More justice.

The social network's 'jokes in the pub' analogy, defending its decision not to take down pro-rape pages, is offensive
It doesn't matter how hard I study Facebook's terms and conditions, I still can't find the bit where it says: "Like Humpty Dumpty, Facebook is at complete liberty to interpret the words used in this document in any way it sees fit." And yet that's obviously what Facebook executives have been doing: making words mean what they want them to mean, or else they'd have removed the pages that promote rape and other forms of violence against women months ago.

The specific clause in Facebook's statement of rights and responsibilities that's supposed to protect groups against violence and hate speech instructs the user: "You will not post content that: is hateful, threatening, or pornographic; incites violence; or contains nudity or graphic or gratuitous violence." However, Facebook has now defended the numerous pages that clearly violate these terms by claiming: "Groups that express an opinion on a state, institution, or set of beliefs – even if that opinion is outrageous or offensive to some – do not by themselves violate our policies." Which is strange, because if a page entitled "Roses are red, violets are blue, I've got a knife, get in the van" isn't hateful, threatening or gratuitously violent, I don't for the life of me know what is.

It was back in August that feminists first began to notice the proliferation of pro-rape pages on the popular social networking site. Two months later over 176,000 people have signed a US-based petition calling on Facebook to take them down, and nearly 4,000 people have signed a UK-based petition calling for the same. The Facebook pages, such as the one cited above and others that include "You know she's playing hard to get when your [sic] chasing her down an alleyway" still remain.

Facebook's initial response to the public outcry was to suggest that promoting violence against women was equivalent to telling a rude joke down the pub: "It is very important to point out that what one person finds offensive another can find entertaining" went the bizarre rape apologia. "Just as telling a rude joke won't get you thrown out of your local pub, it won't get you thrown off Facebook."

And in some ways they're right: telling a rude joke probably wouldn't get you thrown out of your local pub. I'd suggest, however, that propping up your local bar while inciting others to rape your mate's girlfriend "to see if she can put up a fight" would not only get you thrown out, it would in all likelihood get you arrested as well. Still, at least you could log on once you got home and post your offensive comments on Facebook instead, safe in the knowledge that they wouldn't do anything about it.

What Facebook and others who defend this pernicious hate speech don't seem to get is that rapists don't rape because they're somehow evil or perverted or in any way particularly different from than the average man in the street: rapists rape because they can. Rapists rape because they know the odds are stacked in their favour, because they know the chances are they'll get away with it.

And part of the reason rapists get away with it, time after time after time, is because we live in a society that all but condones rape. Because we live in a society where it's not taken seriously, and where posting heinous comments online that promote sexual violence are not treated as hate speech or as content that threatens women's safety, but are instead treated as a joke and given a completely free pass.

By refusing to take these pages down, and by resorting to such a ridiculous and quite frankly offensive "rude joke" analogy to justify their decision, Facebook executives have made absolutely clear where they stand on the issue of gender hate crime. It's fine to post hateful or threatening content on their site, just as it's fine to post content that incites violence. Well, as long as it's primarily aimed at women, that is.
FacebookInternetRapeGenderSocial networkingFeminismWomenCath Elliottguardian.co.uk © 2011 Guardian News and Media Limited or its affiliated companies. All rights reserved. | Use of this content is subject to our Terms & Conditions | More Feeds

