Two guys make fairly minor transgression at conference. In response, a woman makes fairly minor transgression as far as reporting it. Their companies appear to overreact, but who really knows since we don't know anything else about how these people did their jobs. Bloggers expend endless hours slicing and dicing the minute meanings of otherwise inconsequential things, hoping to peg blame where there simply might be none.
Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor, and posting said photograph to Twitter to enlist an army against someone is not minor at all. It's full scale bullying. The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd. Drowning people in death threats and DoS attacks over the internet is not minor either.
"Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor"
It's a public place. Do you really think you live in a bubble where no one can take pictures of you without your consent?
"posting said photograph to Twitter"
When did that stop anyone? We see photoshopped images of politicians make the rounds and sometimes show up on Hannity (Fox News television show)
"enlist an army against someone"
It's far from clear that she wanted to enlist an army against them. And she was clear in her apology that she didn't want this to end with the other people getting fired.
" It's full scale bullying."
You should probably steer clear of politics and success in general. Worse stuff happens to less notable people on a regular basis. Doesn't make it good or bad, but this is the nature of social media discourse.
"The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd."
It's doubtful in PlayHaven's case, considering that they kept one of the people in the circumstance, that the other person was fired just because of the comment. It was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.
I agree that death threats, DoS attacks, and general witch-hunts are not minor. I also think that the issue would have died down if playhaven had not fired mr-hank, but we have no details regarding what actually happened.
The obvious attention of her photo is the guy who is smiling at the camera; most of the Internet thinks that he was the perp that got fired. Turns out that it's the guy in the grey shirt on the left side of the photo.
She publicly shamed the wrong guy! How is what she did ok?
I personally don't think public shaming is the right answer to this in the first place, regardless of whether the right person was shamed (makes it worse that the wrong guy was shamed), and please don't construe this as defense of the practice, but news organizations (in particular, Fox News) engage in the same practice with much more vitriol.
She apologized and expressed remorse for the fact that he was fired. That's why I concluded that she wasn't trying to screw the guy over but rather wanted to draw attention to the general practice:
"I'm sorry to hear your employer deciding to not to work with you on this and I hope they reconsider, bring you back on and dealing with it constructively."
I have been trying, and failing, to understand the moral justification to prohibit all forms of "public shaming." Could you help me understand your viewpoint?
It seems to me that public shaming can be used for good. If a speaker at a conference says something racist, and from the audience you immediately call it out, causing that speaker to feel shameful, apologize, and carry on, then that seems like a good use of shaming. If a speaker should make overt and blatant lies in order to use the public stage in order to defame someone else's character, then surely a massive outcry of booing is morally justifiable, and the speaker should not be able to use "I was shamed" as a justifiable way to retaliate against those who booed.
The PyCon procedures even say that the organizers may cut a presentation short and throw the speaker out, should that person's presentation be against the Code of Conduct. If public shaming is prohibited, and if the speaker feels shamed by the staff response, then can't the speaker rightly exclaim "you are shaming me in public and you must stop!"? Why should the staff be allowed to shame someone in public?
However, you seem to think that any form of public shaming should be prohibited. What are your opinions about the scenarios I listed above? Can you describe the moral reasoning you used to help decide which forms of public shaming are appropriate and which are inappropriate?
Otherwise, I don't see how saying that "She publicly shamed the wrong guy!" is, by itself, enough information to tell if what she did was okay or not. Also, under the US law that applies to workplaces (PyCon is not a workplace), all honestly made statements concerning possible civil rights violations are given protected status. If PyCon were a workplace, then this public complaint would be completely okay, and both legally and morally justifiable.
Because I cannot come up with a good moral reasoning ("don't do things that cause others to feel bad" is not a good moral reasoning) for saying that this is anything other than ok, I conclude that it was ok.
Do you have any context as to what is going on here?
The guy in the middle of the picture that's smiling at the camera is not the perp. Most people who just saw the picture, without reading everything that everyone else wrote, think that he is the perp.
Where did I write that I disagree with all forms of public shaming, and that they all need to be prohibited? However, posting up pictures of many men, with one of them clearly staring at the camera, and saying "he jokes about dongles" is wrong when the guy that is at the center of the photo and is staring at the camera is not the guy that joked about dongles. That's defamation. Case closed.
"However, posting up pictures of many men, with one of them clearly staring at the camera, and saying "he jokes about dongles" is wrong when the guy that is at the center of the photo and is staring at the camera is not the guy that joked about dongles."
The tweet said "right behind me", which is the right guy according to you.
Edit: I added "according to you" and link to comment since it was pointed out below that this might also be the wrong guy, which would make the comment even worse of course.
This source, much like the rest of the Internet, initially blamed Alex Reid, the man in the middle of the picture. Then this source decided that the guy to be blamed is the guy in the grey shirt. I made my comment following this source.
Then someone else, somewhere (no clue what the original source of that statement is anymore, but you are right, there are certainly comments to that extent floating around, and your post had that comment as well until it was deleted), stated that the reason why the guy at fault was fired from PlayHaven was because he was wearing his company's t-shirt, and thus was publicly representing the company, which in some way makes sense. The only guy in that shirt that was wearing a PlayHaven t-shirt and not the guy in the middle is sitting way far out, and not "right behind her" by any definition of that phrase.
My point is that someone who just saw that photo, without reading the extensive commentary around it, still thinks it's the man grinning at the camera - "right behind me" or not. Who is the right guy? I really thought it was the guy in the grey shirt, but even that is now under doubt.
"This source, much like the rest of the Internet, initially blamed Alex Reid, the man in the middle of the picture."
Are the statements of this source more or less defamatory than the original source? That is, in the original image+text it was (and remains) ambiguous about who made the sexual jokes. While this source specifically named one person, and then named another.
If defamation is a relevant concept to this discussion, then you should be complaining most strongly about the defamation done by this source, no?
I do see that I misread your statement. I apologize. You said "She publicly shamed the wrong guy!" That does mean that you think public shaming can be appropriate, if applied to the right person.
I still think arguments which use the term "public shaming" are uselessly vague. If you mean defamation, then just say defamation.
Defamation has a reasonably well-defined meaning in law and ethics, though the details vary widely depending on the jurisdiction. As this took place in the US, I do not see how there's a valid legal claim for defamation under US/California law.
I suspect though that you're talking about morals and ethics, and not just the law. The neat thing I've learned about the law is that it provides useful insights for how at least judges think about the ethics and morality behind the law, and those views can help understand the issue.
For example, SMITH v. MALDONADO is a California court case which addressed "Can a defamatory innuendo be created by the act of "highlighting" or visibly emphasizing certain selected passages in a concededly truthful and accurate newspaper article? May an action for defamation lie against persons who copy and disseminate such a truthful newspaper article, after having themselves highlighted one portion of the article that mentions other individuals in a context or manner that inferentially associates those individuals with alleged criminal activity? The issue is apparently one of first impression."
I think the concept of "first impression" is quite appropriate to this context, even if the details are different. The court decided that "first impression" could not be used as the basis for defamation, saying:
"Any other result would have a deleterious impact on all forms of written and oral speech. If we were to accept appellants' contention, the unavoidable effect would be to discourage the dissemination of accurate news reports. This result would raise obvious First Amendment concerns. We need not confine our consideration to the republication of newspaper articles, moreover. Writers and public speakers in general would have to take care they did not place the "wrong" emphasis on truthful, accurate statements of fact. The resulting chilling effect on the free flow of ideas and information would be substantial."
"Moreover, if a plaintiff could plead defamation based on an alleged innuendo derived solely from highlighting a true statement of fact, the door would be open to all kinds of subjective considerations of what does or does not constitute undue emphasis. Thus, in any defamation case the court would be forced to consider the particular type of emphasis used, and its effect on the person or persons to whom the material was published. Courts in libel cases would have to consider the distinctive effects of underlining, italicization, typeface, and the size, style or color of print used; courts in slander cases would be compelled to analyze the effects of variations in vocal tone, inflection, timbre, volume and pitch. If highlighting or emphasis alone could be found to create a defamatory innuendo as a matter of law, courts would also have to analyze the subjective intent of the person doing the highlighting. Otherwise, the highlighter could be liable if a person to whom the highlighted material was published misinterpreted it by giving the highlighting a falsely defamatory meaning, even if the highlighter had no such defamatory intent. What was he or she trying to communicate by highlighting or emphasizing and then publishing the material? If the added emphasis simply communicates "importance," how or why was the emphasized material "important"? The substantive and procedural difficulties posed to courts and litigants by such subjective analysis would be daunting. Even without considering the manifest constitutional ramifications of expanding the tort of defamation to include emphasis or highlighting of otherwise truthful material, strong considerations of public policy would preclude such an outcome."
While that case was about someone redistributing text from a...
Please explain the statement "Photographing someone without consent at a conference is really not minor."
PyCon has no prohibitions on taking photographs, and neither does the venue. Taking pictures in public without consent is legal, with only a small set of exceptions. PyCon by default inherits those rules, so I don't see how it's illegal. Perhaps have some moral code in mind?
