I have never claimed that my Facebook profile was a "safe space"

In the libertarian sphere, online debates can easily get out-of-hand. The hostile conservitarians, MRAs, racists, and others step out from the deep, grimy recesses of libertarianism to make their presence known when you really just don't want them to. However, perhaps of a misguided notion that libertarian individuals and organizations should automatically allow free speech on their property, including through online accounts, homophobic comments and ugly language of a similar nature are not too hard to find in threads and are, for the most part, tolerated.

On the Students For Liberty Blog, Cory Massimino wrote on why libertarians should be open to the idea of "safe spaces." As Cory explains, a safe space is an area "designed for marginalized people to feel free from the kinds of intolerant social norms, bigoted harassment, and general persecution that dominate mainstream culture." Personally, I feel that this is yet another topic that has been needed to be discussed within the libertarian movement. While I have no problems with the idea of a safe space, there is an aspect of those who advocate for such a thing that I do have a problem with.

More and more often, I have friends chiding me for not creating a safe space on my Facebook profile. I almost don't blame them. Because my profile is public, bigoted friends of friends (or even my friends) often comment on my posts with homophobic, misogynist, transphobic, racist, etc. content. Does it bother me that these people are saying these things? Of course. Am I offended? Very much so. Do I worry that my marginalized friends will become upset by reading those kinds of things? Yes. So why haven't I taken initiative to set up a safe space?

This is something I have definitely thought of. Not only could every sane person reading the thread be less exposed to the hate that is sometimes uttered by these horrid individuals, but I, and a few others, would have fewer headaches from having to look at the terrible comments and debating with these people. However, these feelings of relief are only short-term. Where else do these bigoted individuals go? They find equally hateful communities on Reddit and even Facebook where there is no one to challenge their views. Exposing themselves to these echo chambers, these people have no chance to grow, and if a naive wanderer was to stumble upon them, that wanderer may start to believe what these groups have to say.

I very much believe in the idea of free speech - not only should people be allowed to say what they want, but if there is "bad" speech, combat it with even more speech. (This is similar to what anti-MRA Facebook page MUH Men's Rights Activism does, although they do have standards on the kind of language used on the page.) By talking about and attempting to refute the "bad" speech, you may be giving more awareness to the "bad" speech itself, but trying to hide the fact that this "bad" speech exists only gives people an illusion that all is good and dandy when it isn't necessarily so. You may try to pretend all you want to, but just because you create a safe space, and want everyone around you to create one too, will not make racism, homophobia, transphobia, and misogyny go away.

MUH Men's Rights Activism taking an anti-feminist meme to engage followers in a discussion about the misogyny of AVFM.

You could rightly argue that engaging these people in debates won't make racism, etc. go away either, or at least not to extent where it's worth tolerating bigotry on your Facebook profile. I understand the risks I take when I resist making my profile a safe space. You can try to debate with me all you want about this, but I doubt I will change my mind, and remember, I never claimed my page was such a thing. Call me a cockeyed optimist, but I truly believe that with rationality and logic and a shitload of patience, we can help a good number of people see the light. Most of the times when a bigot makes his/her presence known on my profile, there is always at least one person to stand up to him/her, making it known that their views are not acceptable, and by debating sensibly, that these non-bigoted views are worthier in the passive observer's eyes.

The main reason why I think I ought to make my profile a safe space is not necessarily what is mentioned above, but that because I am human, I am inconsistent. While I rarely ever block people or unfriend them, I am not completely able to brush some of these people aside, as Avens O'Brien does so well, and end up doing blocking or unfriending a few. The problem with this is that because of this inconsistency, it may seem I care more about some issues than others. I do not have a clear line in the sand for when I should unfriend or block someone. Sometimes I probably do so because I was in a bad mood and that person was not only saying hateful things, but doing so to an extent that it annoyed me more than usual.

If I blocked someone for posting racist comments, but not for someone who used homophobic slurs, does that mean I am tolerant of homophobia? I wouldn't like to think so. This day in age, it is really mainstream in the United States to be outright racist, versus there is a larger part of the population that is homophobic, and therefore needs work on. There have been a few people who were bigoted but I kept on my profile for a while because I knew I had to learn more about their individual circumstances. After probably the fifth incident of this one man making hateful comments, I had to unfriend him. I try to judge from situation to situation, even telling people that certain comments are not welcome. I generally ask people to refrain from specific kinds of hate speech, but of course, people who are inclined to do so don't listen. They are the ones who need help.

