targeted.

I'm sure some of the people will still find a way to get together, but the site did act as a means for them get together, enable each other and encourage each other to outdo one another in terms of hate speech. It allowed them to organize movements against any woman who had the audacity to have opinions on an issue. If it makes it harder for them to do that then good riddance.

More likely I've underestimated what they got up to. I didn't know they tracked people down to their blogs and posted threatening stuff directly, for example.

Ultimately, though, it doesn't change my stance. Legally, they should be able to say what they like on that site. If they made a point of repeatedly posting violent threats directly to a person's blogs or email, then I accept there's possibly a place for action. But then that's more a case of harassment, rather than "hate speech".

[Johnny Townmouse]

This isn't a free speech issue though, is it?

Surely this is a 'free to host whichever sites you like on your own server' issue?

I may be missing the point though. In fact, it is likely.

[eluc55]

This isn't a free speech issue though, is it?

Surely this is a 'free to host whichever sites you like on your own server' issue?

I may be missing the point though. In fact, it is likely.

Totally. But it got onto free speech or something similar, and I was just commenting on that.

As I said earlier, whoever runs the server can set what rules they like.

[Nuclear Optimism]

Legally, they should be able to say what they like on that site.

I wonder if they've been shut down for legal reasons, if their hosts booted them, or if they've just had a smack of unwanted press attention and subsequently bottled it. I hope it's the latter, otherwise they'll only complain about the nanny state making them illegal and what have you. They're being hauled over the coals publicly, and they know they've got a heap of offensive abuse on there, so I reckon they've preemptively shat themselves and fucked off before they lose face.

[Dead kate moss]

Pretty sure it's likely the hosts/server has booted them. One whiff of controversy or legal action and you're gone, is my past experience (Scorched Planet, if that means anything to anyone).

[Doomy Dwyer]

There's an announcement up saying they're changing servers and 'normal' 'service' will be resumed soon.

I also noticed that Ricardo, bold defender of free speech, shat his whack and removed all his posts quick smart from certain threads before the final fond farewells. I admire a man of principle.

[graffic]

That comment is dated 2011. They appear to have deleted some comments.

[Doomy Dwyer]

Oh yeah. What year is it now?

It looks like a fair bit has been deleted now. But Ricardo's posts were the first to go from the actual DSMO thread, making the responses even more nonsensical than is usual. King Rat desperately scrabbling for the lifeboats tossing women and children behind him. 

[Desi Dubs Dallas]

 I'll take a side bet on Ricardo being Prospero 13 & 14.

[Zetetic]

Mary Beard's actual view probably shouldn't be lost either - broadly that they should be allowed to say whatever they want but she'd call them out on doing it on the internet just as she would in a bar (her example).

"I don't want legal regulation, I want people to treat each other decently online."

As I said earlier, whoever runs the server can set what rules they like.

I'm not happy about this being seen as an acceptable way to deal with stuff that we find unpleasant.
The analogy that comes to mind is the funding infrastructure being pulled out from underneath Wikileaks by conspiracy, rather than legal process. That DSMO's shutdown might have come about by a more popular complaint doesn't make it any better to have censorship practiced willfully and privately by those providing communication services.