Here is a picture of Michael Foord and Guido van Rossum, where Foord's name tag is clearly visible. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583315245/ . Here's one of Shane Grigsby http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8584459432/ , with name tag clearly visible. Do you think the respective photographers asked for permission to take the photo first? I doubt it, but it might be possible for those specific cases.
I have taken many photographs at PyCon over the years, without asking for permission. Many photographs were taken of me, including this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/uhop/400449848/ while I was speaking. I never granted Uhop permission to take the photograph. Under what basis do I have for complaining that it was illegal, immoral, or unjust for that photograph to be taken and published to flickr?
I agree with "is really not minor" only if by that you mean "perfectly acceptable." However, I don't think that's what you mean. You imply that it's a serious ethical transgression. I don't understand how, so I request enlightenment.
"The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd."
It's not at all, really. Especially Adria, who called herself an "evangelist" at SendGrid. If your job is to evangelize something in a positive way and instead you piss off a bunch of people (fairly or unfairly), you're not really doing your job.
Both of these people, Mr. Dongle and Adria, will land on their feet -- trust me. This is simply the sort of story that has just enough detail to push people's buttons and just enough lack of detail so we can fill in the blanks with our own fantasies and prejudices about who the people involved are and what actually happened.
Title VII protections for the workplace give protection against retaliation to people who make a complaint about sexual harassment. Even if it causes negative impact on the company. Even if the complaint was made in public. Even if it was in a workplace which was not under control of the company.
She cannot legally be fired because of what happened. Since she was fired, this means that she could take her case to court, and the courts will almost certainly find in her favor.
While I can and have talked about this elsewhere, it's best that you read what a lawyer says about this topic:
If I have an employee who accuses an innocent co-worker of sexual harassment publicly and goes on to state that I support her accusation, when in fact I don't, can I not fire the employee?
It depends on several factors. A company cannot use a legitimate reason for firing someone as a pretext for an illegal reason to fire someone. The courts will ask questions like: Does the company have a policy that if an employee makes an incorrect statement like this then that person can be fired? Are there examples of other employees who made an incorrect statement but did not get fired? Here's the actual EEOC statement:
> The anti-retaliation provisions make it unlawful to discriminate
against any individual because s/he has made a charge, testified,
assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding,
hearing, or litigation under Title VII ...
> The anti-discrimination statutes do not limit or condition in any
way the protection against retaliation for participating in the charge
process. While the opposition clause applies only to those who protest
practices that they reasonably and in good faith believe are unlawful, the
participation clause applies to all individuals who participate in the
statutory complaint process. Thus, courts have consistently held that a
respondent is liable for retaliating against an individual for filing an
EEOC charge regardless of the validity or reasonableness of the charge\26.
To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its
unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise
unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the
anti-discrimination statutes.
> Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity.
"If I have an employee who ..."
The law gives broad anti-retaliatory protections to someone who made a complaint. As I quoted above, the courts protect a claim made in good faith. "To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the
anti-discrimination statutes."
"Good faith" is given a very broad interpretation. It's not expected that an employee will know the Title VII laws, nor know if a certain practice is actually prohibited under the law. However, if it was not made in good faith (the wording is something like "no reasonable person would agree"), then that complaint does not have Title VII protections.
Also, the employee may not make unreasonable forms of complaint. The EEOC writes: "[C]ourts have found that the following activities were not reasonable and thus not protected: searching and photocopying confidential documents relating to alleged ADEA discrimination and showing them to co-workers\17; making an overwhelming number of complaints based on unsupported allegations and bypassing the chain of command in bringing the complaints\18; and badgering a subordinate employee to give a witness statement in support of an EEOC charge and attempting to coerce her to change her statement.\19 Similarly, unlawful activities, such as acts or threats of violence to life or property, are not protected. ... If an employee's protests against allegedly discriminatory employment practices interfere with job performance to the extent that they render him or her ineffective in the job, the retaliation provisions do not immunize the worker from appropriate discipline or discharge."
That tweet can be parsed in many ways. Does "support me" mean that the company agrees that hearing unwanted dirty jokes while at the workplace is a valid reason to complain? Does "support me" mean that the company supports her legitimate use of Title VII protections? Does "support me" mean that her supervisor told her she was supported by the company, but upper-level management ...
Come on now, he's being extremely charitable to Adria here. Some guys making a dongle joke is not oppression of women. It is at best a distant tangential symptom of the problem.
You are correct. The EEOC agrees with you. "Making a dongle joke is not oppression of women." In fact, a workplace where everyone cracks Benny Hill-style jokes full of sexual innuendo does not (according to the law) count as form of sexual harassment.
Sexual jokes are not a form of sexual harassment. Not stopping unwanted sexual jokes, after someone has complained, is a sign of sexual harassment. The key thing is that someone must complain. To quote the EEOC:
"In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome. By actively participating in the conduct, the charging party had created the impression among her co-workers that she welcomed the sort of sexually oriented banter that she later asserted was objectionable. Simply ceasing to participate was insufficient to show the continuing activity was no longer welcome to her."
You know what is really awful, the oppression of men in nursing! Less than 7% (versus 20%+ of women in tech) in an amazing growth industry with great salaries and equivalent educational demands and negative unemployment.
Oh wait, it isn't a horrible conspiracy to keep men out of nursing... it isn't some Orwellian scheme, it isn't evil feminists who like their girls club, it is disinterest and lack of role-models.
Meh. I am not impressed by this teardown. There are many factors in this situation that one can argue about, but the one that to me is unarguably completely damning towards Adria's actions is this one:
She posted a picture of many men. One of them is smiling at the camera. It just so happens that his smile happens to have that naughty "heh heh heh, did you hear that sick joke I just made?" look. Almost everyone on the Internet, me included, thought that the guy smiling was the perp. Turns out that it wasn't actually him at all, and that the perp is actually the guy on the left side of the picture.
Regardless of what we may think of public shaming, or of what her role used to be at Sendgrid - Adria should've foreseen that everyone would think the smiling guy would be the suspect.
She publicly shamed the wrong guy!
She didn't deserve the rape and death threats, but to leave what she did without any consequences to her would be inappropriate, to say the least.
the perp is actually the guy on the left side of the picture
I think it was the guy on the right, after initially making the same mistake as you about the grinning individual in the middle. From start to finish finish, the whole episode is just one poor decision on top of another, by everyone involved.
...which I think is also wrong. the person sitting to the left of Reid (not to the left of the picture) is also wearing a PlayHaven shirt, which is what was described in the offending blog post. I don't really feel like revisiting the whole thing, but I'll bet $5 that the fellow in the grey shirt is not 'Mr-Hank.'
Have you read the article? I agree that Adria screwed up here. Absolutely.
However, Amanda Blum paints a pattern of behavior that just isn't there when you really read into those stories. THAT is what the "teardown" is about. It's not saying that Adria did nothing wrong.
Yea I did. I think you did a poor job of defending her in the case of the podcast. From TFA:
"In the blog post, Adria even admitted that she made a mistake in mentioning it on her podcast prior to talking with the organizers, and apologized for doing so."
In that case, she did something wrong and apologized for it, and there wasn't a public shit-storm. In this case, before she had an opportunity to really apologize, she got attacked by the Internet. So, AFAICT, there are two publically known instances of her doing something wrong, and doing something wrong in the exact same way: "going to the public before confronting someone privately". How many times do you need before it's a pattern?
To be clear, what she did was this: she saw something she thought was utterly vile and morally reprehensible being seemingly "celebrated" in a talk. The talk wasn't necessarily happening yet; it was still being voted on. She mentioned in her podcast that there was a talk on this and suggested that her listeners vote on it.
Suppose the talk referenced something about how to beat your wife. Do you think it would have been so terrible to handle it that way?
Sure, maybe it's better to talk to the organizers together. But come on, surely you can understand why one might handle it that way -- especially since the talks were still being voted on it.
If this was wrong, it was only a very mild transgression. It does not form a pattern.
Where does it end? If a religious person is deeply offended by a talk that references "My Two Dads" -- should that talk be banned? Should references to evolution, gay rights, anything that might offend anyone be banned?
Being offended DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS, it is just you being offended, get over it.
Voting a talk up or down is not the same as banning.
Voting is an indication that some subgroup of people have a specific view, either positive or negative, towards a talk. The selection committee can use that information to guide their selection. They may even go back to the person and point out that while the talk content is very appropriate, it's structured in such a way that incidental aspects (eg, a joke about "Hans Reiser killing women attendees" at a talk at linux.conf.au) will detract from the talk and blunt the actual content.
Or they may decide that the content is important enough to override the vote.
You are right, by the way. In the US context, being offended goes not give anyone rights. What gives people rights is the law. The law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sex, the laws says that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination based on sex, the law says that frequent and unwanted dirty jokes at the workplace can be a form of sexual harassment, and the law says that if someone doesn't like dirty jokes in the workplace then the first step is to file a complaint. And the law gives wide latitude to what the complaint can be, including making a complaint in public, and says that making a complaint gives extra protections against retaliation.