I feel that making comments against a group is "better" than attacking individuals. I will unfriend and/or block with less hesitation when a person is directly harassing me or others on my Facebook. Why I say that making comments against a group is "better" is because what happens is that the person thinks of these people as the "other" and has yet to humanize them. When they are able to see the hardships a transgender individual has to go through, they have a chance to empathize and gain perspective. Sometimes some of these people may not be aware that using words like "retarded" are hurtful. It's worth a shot to try to educate instead of relying on the ban hammer. Not only that, but realizing that you can't teach an entire subject in one lesson.

If people cannot deal with the bigotry that make itself known in the threads of my page, they have the options to unfollow or unfriend me, block the troublemakers, or just not look. This is not the Holy Grail of all options, but it is something. If you know you will be offended by what people are saying in a thread, why click on the option to see more comments? For those of you who identify within a marginalized identity or more, I know that this is not really the most fair thing of me to say and that you probably have to deal with bigots more than you would like to, but know that my profile is never guaranteed to be safe, and I apologize for that.

The funny thing is that most of the people who chastise me for not having a safe space don't even see themselves as these marginalized identities. It doesn't mean that they are wrong for pointing out lack of safe spaces, but they need to keep in mind who they are talking to. I identify as being several marginalized categories, but if you are a male, why are you mad at me when there is a man making sexist comments? I am glad you care about women's issues, however, despite how empathetic you may be, you are unlikely to know how it feels going through some of the things I and other women have had to go through. Sometimes it seems like people are trying to tell me and other marginalized groups how to think, and they have no right to do so. It could be that some of these groups or individuals have a hard time to speak up for themselves and that is understandable, but don't act like you speak for them, unless you've received permission to do so.

Maybe I'm part of the problem. I am one of the many people who won't provide a safe space. However, I believe if education about this topic is brought up to more people, many more will be glad to offer their physical property and social media pages as safe places. For the sake of professionalism and sensitivity to marginalized identities, prominent libertarian organizations should consider making their websites and social media accounts safe spaces. A move like this could make libertarianism appeal to a larger audience. Libertarians, think about how beneficial safe spaces can be. If you are a libertarian and believe in safe spaces, realize that individuals and organizations have the right to decide whether or not they should be able to provide one.

"She was asking for it"

"She was asking for it" is a phrase that is commonly associated with rape. For example, if a woman wore a bikini swimsuit with a translucent dress over it, she would be "asking for it" if someone raped her while she was wearing it. However, it is fallacious to say that the way a person dresses actually makes a person want to sexually assault him/her.

Case in point

Not to mention that excusing this kind of behavior because "he couldn't help himself" is perpetuating the false and outdated notion that men are, by nature, more sexual beings and literally cannot control their actions. (I say men because female rape cases are more prevalent.)

It is 2014, and earlier this year, a British judge called a man sentenced to five years in prison not the "classic rapist" - "She was a pretty girl you fancied. You simply could not resist. You had sex with her."

No matter how "undressed" a person is or whether or not he/she is attractive, it does not mean he/she deserve sexual assault, or that the perpetrator should be forgiven for "giving in."

The good news is that more and more people are getting to understand that "she was asking for it" is not a valid excuse...only when it comes to physical sexual assault it seems though. I had to write on my blog in early September about the absurdity of blaming celebrities for when their nude pictures leak.

Today, Julie Borowski posted this article and asked for thoughts about this case where a man took photos up the skirts of women in public, and how the judge ruled these pictures legal because they were not a violation of privacy.

Here are some screencaps of comments on this thread. I need to point out that these were some of the top comments.

Here is what I am noticing: victim blaming for women being "stupid" enough to wear short skirts and how this is protected by free speech.

I just finished up a "debate" on Facebook with someone about how this is free speech. (It only ended because I blocked him...he is the second person I have blocked in my eight years on that site, which is saying something.)

Let me clear something up: a lot of women do not necessarily know if they are accidentally revealing more of their bodies than they mean to. Personally, I have had quite a few people come up to me in the past telling me they could see my panties, etc. As I mentioned earlier, no matter how "undressed" a person is, that does not mean people have the right to take advantage of that person.