So no, being offended does not give people rights. Civil rights laws give people rights.
As to your examples, the law does not say that references to evolution, gay rights, etc. are in violation of the laws against discrimination in the workplace. However, if the only Young Earth Creationist in the company was always singled out as the person to write the "earth geology" transcripts, and there was no special business reason why that Y.E.C. should be singled out, then that Y.E.C may file a complaint for discrimination based on religious beliefs.
Because singling out someone in the workplace based on their religious belief is against the law.
"I personally wouldn’t really much care myself, but Adria’s right. This is a direct porn reference and doesn’t belong at a technical conference. Porn is deeply offensive to many groups of people on religious as well as gender grounds (and just I-think-it’s-morally-wrong-and-vile grounds)"
As someone who cares deeply about getting women into traditionally male-dominated areas (starting from HS when I did robotics demos for elementary schoolers to now as the father of a daughter) I think it's unmitigated disaster for feminists to hitch their wagon to the broader "I'm easily offended by everything" movement. There is a crucial distinction between things that are offensive because they are sexist and things that are offensive because they are in bad taste--one perpetuates unfavorable gender-biased power dynamics and the other does not. Waging war on the whole panoply of things that might offend someone somewhere is dilutive and counter-productive.
Movements that are effective at building coalitions are ruthlessly focused on the things that tie members of the coalition together. By taking on battles that are outside the core focus of how women are treated in tech, you lose the support of many people, especially women, who should be part of that coalition.
PS. This rant is veering off onto "man telling women what to do" and for that I apologize. But my thoughts on the matter seem to be pretty consistent with, and are mostly informed by, the thinking of my wife and female friends, all professional women trying to make it in traditionally male-dominated fields.
In general, I think there's far too much policing of language and I wish everyone was more relaxed about it.
Having said that, "money shot" really is a clear reference to porn, and I was surprised to see it used in the way that it was. It's not inappropriate for every venue, but it seems pretty clear cut to say it's inappropriate for the title of a presentation at a tech conference.
Are you really sure about "money shot"? I know the porn reference, but I've heard it in multiple contexts over the years to refer to the photo (or in a more modern context video) that will sell it (whatever it is).
It's a film term that has acquired a secondary meaning in porn. In regular movies it's a shot where you blow something or stage some similarly expensive setpiece that will provide a visual highlight for the film, and it's still current in that context - on a crew it's normal to discuss scheduling in relation to the day's 'money' shot, and the term is often stretched to include whichever shot is the most aesthetically important one for the current scene. Obviously, in this case the person explicitly referenced the porn context.
I thought that the porn context was quite inappropriate myself and broadly supported Richards at the time, although I also think she should have taken her concerns directly to the organizers first. I'm not really offended by porn, but I'd rather not watch it myself, and it's very predictable that it will be offensive to quite a few other people, who'll feel excluded from that presentation even if they're interested in the technical topic (making effective screencasts). In the organizers' position I'd have asked the presenter to consider something more general, such as 'what you can learn from movie directors'.
According to wikipedia [1], it was originally the scene in a film that took the most money to reproduce. And is used in journalism and many other fields.
The relation to porn is of course obvious due to the presentation's subtitle, referring to something as a 'money shot' should probably not be considered pornographic in intent, in my opinion.
"I'm co-opting the term money shot, because I think it's very valuable... we all know what it is, if you don't know you can google it because I'm not going to talk about it, but if you co-opt the concept what you come away with is the content people actually care about and that is what people pay for in porn..."
If you can't talk about the title it's probably not a very good one.
Why don't women go into tech? Because they'll be in a distinct minority, and if you're ambitious and have some sense you'll avoid putting yourself in that situation. Better to go into a field like medicine where you're not the odd one out if you're a woman, where it's not unusual or atypical to find women in positions of power, etc. That's the nuts and bolts of it.
Everything else is bike shedding. It's nothing more than "what do people talk like in this new version of the industry where women still have no power?"
So why is it the focus? Because the male-dominated industry is willing to entertain forcing everyone to by hypersensitive about what they say. "Sensitivity" and "inclusiveness" is cheap. It is not willing to take affirmative steps to hire more women, put women in positions of power, etc. That's not cheap and upsets the entrenched power dynamic.
Also, it is chicken and egg. You need a pool of qualified people to pick from to promote the best. If only 20% of your workforce is women, the chance of the "best" person coming from that class is obviously reduced, you could decide to promote an unqualified or underachieving employee as an act of social justice, but you risk losing the qualified or better achieving employees as a result.
Nursing is a bit of an inverse of tech, 93% women. Nursing has great and growing salaries, similar educational requirements and massive upward mobility... yet men still make up less than 7% of the industry.
"Porn is deeply offensive to many groups of people on religious as well as gender grounds". Interestingly enough, many white male christians find it offensive as well. That's not an exaggeration. It's really poor form to draw an analogy to porn in a tech conference (and I'm male, for the record) and makes our industry look really boorish.
"things that tie members of the coalition together."
"Many white Christians find gays offensive as well"
I am not homosexual and I don't find gays offensive. Nonetheless, I would be incredibly disturbed to be hearing about "homosexual haskell" or "faggot functions". It's not appropriate in a tech conference, regardless of your sexual orientation or opinion about sexual orientation.
Regardless of the level of offense, 'Dad' isn't a natural word to use in that context (I've never heard anyone use the word 'dad' when discussing redundancy). 'Master' would be much more appropriate.
Sounds like you're taking a Romney-esque "binders full of women" approach to getting more women into tech, as if to say that unequal access is the major reason that women are underrepresented in tech. Guess what? Putting a big neon sign in front of a strip club advertising "50% off drinks for ladies" isn't going to drive more women to the establishment. Turning the strip club into a dance club, however, will bring a ton more women.
The problem we're having is that men in tech love their strip clubs so much that they'd rather just get rid of the woman patrons altogether.
I object to the idea that what we need to do in tech is create a "kinder, gentler" atmosphere appropriate for delicate-minded women-folk. That's not what's keeping women out of tech. It's the very real worry that they won't find good mentorship, won't be taken seriously, will be passed over for promotions, etc. Fixing those problems requires a laser-like focus on, well, those problems. Diluting that focus by waging war on all the other things that might offend people, things that don't go to those core issues, is a losing proposition.
There's a profound difference between 'refraining from obvious and offensive references' and '"kinder, gentler" atmosphere appropriate for delicate-minded women-folk.' References to porn or sex or virginity or rape or molestation or fondling or groping are not appropriate for a tech conference, and some of those topics are not appropriate for any sort of discourse (as we saw with Todd Akin's "legitimate rape" remarks)
"Our goal is to create an inclusive, respectful conference environment that invites participation from people of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, abilities, religions, and sexual orientations. " https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/diversity/
It's not a question of whether comments like this should be made or not made at a tech conference. It's a question of, essentially, "standing to object." It's not about right and wrong, but "effective politics" versus "ineffective politics."
You may be interested in reading more about the Title VII protections in US civil rights law.
If PyCon were a workplace that was large enough to be under Title VII, then a truthful complaint about sexual harassment is given extra protection. For example, a company cannot retaliate due to a complaint, including by using an otherwise valid justification as pretext for a . The complaint may be made in public, and the complainant may picket, talk with important customers, newspaper reporters, etc.. The person who makes the complaint does not need to be the person affected by the sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination under Title VII, and for sexual harassment there does not even need to be a component of sexual desire. This is confirmed by the courts, up even to multiple Supreme Court cases.
This has nothing to do with creating 'a "kinder, gentler" atmosphere appropriate for delicate-minded women-folk.' It has to do with exercising civil right protections that people already have at most companies. These same civil rights laws apply to men. You might read about Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. I'll quote from the Supreme Court's decision:
> In late October 1991, Oncale was working for respondent Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron U.S. A., Inc., oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. ... On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape.
> Oncale’s complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action; in fact, the company’s Safety Compliance Clerk, Valent Hohen, told Oncale that Lyons and Pippen “picked [on] him all the time too,” and called him a name suggesting homosexuality. Id., at 77. Oncale eventually quit–asking that his pink slip reflect that he “voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse.” Id., at 79. When asked at his deposition why he left Sundowner, Oncale stated “I felt that if I didn’t leave my job, that I would be raped or forced to have sex.” Id., at 71.
The law that keeps you from being in a workplace where others can threaten you with rape is the same law that lets others, women and men, speak out about possible sexual harassment in the workplace. Including, yes, even complaining about sexual jokes.
You think it's to do with "offense", but the law and the courts are clear that "Title VII . . . does not set forth a general civility code for the American workplace." Instead, "a plaintiff must show that a rational jury could find that the workplace [was] permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment." The Supreme Court has instructed that courts judging hostility should "filter out complaints attacking the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of age-related jokes, and occasional teasing". The easiest way for a company to comply is to set a very low threshold for reporting a possible incident, and let the EEOC compliance person investigate and develop an appropriate remedy, if needed.
PyCon isn't a Title VII workplace, and there are difficulties in mapping EEOC guidelines to a conference environment, but I believe the conference should still be guided by the same moral basis as the civil rights laws. Unless you think it's okay for your workplace to allow your co-workers to subject you to "sex-related, humiliating actions", then you should defend those same moral principles and stop thinking that the debate includes a request for a right to not be offended.
Even using your "laser-like" focus metaphor, you shouldn't have all of your lasers pointed in the same direction. Problems come from all directions, and different people should and do focus on the problems that most interest and/or affect them.
Comparing someone making dick jokes in a convention to the kind of hostile workplace contemplated by Title VII ("permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment") is a slap in the face to all the men and women who actually have to endure sexual harassment.
The purpose of the feminist movement is not to solve all the problems of all the people. It's to advance the cause of women in the workplace. To the extent that going off on tangents detracts from that, it's a disservice to the core constituency.
In a very narrow sense, you are correct. PyCon and tech conferences are explicitly not contemplated by Title VII because Title VII only talks about workplaces. In everything else, you are incorrect in your understanding. Quoting from the EEOC:
The court held that the proliferation of pornography and demeaning comments, if sufficiently continuous and pervasive "may be found to create an atmosphere in which women are viewed as men's sexual playthings rather than as their equal coworkers." Barbetta, 669 F. Supp. At 573. The Commission agrees that, depending on the totality of circumstances, such an atmosphere may violate Title VII. See also Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 50 EPD ¶ 39,106 (5th Cir. 1989), in which the 5th Circuit endorsed the Commission's position in its amicus brief that evidence of ongoing sexual graffiti in the workplace, not all of which was directed at the plaintiff, was relevant to her claim of harassment. Bennett v. Coroon & Black Corp., 845 F.2d 104, 46 EPD ¶ 37,955 (5th Cir. 1988) (the posting of obscene cartoons in an office men's room bearing the plaintiff's name and depicting her engaged in crude and deviant sexual activities could create a hostile work environment).
I use this to show that the bar needed to show a hostile environment is a lot lower than you likely think it is.
It's even low enough to include sexual jokes. While sexual jokes in the workplace are not prohibited under Title VII:
"In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome."
I interpret this to mean that someone who finds that "dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes" are not (or no longer) welcome can provide notice under Title VII. (And Title VII is quite broad about what constitutes 'provide notice.') If those jokes continue, then it may be a sign of sexual harassment.
But the very first step is to provide notice. Which is what happened here.
How do you conclude, based on the body of court cases and EEOC decisions on this topic, that complaining about dick jokes "is a slap in the face to all the men and women who actually have to endure sexual harassment" when the EEOC says that someone who doesn't like dick jokes should complain about it, and that continued exposure to unwanted dirty jokes can be an indication of sexual harassment?
Also your conclusion re: dirty jokes displays a basic logical reasoning error. What the case says is that participating can nullify the inference that the jokes were unwelcome. It does not say a dirty joke should be responded to by filing notice.
What's clear to me is that you don't want to understand Title VII protections for the workplace and are only picking out the words you like best.
If someone has a reasonable belief that a workplace is sexist (and there's a broad definition of what "reasonable" means), then that person can file a report (and there's a broad definition of what "report" means), and the company may not retaliate (and there's a broad definition of what "retaliate" means).
That doesn't mean that the report must be true in order to make a report, or that dirty jokes necessarily indicate a hostile workplace. Nor does it mean that if a report isn't true then the company may retaliate.
Yes, "participating can nullify the inference that the jokes were unwelcome". That is correct and you, I, and the courts are all in agreement. But you are ignoring the second part, which is that stopping participation isn't enough to indicate that the jokes are unwelcome. Someone must first complain in order to indicate that there is a change in status.
So it most certainly does say that if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person once participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.
Using 'basic logical reasoning', if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person has never participated participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.
The reason you may have difficulties is you are looking at the results of an incident where the courts have decided that a "proliferation" of pornography is an example of sexual harassment which is not allowed under Title VII. However, PyCon does not want to be a place where sexual harassment is allowed.
The Title VII reporting mechanism which end up in court are the same as the Title VII reporting mechanisms used to point out possible cases of sexual harassment in a company, so that a company might correct the situation and avoid going to court.
That's why there does not need to be a "proliferation" of sexual discrimination before people can complain about their civil rights being violated.
Second, whereas the original XKCD comic painted one woman to be smart and the other one to be neutral intelligence-wise, this t-shirt comic paints both women to be stupid. Again, not something I would be especially bothered by, but I can see Adria’s point here. You have a technical(ish) conference where the t-shirt graphic portrays dumb women. This is probably not a good idea.
I don't find either of these presenters stupid. They're just interested in different things, and focused on different audiences. My takeaway was that this conference had something for everyone, as opposed to being of interest only to all-rounders who are already power users.
If your blogging skill is writing or photography or suchlike, you shouldn't need to be expert in SEO to get something out of a Wordpress conference, should you? Likewise, if crafting plugins is your thing, it shouldn't mater that your visual aesthetic starts and ends at a shell prompt. If I were ever to attend a Wordpress conference it would definitely be for the blogger track, and I wouldn't feel stupid for my complete lack of interest in the underlying framework.
It means it doesn't have a [dead] thingie on top, and the link out to the original article still works so that all of us can still argue with each other, but as far as the rest of HN is concerned, this thing is unfindable.
The clearest lesson I take from this article (and from this week's reaction on HN) is that it's very easy to feel defensive when someone accuses you of sexist behavior (or even someone you merely identify with). When that happens, a lot of folks lash out at the person who raised the issue, often more intensely than they deserve.
I rather expect this is one of the factors that leads women not to speak up when they feel uncomfortable. That's bad, right?
a lot of my female friends are terrified of speaking up at conferences because they don't want to run afoul of people like adria richards. There are several recent, documented, cases where groups like the ada initiative are rather viciously attacking other women because they don't agree with them.
People weren't lashing out at her because she raised an issue about perceived sexist behaviour, they lashed out at her because she was seen as being a bully.
As a gay man, if I had a militant online following that I sic'ed on some random person because I heard them make a joke about Lisp at a conference.. I would hope that people would stand up to me about it.
Porn is a thorny issue—there's really no need for a slide with softcore porn in a tech presentation unless it's a conference for developers of porn websites ;) However, the specific example Adria objected to ("Getting the Money Shot") is simply a pop culture reference. If I am a wireless network specialist and I name my presentation on wardriving "The Fog of Wardriving", it does not mean I endorse the military-industrial complex, imperialism, or the actions of the U.S. government. I'm just referencing something vaguely related, or making a dumb pun. It doesn't indicate that Danielle Morrill loves porn and wants everyone in the audience to start an orgy mid-conference, with live streaming. It's just a cultural reference. Also, while Adria has the right to not attend an event which does not follow her personal values, other people don't have any obligation to share her values. Danielle, or any other presenter, male or female, is free to not feel so strongly about porn.
What I don't understand at all is Adria's questioning of the WordPress t-shirt.
T-shirt: "Hey, as a developer, you don't have to care about content to love WordPress! And if you're a content creator, you don't have to care about software development to love WordPress."
How is this misogynist, and how would this stop being misogynist if the comic had men instead of women?
It's more than just a pop culture reference. The fairly short abstract stated "how thinking like a porn director will help you achieve the ‘money shot."
And, yes, obviously, Adria has the right to not attend. She ALSO has the right to say that you shouldn't have a talk that celebrates something that many people find utterly vile is not appropriate. I don't think Adria was ever alleging that what they were doing was illegal.
We would all hopefully object to someone having a talk called "Taking Naked Kiddie Pics" with a line about "how thinking like a pedophile can capture people's imagination". I would hope that people wouldn't think it was inappropriate to speak up -- even petition -- against such a talk, right?
That's my point.
[NOTE: I am NOT saying that porn is as bad as kiddie porn. Of course it's not. The analogy I'm drawing is simply that we DO think it's okay to speak up about things that we think are vile or morally wrong. Many people (religious conservatives, etc) see porn that way.]
I didn't know about the abstract, but I can see what they meant for "thinking like a porn director": titillation. It's a strange metaphor, but I think it was about not dragging on for too long and cleaning showing what's amazing about your product. Still, I'm not sure. I don't see how this is celebration: stretching my military example, I've mentioned military discipline in a blog post once. I don't celebrate and personally repudiate most of their actions, but military discipline is a cultural reference that helped explain my point (the blog is long gone so I can't quote it).
I understand why feminists would hate the porn industry—exploitation of women at a young age, pressure on people to conform to unrealistic expectations, etc. But the feminist argument against porn as a thing, the porn industry notwithstanding, is based on some assumptions—that sexuality is always a tool of exploitation, that male sexuality is abusive, and that sexual attraction without affective relationships is inherently exploitive.
Feminists are right to call out the use of sexuality as a tool for oppression, but to see all sexuality as oppression is absurd.
Well, ironically they are using 'all sexuality is oppression' as a tool of oppression. From another article on HN right now [1]
"Judging a book by its cover is the new tolerance. We throw people into the stocks based on feelings while ignoring intent and assuming victimhood. This is why I fundamentally disagree with equating offense with harassment: it provides unlimited ammo and shuts down discussion rather than giving people the benefit of doubt. It elevates the exception to the norm, by presuming the worst."