My friend, Gina Mairena, sums it up well:

"Even though we are indeed entitled to freedom of speech and press, and this is assuming that in a public place, we can take pictures of what or whom we like, I feel like certain pictures ARE a blatant violation of privacy and contradict decency laws. I don't think any dick-bearing human would want a picture of their crotch taken secretly by a stranger. Similarly, I would not want my undies on someone's camera without my knowing and approval.

Aside from the discomfort factor though, by societal standards, there are certain areas that we must maintain covered while in public, usually places containing sexual organs. Regardless of if we agree with this or not, it is prohibited in most places to be naked or to some degree, shirtless/bottomless, depending on where you're at. If it's prohibited for a woman to talk around in just a bra and panties, or for men to walk around in boxers, then it should be prohibited for strangers to take pictures of said body locations too. I feel like it only makes sense. The only time I could see these kinds of pictures being legally acceptable (though still extremely rude if done without permission) is at places like beach areas, where many people do walk around in more revealing/less clothes. At that point, it would be difficult to make such pictures illegal since many people are more exposed and they might be in the background of a lot of pics and such.

At least that's my take on the issue. I think the judge should have correlated decency laws with violation of privacy because these women were most likely NOT trying to be indecent when their pictures were snapped. It was most likely unknowing or accidental exposure, and the only 100% sure fire way to avoid upskirt shots is to never wear skirts. The message this judge is sending is that we basically have to not wear skirts now so that our privacy isn't violated, and that's kind of ridiculous."

The problem I have with people placing what this man did under free speech and expression is not recognizing how terribly invasive it is. As Gina points out, context of where someone is should be considered when questioning legality, if you are to look at this from a First Amendment perspective. She mentioned that it could be legal to take pictures of people in their swimsuits at the beach, while also pointing out that it would be rude to do so.

It surprises me that people can be so quick to jump to "First Amendment protection" when to me, at least, these photographs were harmful to the victims. I could ask the cliche, "How would you feel if you were the victim?" The First Amendment is not an "all goes" piece of legislation - you are not legally protected if your speech or expression causes physical or emotional harm to a nonconsenting person, the latter being more difficult to prove in court.

Whether it be physical sexual assault, stealing private photos from people, or taking pictures of nonconsenting people's private parts, we should not resort to victim blaming for the atrocities committed by the violator.

I considered blocking out the names of the people in the screenshots, but if they are such big proponents of the First Amendment and advocate for pictures of women's crotches to be taken without legal consequence, then surely they wouldn't mind their names appearing on this public website.

Free speech hypocrisy?

As we all know, the First Amendment in the US Bill of Rights guarantees us five freedoms:

1 Freedom of religion
2 Freedom of the press
3 Right to assemble
4 Right to petition

aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand...

5 Freedom of speech

The First Amendment does not protect us from certain kinds of speech, including: libel, obscenity, threats, anything to incite violence or breach of the peace, etc.

This amendment is not to protect speech that is already accepted by society, but to allow offensive and otherwise unwanted things to be said.

However, this does not apply to private organizations. For example, Facebook is legally allowed to censor whatever you may want to post, whether it be bad language or something racist.

Even though these organizations have a right to do this...should they? This is something I have been thinking about lately, especially for libertarians (and other fierce protectors of the First Amendment).

Let's say I have rented out a small (10 x 10 foot) room in a building and had an array of shelves and tables for people to put newspapers, magazines, and other physical forms of media on. This is my "Alternative News" room - where people can learn more about current events other than from mainstream media outlets. Lately, I have noticed that Infowars newsletters have been showing up (and yes, I have heard that those actually exist), so I end up just throwing them out.



...Recycling them to be more precise (and environmentally-friendly).

Would doing this affect the integrity of my business (or whatever I have going on here) and make me a hypocrite?

Would Libertarian Facebook pages be hypocritical for promoting freedom, but censoring offensive speech?

This is a discussion post, so please participate.

EDIT: It seems that some people are misunderstanding what I am asking. As someone said on Facebook, I am not asking a legal question, but a moral one. I know that the First Amendment does not protect people from certain kinds of speech and that it does not protect employers, participants, etc. under a private organization from what they might want to do or say. What I am asking is if it is "right" for free speech advocates to censor what would otherwise be protected under the First Amendment if it was a public institution rather than a Facebook page or a private business.

All in all, it comes down to this: Is "it's a private organization - it can censor speech however which way it likes" - a legitimate excuse?"