What if we twisted the analogy the other way - what if the talk was "What my two dads taught me?" and the tagline was "Erlang -- two of everything is better".
Some people would find that absolutely inappropriate, pushing the homosexual agenda in a conference, violating their religious sensibilities. Do you think those Christians should speak up, start a petition, try to get the talk banned... or maybe just not go to it?
When I learned about the dongle incident, my first thought was similar—what if a heterosexual man didn't like a joke about some aspect of homosexuality a gay developer was sharing with his colleague?
Actually, now that I think about it, what if the developer who joked about dongles was gay? We know the developer is heterosexual, but Adria couldn't know then. Even if he used gendered language—what if he was closeted and couldn't talk about sex with men publicly? Why did she assume talking about penises meant he was a misogynist?
The price of living in a free society is that you develop a hardened exterior. You don't get to hold a monopoly on being offended. Taking these little offenses and making them 'taboo' or even worse illegal belongs in the realm of dictatorships and theocracies.
If putting 2 words together to form "Money Shot" is so powerful that it hurts your soul and torments your mind then you really may have a problem. Learn some self discipline and control and stop trying to bend the world to your will.
The talk was not only called "Getting the Money Shot" but suggested in the abstract "how thinking like a porn director will help you achieve the "'money shot.'"
Many people (I am not one of them, to be clear) find porn very morally wrong. This is not just women, but many men too (particularly religious people).
It's not appropriate for a talk, and it is okay to speak up about it.
Exactly, completely nailed it. Once you start catering to everyone who might be offended, where does it end... that is the real slippery slope.
"It's now very common to hear people say 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights; it's actually nothing more...it's simply a whine. 'I find that offensive,' it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I'm offended by that,' well so fucking what?" -- Stephen Fry
You're using the "where does it end" logic to - what? - suggest that she shouldn't speak up about something? I don't get it.
Here, I'll play your "where does it end" game. What if someone was giving a talk about how to distribute kiddie porn. No speaking up if you find this offensive! Because, I mean, where does it end?
When you go to "kiddie porn" to try to win an argument about community censorship, I think you should automatically lose, a new version of Godwin's law. Seriously, it is like listening to the US Congress talked about CISPA (to protect from child porn and terrorists), it is a pathetic ploy... but I will play along.
You always have a right to be offended, but I have a right to not give a crap. Vote with your wallet (don't go to conference), vote with your feet (don't go to that talk), but don't try to get material banned from everyone because it offends YOU, let me decide for myself... I have the same options you do, to not go to the conference, to not go to the talk.
I will even lean into your example. Obviously, having or distributing child porn is a felony, so it is assumed the talk author wouldn't really bring any (if (s)he did, just call police, they go to jail)... so maybe his talk would be about how to hide your identity online... maybe how to hide it from oppressive governments? Maybe how to use the TOR network? Maybe how to safely help women get online and protest in countries where they aren't allowed to go outside alone? Maybe the title was intended to drum up some media attention and get a packed hall for a talk about people being stalked online, and how to be invisible.
The XKCD comic is about herpetology and ornithology. The revised one is about the difference between wordpress users and developers. Where on earth does either mention the intelligence or status of women?
94 comments
[ 4.8 ms ] story [ 163 ms ] threadHave I summarized this who episode about right?
It's a public place. Do you really think you live in a bubble where no one can take pictures of you without your consent?
"posting said photograph to Twitter"
When did that stop anyone? We see photoshopped images of politicians make the rounds and sometimes show up on Hannity (Fox News television show)
"enlist an army against someone"
It's far from clear that she wanted to enlist an army against them. And she was clear in her apology that she didn't want this to end with the other people getting fired.
" It's full scale bullying."
You should probably steer clear of politics and success in general. Worse stuff happens to less notable people on a regular basis. Doesn't make it good or bad, but this is the nature of social media discourse.
"The idea that these companies just randomly happened to fire these people coincident with high-profile, contentious events (for unrelated reasons) is actually absurd."
It's doubtful in PlayHaven's case, considering that they kept one of the people in the circumstance, that the other person was fired just because of the comment. It was probably the straw that broke the camel's back.
I agree that death threats, DoS attacks, and general witch-hunts are not minor. I also think that the issue would have died down if playhaven had not fired mr-hank, but we have no details regarding what actually happened.
She publicly shamed the wrong guy! How is what she did ok?
She apologized and expressed remorse for the fact that he was fired. That's why I concluded that she wasn't trying to screw the guy over but rather wanted to draw attention to the general practice:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5399047
"I'm sorry to hear your employer deciding to not to work with you on this and I hope they reconsider, bring you back on and dealing with it constructively."
It seems to me that public shaming can be used for good. If a speaker at a conference says something racist, and from the audience you immediately call it out, causing that speaker to feel shameful, apologize, and carry on, then that seems like a good use of shaming. If a speaker should make overt and blatant lies in order to use the public stage in order to defame someone else's character, then surely a massive outcry of booing is morally justifiable, and the speaker should not be able to use "I was shamed" as a justifiable way to retaliate against those who booed.
The PyCon procedures even say that the organizers may cut a presentation short and throw the speaker out, should that person's presentation be against the Code of Conduct. If public shaming is prohibited, and if the speaker feels shamed by the staff response, then can't the speaker rightly exclaim "you are shaming me in public and you must stop!"? Why should the staff be allowed to shame someone in public?
However, you seem to think that any form of public shaming should be prohibited. What are your opinions about the scenarios I listed above? Can you describe the moral reasoning you used to help decide which forms of public shaming are appropriate and which are inappropriate?
Otherwise, I don't see how saying that "She publicly shamed the wrong guy!" is, by itself, enough information to tell if what she did was okay or not. Also, under the US law that applies to workplaces (PyCon is not a workplace), all honestly made statements concerning possible civil rights violations are given protected status. If PyCon were a workplace, then this public complaint would be completely okay, and both legally and morally justifiable.
Because I cannot come up with a good moral reasoning ("don't do things that cause others to feel bad" is not a good moral reasoning) for saying that this is anything other than ok, I conclude that it was ok.
Do you have any context as to what is going on here?
The guy in the middle of the picture that's smiling at the camera is not the perp. Most people who just saw the picture, without reading everything that everyone else wrote, think that he is the perp.
Where did I write that I disagree with all forms of public shaming, and that they all need to be prohibited? However, posting up pictures of many men, with one of them clearly staring at the camera, and saying "he jokes about dongles" is wrong when the guy that is at the center of the photo and is staring at the camera is not the guy that joked about dongles. That's defamation. Case closed.
The tweet said "right behind me", which is the right guy according to you.
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5434005 https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/313417655879102464
Edit: I added "according to you" and link to comment since it was pointed out below that this might also be the wrong guy, which would make the comment even worse of course.
http://glpiggy.net/2013/03/20/identity-of-dongle-micro-aggre...
This source, much like the rest of the Internet, initially blamed Alex Reid, the man in the middle of the picture. Then this source decided that the guy to be blamed is the guy in the grey shirt. I made my comment following this source.
Then someone else, somewhere (no clue what the original source of that statement is anymore, but you are right, there are certainly comments to that extent floating around, and your post had that comment as well until it was deleted), stated that the reason why the guy at fault was fired from PlayHaven was because he was wearing his company's t-shirt, and thus was publicly representing the company, which in some way makes sense. The only guy in that shirt that was wearing a PlayHaven t-shirt and not the guy in the middle is sitting way far out, and not "right behind her" by any definition of that phrase.
My point is that someone who just saw that photo, without reading the extensive commentary around it, still thinks it's the man grinning at the camera - "right behind me" or not. Who is the right guy? I really thought it was the guy in the grey shirt, but even that is now under doubt.
Are the statements of this source more or less defamatory than the original source? That is, in the original image+text it was (and remains) ambiguous about who made the sexual jokes. While this source specifically named one person, and then named another.
If defamation is a relevant concept to this discussion, then you should be complaining most strongly about the defamation done by this source, no?
I still think arguments which use the term "public shaming" are uselessly vague. If you mean defamation, then just say defamation.
Defamation has a reasonably well-defined meaning in law and ethics, though the details vary widely depending on the jurisdiction. As this took place in the US, I do not see how there's a valid legal claim for defamation under US/California law.
I suspect though that you're talking about morals and ethics, and not just the law. The neat thing I've learned about the law is that it provides useful insights for how at least judges think about the ethics and morality behind the law, and those views can help understand the issue.
For example, SMITH v. MALDONADO is a California court case which addressed "Can a defamatory innuendo be created by the act of "highlighting" or visibly emphasizing certain selected passages in a concededly truthful and accurate newspaper article? May an action for defamation lie against persons who copy and disseminate such a truthful newspaper article, after having themselves highlighted one portion of the article that mentions other individuals in a context or manner that inferentially associates those individuals with alleged criminal activity? The issue is apparently one of first impression."
I think the concept of "first impression" is quite appropriate to this context, even if the details are different. The court decided that "first impression" could not be used as the basis for defamation, saying:
"Any other result would have a deleterious impact on all forms of written and oral speech. If we were to accept appellants' contention, the unavoidable effect would be to discourage the dissemination of accurate news reports. This result would raise obvious First Amendment concerns. We need not confine our consideration to the republication of newspaper articles, moreover. Writers and public speakers in general would have to take care they did not place the "wrong" emphasis on truthful, accurate statements of fact. The resulting chilling effect on the free flow of ideas and information would be substantial."
"Moreover, if a plaintiff could plead defamation based on an alleged innuendo derived solely from highlighting a true statement of fact, the door would be open to all kinds of subjective considerations of what does or does not constitute undue emphasis. Thus, in any defamation case the court would be forced to consider the particular type of emphasis used, and its effect on the person or persons to whom the material was published. Courts in libel cases would have to consider the distinctive effects of underlining, italicization, typeface, and the size, style or color of print used; courts in slander cases would be compelled to analyze the effects of variations in vocal tone, inflection, timbre, volume and pitch. If highlighting or emphasis alone could be found to create a defamatory innuendo as a matter of law, courts would also have to analyze the subjective intent of the person doing the highlighting. Otherwise, the highlighter could be liable if a person to whom the highlighted material was published misinterpreted it by giving the highlighting a falsely defamatory meaning, even if the highlighter had no such defamatory intent. What was he or she trying to communicate by highlighting or emphasizing and then publishing the material? If the added emphasis simply communicates "importance," how or why was the emphasized material "important"? The substantive and procedural difficulties posed to courts and litigants by such subjective analysis would be daunting. Even without considering the manifest constitutional ramifications of expanding the tort of defamation to include emphasis or highlighting of otherwise truthful material, strong considerations of public policy would preclude such an outcome."
While that case was about someone redistributing text from a...
PyCon has no prohibitions on taking photographs, and neither does the venue. Taking pictures in public without consent is legal, with only a small set of exceptions. PyCon by default inherits those rules, so I don't see how it's illegal. Perhaps have some moral code in mind?
Here is a picture of people at PyCon 2013. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583308663/ . Do you think the photographer got permission from each of the people to take the picture?
Here is a picture of Michael Foord and Guido van Rossum, where Foord's name tag is clearly visible. http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8583315245/ . Here's one of Shane Grigsby http://www.flickr.com/photos/brianly/8584459432/ , with name tag clearly visible. Do you think the respective photographers asked for permission to take the photo first? I doubt it, but it might be possible for those specific cases.
I have taken many photographs at PyCon over the years, without asking for permission. Many photographs were taken of me, including this one http://www.flickr.com/photos/uhop/400449848/ while I was speaking. I never granted Uhop permission to take the photograph. Under what basis do I have for complaining that it was illegal, immoral, or unjust for that photograph to be taken and published to flickr?
I agree with "is really not minor" only if by that you mean "perfectly acceptable." However, I don't think that's what you mean. You imply that it's a serious ethical transgression. I don't understand how, so I request enlightenment.
It's not at all, really. Especially Adria, who called herself an "evangelist" at SendGrid. If your job is to evangelize something in a positive way and instead you piss off a bunch of people (fairly or unfairly), you're not really doing your job.
Both of these people, Mr. Dongle and Adria, will land on their feet -- trust me. This is simply the sort of story that has just enough detail to push people's buttons and just enough lack of detail so we can fill in the blanks with our own fantasies and prejudices about who the people involved are and what actually happened.
She cannot legally be fired because of what happened. Since she was fired, this means that she could take her case to court, and the courts will almost certainly find in her favor.
While I can and have talked about this elsewhere, it's best that you read what a lawyer says about this topic:
http://www.rmlawyers.com/blog/2013/03/sendgrids-unlawful-and...
https://twitter.com/adriarichards/status/314452708549603328
If I have an employee who accuses an innocent co-worker of sexual harassment publicly and goes on to state that I support her accusation, when in fact I don't, can I not fire the employee?
It depends on several factors. A company cannot use a legitimate reason for firing someone as a pretext for an illegal reason to fire someone. The courts will ask questions like: Does the company have a policy that if an employee makes an incorrect statement like this then that person can be fired? Are there examples of other employees who made an incorrect statement but did not get fired? Here's the actual EEOC statement:
> The anti-retaliation provisions make it unlawful to discriminate against any individual because s/he has made a charge, testified, assisted, or participated in any manner in an investigation, proceeding, hearing, or litigation under Title VII ...
> The anti-discrimination statutes do not limit or condition in any way the protection against retaliation for participating in the charge process. While the opposition clause applies only to those who protest practices that they reasonably and in good faith believe are unlawful, the participation clause applies to all individuals who participate in the statutory complaint process. Thus, courts have consistently held that a respondent is liable for retaliating against an individual for filing an EEOC charge regardless of the validity or reasonableness of the charge\26. To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the anti-discrimination statutes.
> Typically, pretext is proved through evidence that the respondent treated the complainant differently from similarly situated employees or that the respondent's explanation for the adverse action is not believable. Pretext can also be shown if the respondent subjected the charging party's work performance to heightened scrutiny after she engaged in protected activity.
"If I have an employee who ..."
The law gives broad anti-retaliatory protections to someone who made a complaint. As I quoted above, the courts protect a claim made in good faith. "To permit an employer to retaliate against a charging party based on its unilateral determination that the charge was unreasonable or otherwise unjustified would chill the rights of all individuals protected by the anti-discrimination statutes."
"Good faith" is given a very broad interpretation. It's not expected that an employee will know the Title VII laws, nor know if a certain practice is actually prohibited under the law. However, if it was not made in good faith (the wording is something like "no reasonable person would agree"), then that complaint does not have Title VII protections.
Also, the employee may not make unreasonable forms of complaint. The EEOC writes: "[C]ourts have found that the following activities were not reasonable and thus not protected: searching and photocopying confidential documents relating to alleged ADEA discrimination and showing them to co-workers\17; making an overwhelming number of complaints based on unsupported allegations and bypassing the chain of command in bringing the complaints\18; and badgering a subordinate employee to give a witness statement in support of an EEOC charge and attempting to coerce her to change her statement.\19 Similarly, unlawful activities, such as acts or threats of violence to life or property, are not protected. ... If an employee's protests against allegedly discriminatory employment practices interfere with job performance to the extent that they render him or her ineffective in the job, the retaliation provisions do not immunize the worker from appropriate discipline or discharge."
That tweet can be parsed in many ways. Does "support me" mean that the company agrees that hearing unwanted dirty jokes while at the workplace is a valid reason to complain? Does "support me" mean that the company supports her legitimate use of Title VII protections? Does "support me" mean that her supervisor told her she was supported by the company, but upper-level management ...
Sexual jokes are not a form of sexual harassment. Not stopping unwanted sexual jokes, after someone has complained, is a sign of sexual harassment. The key thing is that someone must complain. To quote the EEOC:
"In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome. By actively participating in the conduct, the charging party had created the impression among her co-workers that she welcomed the sort of sexually oriented banter that she later asserted was objectionable. Simply ceasing to participate was insufficient to show the continuing activity was no longer welcome to her."
You know what is really awful, the oppression of men in nursing! Less than 7% (versus 20%+ of women in tech) in an amazing growth industry with great salaries and equivalent educational demands and negative unemployment.
Oh wait, it isn't a horrible conspiracy to keep men out of nursing... it isn't some Orwellian scheme, it isn't evil feminists who like their girls club, it is disinterest and lack of role-models.
https://chrome.google.com/webstore/detail/cache/bnmfcdcicaga...
She posted a picture of many men. One of them is smiling at the camera. It just so happens that his smile happens to have that naughty "heh heh heh, did you hear that sick joke I just made?" look. Almost everyone on the Internet, me included, thought that the guy smiling was the perp. Turns out that it wasn't actually him at all, and that the perp is actually the guy on the left side of the picture.
Regardless of what we may think of public shaming, or of what her role used to be at Sendgrid - Adria should've foreseen that everyone would think the smiling guy would be the suspect.
She publicly shamed the wrong guy!
She didn't deserve the rape and death threats, but to leave what she did without any consequences to her would be inappropriate, to say the least.
I think it was the guy on the right, after initially making the same mistake as you about the grinning individual in the middle. From start to finish finish, the whole episode is just one poor decision on top of another, by everyone involved.
http://glpiggy.net/2013/03/20/identity-of-dongle-micro-aggre...
However, Amanda Blum paints a pattern of behavior that just isn't there when you really read into those stories. THAT is what the "teardown" is about. It's not saying that Adria did nothing wrong.
"In the blog post, Adria even admitted that she made a mistake in mentioning it on her podcast prior to talking with the organizers, and apologized for doing so."
In that case, she did something wrong and apologized for it, and there wasn't a public shit-storm. In this case, before she had an opportunity to really apologize, she got attacked by the Internet. So, AFAICT, there are two publically known instances of her doing something wrong, and doing something wrong in the exact same way: "going to the public before confronting someone privately". How many times do you need before it's a pattern?
Edit: clarification
Suppose the talk referenced something about how to beat your wife. Do you think it would have been so terrible to handle it that way?
Sure, maybe it's better to talk to the organizers together. But come on, surely you can understand why one might handle it that way -- especially since the talks were still being voted on it.
If this was wrong, it was only a very mild transgression. It does not form a pattern.
We'll have to agree to disagree on the mildness of the transgression and pattern-forming.
Being offended DOES NOT GIVE YOU RIGHTS, it is just you being offended, get over it.
Voting is an indication that some subgroup of people have a specific view, either positive or negative, towards a talk. The selection committee can use that information to guide their selection. They may even go back to the person and point out that while the talk content is very appropriate, it's structured in such a way that incidental aspects (eg, a joke about "Hans Reiser killing women attendees" at a talk at linux.conf.au) will detract from the talk and blunt the actual content.
Or they may decide that the content is important enough to override the vote.
You are right, by the way. In the US context, being offended goes not give anyone rights. What gives people rights is the law. The law prohibits discrimination in the workplace based on sex, the laws says that sexual harassment is a form of discrimination based on sex, the law says that frequent and unwanted dirty jokes at the workplace can be a form of sexual harassment, and the law says that if someone doesn't like dirty jokes in the workplace then the first step is to file a complaint. And the law gives wide latitude to what the complaint can be, including making a complaint in public, and says that making a complaint gives extra protections against retaliation.
So no, being offended does not give people rights. Civil rights laws give people rights.
As to your examples, the law does not say that references to evolution, gay rights, etc. are in violation of the laws against discrimination in the workplace. However, if the only Young Earth Creationist in the company was always singled out as the person to write the "earth geology" transcripts, and there was no special business reason why that Y.E.C. should be singled out, then that Y.E.C may file a complaint for discrimination based on religious beliefs.
Because singling out someone in the workplace based on their religious belief is against the law.
"I personally wouldn’t really much care myself, but Adria’s right. This is a direct porn reference and doesn’t belong at a technical conference. Porn is deeply offensive to many groups of people on religious as well as gender grounds (and just I-think-it’s-morally-wrong-and-vile grounds)"
As someone who cares deeply about getting women into traditionally male-dominated areas (starting from HS when I did robotics demos for elementary schoolers to now as the father of a daughter) I think it's unmitigated disaster for feminists to hitch their wagon to the broader "I'm easily offended by everything" movement. There is a crucial distinction between things that are offensive because they are sexist and things that are offensive because they are in bad taste--one perpetuates unfavorable gender-biased power dynamics and the other does not. Waging war on the whole panoply of things that might offend someone somewhere is dilutive and counter-productive.
Movements that are effective at building coalitions are ruthlessly focused on the things that tie members of the coalition together. By taking on battles that are outside the core focus of how women are treated in tech, you lose the support of many people, especially women, who should be part of that coalition.
PS. This rant is veering off onto "man telling women what to do" and for that I apologize. But my thoughts on the matter seem to be pretty consistent with, and are mostly informed by, the thinking of my wife and female friends, all professional women trying to make it in traditionally male-dominated fields.
Having said that, "money shot" really is a clear reference to porn, and I was surprised to see it used in the way that it was. It's not inappropriate for every venue, but it seems pretty clear cut to say it's inappropriate for the title of a presentation at a tech conference.
I thought that the porn context was quite inappropriate myself and broadly supported Richards at the time, although I also think she should have taken her concerns directly to the organizers first. I'm not really offended by porn, but I'd rather not watch it myself, and it's very predictable that it will be offensive to quite a few other people, who'll feel excluded from that presentation even if they're interested in the technical topic (making effective screencasts). In the organizers' position I'd have asked the presenter to consider something more general, such as 'what you can learn from movie directors'.
The relation to porn is of course obvious due to the presentation's subtitle, referring to something as a 'money shot' should probably not be considered pornographic in intent, in my opinion.
[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Money_shot
"I'm co-opting the term money shot, because I think it's very valuable... we all know what it is, if you don't know you can google it because I'm not going to talk about it, but if you co-opt the concept what you come away with is the content people actually care about and that is what people pay for in porn..."
If you can't talk about the title it's probably not a very good one.
Why don't women go into tech? Because they'll be in a distinct minority, and if you're ambitious and have some sense you'll avoid putting yourself in that situation. Better to go into a field like medicine where you're not the odd one out if you're a woman, where it's not unusual or atypical to find women in positions of power, etc. That's the nuts and bolts of it.
Everything else is bike shedding. It's nothing more than "what do people talk like in this new version of the industry where women still have no power?"
So why is it the focus? Because the male-dominated industry is willing to entertain forcing everyone to by hypersensitive about what they say. "Sensitivity" and "inclusiveness" is cheap. It is not willing to take affirmative steps to hire more women, put women in positions of power, etc. That's not cheap and upsets the entrenched power dynamic.
Nursing is a bit of an inverse of tech, 93% women. Nursing has great and growing salaries, similar educational requirements and massive upward mobility... yet men still make up less than 7% of the industry.
"things that tie members of the coalition together."
Does decorum or decency or sensibility count?
If the talk referenced "My Two Dads" -- they would be welcome to be offended, and leave.
I am not homosexual and I don't find gays offensive. Nonetheless, I would be incredibly disturbed to be hearing about "homosexual haskell" or "faggot functions". It's not appropriate in a tech conference, regardless of your sexual orientation or opinion about sexual orientation.
The problem we're having is that men in tech love their strip clubs so much that they'd rather just get rid of the woman patrons altogether.
"Our goal is to create an inclusive, respectful conference environment that invites participation from people of all races, ethnicities, genders, ages, abilities, religions, and sexual orientations. " https://us.pycon.org/2013/about/diversity/
If PyCon were a workplace that was large enough to be under Title VII, then a truthful complaint about sexual harassment is given extra protection. For example, a company cannot retaliate due to a complaint, including by using an otherwise valid justification as pretext for a . The complaint may be made in public, and the complainant may picket, talk with important customers, newspaper reporters, etc.. The person who makes the complaint does not need to be the person affected by the sexual harassment or other forms of discrimination under Title VII, and for sexual harassment there does not even need to be a component of sexual desire. This is confirmed by the courts, up even to multiple Supreme Court cases.
This has nothing to do with creating 'a "kinder, gentler" atmosphere appropriate for delicate-minded women-folk.' It has to do with exercising civil right protections that people already have at most companies. These same civil rights laws apply to men. You might read about Oncale v. Sundowner Offshore Services, Inc. I'll quote from the Supreme Court's decision:
> In late October 1991, Oncale was working for respondent Sundowner Offshore Services on a Chevron U.S. A., Inc., oil platform in the Gulf of Mexico. ... On several occasions, Oncale was forcibly subjected to sex-related, humiliating actions against him by Lyons, Pippen and Johnson in the presence of the rest of the crew. Pippen and Lyons also physically assulted Oncale in a sexual manner, and Lyons threatened him with rape.
> Oncale’s complaints to supervisory personnel produced no remedial action; in fact, the company’s Safety Compliance Clerk, Valent Hohen, told Oncale that Lyons and Pippen “picked [on] him all the time too,” and called him a name suggesting homosexuality. Id., at 77. Oncale eventually quit–asking that his pink slip reflect that he “voluntarily left due to sexual harassment and verbal abuse.” Id., at 79. When asked at his deposition why he left Sundowner, Oncale stated “I felt that if I didn’t leave my job, that I would be raped or forced to have sex.” Id., at 71.
The law that keeps you from being in a workplace where others can threaten you with rape is the same law that lets others, women and men, speak out about possible sexual harassment in the workplace. Including, yes, even complaining about sexual jokes.
You think it's to do with "offense", but the law and the courts are clear that "Title VII . . . does not set forth a general civility code for the American workplace." Instead, "a plaintiff must show that a rational jury could find that the workplace [was] permeated with discriminatory intimidation, ridicule, and insult, that is sufficiently severe or pervasive to alter the conditions of the victim's employment and create an abusive working environment." The Supreme Court has instructed that courts judging hostility should "filter out complaints attacking the ordinary tribulations of the workplace, such as the sporadic use of age-related jokes, and occasional teasing". The easiest way for a company to comply is to set a very low threshold for reporting a possible incident, and let the EEOC compliance person investigate and develop an appropriate remedy, if needed.
PyCon isn't a Title VII workplace, and there are difficulties in mapping EEOC guidelines to a conference environment, but I believe the conference should still be guided by the same moral basis as the civil rights laws. Unless you think it's okay for your workplace to allow your co-workers to subject you to "sex-related, humiliating actions", then you should defend those same moral principles and stop thinking that the debate includes a request for a right to not be offended.
Even using your "laser-like" focus metaphor, you shouldn't have all of your lasers pointed in the same direction. Problems come from all directions, and different people should and do focus on the problems that most interest and/or affect them.
The purpose of the feminist movement is not to solve all the problems of all the people. It's to advance the cause of women in the workplace. To the extent that going off on tangents detracts from that, it's a disservice to the core constituency.
The court held that the proliferation of pornography and demeaning comments, if sufficiently continuous and pervasive "may be found to create an atmosphere in which women are viewed as men's sexual playthings rather than as their equal coworkers." Barbetta, 669 F. Supp. At 573. The Commission agrees that, depending on the totality of circumstances, such an atmosphere may violate Title VII. See also Waltman v. International Paper Co., 875 F.2d 468, 50 EPD ¶ 39,106 (5th Cir. 1989), in which the 5th Circuit endorsed the Commission's position in its amicus brief that evidence of ongoing sexual graffiti in the workplace, not all of which was directed at the plaintiff, was relevant to her claim of harassment. Bennett v. Coroon & Black Corp., 845 F.2d 104, 46 EPD ¶ 37,955 (5th Cir. 1988) (the posting of obscene cartoons in an office men's room bearing the plaintiff's name and depicting her engaged in crude and deviant sexual activities could create a hostile work environment).
I use this to show that the bar needed to show a hostile environment is a lot lower than you likely think it is.
It's even low enough to include sexual jokes. While sexual jokes in the workplace are not prohibited under Title VII:
"In Commission Decision No. 84-1, CCH Employment Practices Guide ¶ 6839, the Commission found that active participation in sexual conduct at the workplace, e.g., by "using dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes," may indicate that the sexual advances complained of were not unwelcome. Thus, the Commission found that no harassment occurred with respect to an employee who had joined in the telling of bawdy jokes and the use of vulgar language during her first two months on the job, and failed to provide subsequent notice that the conduct was no longer welcome."
I interpret this to mean that someone who finds that "dirty remarks and telling dirty jokes" are not (or no longer) welcome can provide notice under Title VII. (And Title VII is quite broad about what constitutes 'provide notice.') If those jokes continue, then it may be a sign of sexual harassment.
But the very first step is to provide notice. Which is what happened here.
How do you conclude, based on the body of court cases and EEOC decisions on this topic, that complaining about dick jokes "is a slap in the face to all the men and women who actually have to endure sexual harassment" when the EEOC says that someone who doesn't like dick jokes should complain about it, and that continued exposure to unwanted dirty jokes can be an indication of sexual harassment?
Also your conclusion re: dirty jokes displays a basic logical reasoning error. What the case says is that participating can nullify the inference that the jokes were unwelcome. It does not say a dirty joke should be responded to by filing notice.
If someone has a reasonable belief that a workplace is sexist (and there's a broad definition of what "reasonable" means), then that person can file a report (and there's a broad definition of what "report" means), and the company may not retaliate (and there's a broad definition of what "retaliate" means).
That doesn't mean that the report must be true in order to make a report, or that dirty jokes necessarily indicate a hostile workplace. Nor does it mean that if a report isn't true then the company may retaliate.
Yes, "participating can nullify the inference that the jokes were unwelcome". That is correct and you, I, and the courts are all in agreement. But you are ignoring the second part, which is that stopping participation isn't enough to indicate that the jokes are unwelcome. Someone must first complain in order to indicate that there is a change in status.
So it most certainly does say that if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person once participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.
Using 'basic logical reasoning', if someone has a reasonable belief that dirty jokes are a form of sexual discrimination, then that person may file a report - even if that person has never participated participated in those dirty jokes - and Title VII protections apply.
The reason you may have difficulties is you are looking at the results of an incident where the courts have decided that a "proliferation" of pornography is an example of sexual harassment which is not allowed under Title VII. However, PyCon does not want to be a place where sexual harassment is allowed.
The Title VII reporting mechanism which end up in court are the same as the Title VII reporting mechanisms used to point out possible cases of sexual harassment in a company, so that a company might correct the situation and avoid going to court.
That's why there does not need to be a "proliferation" of sexual discrimination before people can complain about their civil rights being violated.
Comic link: http://jenmylo.files.wordpress.com/2011/08/screen-shot-2011-...
I don't find either of these presenters stupid. They're just interested in different things, and focused on different audiences. My takeaway was that this conference had something for everyone, as opposed to being of interest only to all-rounders who are already power users.
If your blogging skill is writing or photography or suchlike, you shouldn't need to be expert in SEO to get something out of a Wordpress conference, should you? Likewise, if crafting plugins is your thing, it shouldn't mater that your visual aesthetic starts and ends at a shell prompt. If I were ever to attend a Wordpress conference it would definitely be for the blogger track, and I wouldn't feel stupid for my complete lack of interest in the underlying framework.
I rather expect this is one of the factors that leads women not to speak up when they feel uncomfortable. That's bad, right?
People weren't lashing out at her because she raised an issue about perceived sexist behaviour, they lashed out at her because she was seen as being a bully.
As a gay man, if I had a militant online following that I sic'ed on some random person because I heard them make a joke about Lisp at a conference.. I would hope that people would stand up to me about it.
What I don't understand at all is Adria's questioning of the WordPress t-shirt.
T-shirt: "Hey, as a developer, you don't have to care about content to love WordPress! And if you're a content creator, you don't have to care about software development to love WordPress."
How is this misogynist, and how would this stop being misogynist if the comic had men instead of women?
And, yes, obviously, Adria has the right to not attend. She ALSO has the right to say that you shouldn't have a talk that celebrates something that many people find utterly vile is not appropriate. I don't think Adria was ever alleging that what they were doing was illegal.
We would all hopefully object to someone having a talk called "Taking Naked Kiddie Pics" with a line about "how thinking like a pedophile can capture people's imagination". I would hope that people wouldn't think it was inappropriate to speak up -- even petition -- against such a talk, right?
That's my point.
[NOTE: I am NOT saying that porn is as bad as kiddie porn. Of course it's not. The analogy I'm drawing is simply that we DO think it's okay to speak up about things that we think are vile or morally wrong. Many people (religious conservatives, etc) see porn that way.]
I understand why feminists would hate the porn industry—exploitation of women at a young age, pressure on people to conform to unrealistic expectations, etc. But the feminist argument against porn as a thing, the porn industry notwithstanding, is based on some assumptions—that sexuality is always a tool of exploitation, that male sexuality is abusive, and that sexual attraction without affective relationships is inherently exploitive.
Feminists are right to call out the use of sexuality as a tool for oppression, but to see all sexuality as oppression is absurd.
"Judging a book by its cover is the new tolerance. We throw people into the stocks based on feelings while ignoring intent and assuming victimhood. This is why I fundamentally disagree with equating offense with harassment: it provides unlimited ammo and shuts down discussion rather than giving people the benefit of doubt. It elevates the exception to the norm, by presuming the worst."
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5433390
Some people would find that absolutely inappropriate, pushing the homosexual agenda in a conference, violating their religious sensibilities. Do you think those Christians should speak up, start a petition, try to get the talk banned... or maybe just not go to it?
Actually, now that I think about it, what if the developer who joked about dongles was gay? We know the developer is heterosexual, but Adria couldn't know then. Even if he used gendered language—what if he was closeted and couldn't talk about sex with men publicly? Why did she assume talking about penises meant he was a misogynist?
The price of living in a free society is that you develop a hardened exterior. You don't get to hold a monopoly on being offended. Taking these little offenses and making them 'taboo' or even worse illegal belongs in the realm of dictatorships and theocracies.
If putting 2 words together to form "Money Shot" is so powerful that it hurts your soul and torments your mind then you really may have a problem. Learn some self discipline and control and stop trying to bend the world to your will.
The talk was not only called "Getting the Money Shot" but suggested in the abstract "how thinking like a porn director will help you achieve the "'money shot.'"
Many people (I am not one of them, to be clear) find porn very morally wrong. This is not just women, but many men too (particularly religious people).
It's not appropriate for a talk, and it is okay to speak up about it.
No one is talking about making it illegal.
Religious people are also deeply offended by homosexuality, abortion and evolution theory. Should we cater to those "offenses" as well?
"It's now very common to hear people say 'I'm rather offended by that.' As if that gives them certain rights; it's actually nothing more...it's simply a whine. 'I find that offensive,' it has no meaning, it has no purpose, it has no reason to be respected as a phrase. 'I'm offended by that,' well so fucking what?" -- Stephen Fry
Here, I'll play your "where does it end" game. What if someone was giving a talk about how to distribute kiddie porn. No speaking up if you find this offensive! Because, I mean, where does it end?
You always have a right to be offended, but I have a right to not give a crap. Vote with your wallet (don't go to conference), vote with your feet (don't go to that talk), but don't try to get material banned from everyone because it offends YOU, let me decide for myself... I have the same options you do, to not go to the conference, to not go to the talk.
I will even lean into your example. Obviously, having or distributing child porn is a felony, so it is assumed the talk author wouldn't really bring any (if (s)he did, just call police, they go to jail)... so maybe his talk would be about how to hide your identity online... maybe how to hide it from oppressive governments? Maybe how to use the TOR network? Maybe how to safely help women get online and protest in countries where they aren't allowed to go outside alone? Maybe the title was intended to drum up some media attention and get a packed hall for a talk about people being stalked online, and how to be invisible.