When Auckland resident Justin Lee received this speeding ticket back in 2004, he noticed a typo: according to said notice, the infringement in question had taken place 30 years beforehand, in 1974. To elaborate any further would ruin the story, so I'll just let you read the highly enjoyable letter written by Lee in response.Below that can be found a brief reply from the New Zealand Police.Transcipt follows. Images courtesy of Mike Riversdale. TranscriptJustin Lee[Redacted]Auckland27th January 2004New Zealand PoliceInfringement BureauPO Box 9147WellingtonGood morning,INFRINGMENT NOTICE NS3735700Yesterday, I was presented with the above infringement notice (copy attached for your records) while returning home from the Parachute music festival at Mystery Creek near Hamilton over the long Auckland Anniversary weekend. I had a most excellent weekend, but that is not why I'm writing to you at this time. Unfortunately, there are a couple of irregularities with the infringment notice that are causing me some consternation and hopefully you can clear them up or, preferably, forget about the whole thing entirely.Firstly, the 'date of offence' is listed as the 23rd of June 1974 with the time being at or around half past six in the evening. This is of grave concern to me because I was not issued a drivers license until sometime in 1990 and I have no desire to be charged with driving while not legally licensed. I do not have a clear recollection of very much at all before I was three and a half years old, so I rang Mum to see if she remembered what I was doing that day. She said that - coincidentally - I was born that day!!Mum mentioned that I was born at around five o'clock in the evening on that day in Porirua, which is not far from Wellington. She also said Porirua was a bustling suburb of young, low-income people who were trying to get ahead. Back in the 70's, people were coming to terms with oil shocks, high-inflation and wage freezes, but that's not important right now.For me to have traveled from Porirua to the foot of the Bombay Hills just out of Auckland by six thirty, I would had to have crawled into the first car in the hospital parking lot and headed for Auckland at around 1,000 km/h. For this reason, it is entirely possible that the constable who clocked me back in 1974 was holding his laser equipment upside down and instead of doing 116 km/h as per the infringment notice, it is more likely that I was doing 911 km/h.This is where it starts to get really strange. The car that I must have crawled into had the same license plate number as the one I have now - AEH924 (according to the infringment notice). However, my car is a dark gray Nissan Bluebird SSS, with dual cup holders, 1800cc's of grunt, air-conditioning and electric windows.You will notice that a time-travel option is not included on this model, so that rules out any 'Back to the Future' issues and the car I was driving back then could not have been the the one I drive today. This is clarifed by the infringement notice which states that the vehicle was a Honda saloon. How this relates to my Nissan Bluebird, I cannot fathom. I can only hypothesise that, back in 1974, the first range of proto-type Hondas had an automated number plate changing mechanism (like on the A-Team) which were used to avoid parking tickets and facilitate safer getaways from burglaries, armed hold-ups and the like.So to recap, it appears that on my birthday on June 23rd 1974, I crawled out of the maternity ward, hijacked a seriously high powered Honda saloon with an automated number plate changing mechanism, drove to Auckland at close to Mach 1, was pulled over approaching the Bombay Hills and unwittingly changed the automated number plate changing mechanism to show the same number as a car I would own almost thirty years later!! (The chance of selecting the same number plate is a mere 1 in 308,915,776 - so quite conceivable)I am currently residing at the address listed at the top of this letter. I expect you will want to apprehend me fairly shortly now that we've established that I may have committed the following offences:- Grand theft auto (I probably stole the Honda as my parents drove a white Ford Cortina at that stage)- Driving without a license- Driving at a ludicrous speed using a motor vehicle- Evading the law using an automated number plate changing mechanism.If you could provide a clearer indication as to why the 'date of offence' is the same as my birthday, and why the vehicle make and type bears no resemblance to the number plate listed on the infringement notice, it would be appreciated. Mind you, I wouldn't be too disappointed if we agreed to let this one go. I could really use the $120 dollars as I'm lowering my Nissan, installing excessively noisy waste-gate and boring it out for better performance in the street drags down Te Irirangi drive and around Weymouth.Thank you for considering my submission, I look forward to hearing from you.Regards,(Signed)Justin LeeEncl. Copy of infringement notice N3735700Transcript30 March 2004Justin Lee[Redacted]AUCKLANDDear SirInfringement Notice: PN 3735700I refer to your correspondence regarding the above infringement notice. After careful consideration of your comments and the circumstances surrounding the issue of this notice, it has been decided on this occasion to waive the offence. Accordingly, you are no longer required to pay the infringement fee.Yours faithfully(Signed)for Senior Sergeant Bryan HealeyManager: Adjudicationae/rg

RSS Feed proudly sponsored by TinyLetter, a simple newsletter service for people with something to say.

Brenner wasn’t all that interested in costs; he was more interested in helping people who received bad health care. But in his experience the people with the highest medical costs—the people cycling in and out of the hospital—were usually the people receiving the worst care. “Emergency-room visits and hospital admissions should be considered failures of the health-care system until proven otherwise,” he told me—failures of prevention and of timely, effective care.

I wonder when will legislators get this simple fact.

Portugal decriminalized drug possession, continued to pursue drug traffickers, and increased access to drug addiction treatments. So how did that go down?

But nearly a decade later, there’s evidence that Portugal’s great drug experiment not only didn’t blow up in its face; it may have actually worked. More addicts are in treatment. Drug use among youths has declined in recent years. Life in Casal Ventoso, Lisbon’s troubled neighborhood, has improved. And new research, published in the British Journal of Criminology, documents just how much things have changed in Portugal. Coauthors Caitlin Elizabeth Hughes and Alex Stevens report a 63 percent increase in the number of Portuguese drug users in treatment and, shortly after the reforms took hold, a 499 percent increase in the amount of drugs seized — indications, the authors argue, that police officers, freed up from focusing on small-time possession, have been able to target big-time traffickers while drug addicts, no longer in danger of going to prison, have been able to get the help they need.

"It’s no longer illegal under the DMCA to jailbreak your iPhone or bypass a DVD’s CSS in order to obtain fair use footage for educational purposes or criticism. These are the new rules that were handed down moments ago by the U.S. Copyright Office. This is really big. Like, really big."

Indeed big news. Go forth and jailbreak your phone or rip that DVD. Of course, you have to 'criticize' it if you do.

"A 1982 Supreme Court ruling emphasized that the right to exclude is "one of the most essential sticks in the bundle of rights that are commonly characterized as property." It's the right at the heart of the patent system (a patent gives you the right to keep others from using your innovation without your permission) as well as the concepts of copyright, trademark and other forms of intellectual property (IP)."

"The Bombay High Court on Tuesday set aside FIR against Marzban Shroff, a novelist, who was facing a criminal case for using the slang word 'ghati' for Maharashtrians in his short-story collection."

Really? As a Ghaati, I have no problem with people calling me that. Heck, I will even describe myself as a Ghaati. If you mean it in a derogatory sense, it reflects on you more than me. Kthxbai.

"I feel for Google – Steve Jobs threatened to sue me, too."

No one seems to think it will hold up on appeal, but yesterday a recently elected judge in Houston, Texas ruled that the Lone Star State’s death penalty is unconstitutional.

This front-page story in yesterday’s Washington Post featured a quotation from Justice Antonin Scalia, taken from a 2006 Yale Law School presentation, in which the Justice calls the 14th Amendment's Privileges or Immunities Clause "flotsam." Flotsam is defined by Webster's Dictionary as "floating debris": trash, in other words. Talk about trashing the Constitution.

A death penalty attorney writes with candor about the painful burdens of his job.

The FBI is pressing Internet service providers to record which Web sites customers visit and retain those logs for two years, a requirement that law enforcement believes could help it in investigations of child pornography and other serious crimes.

Folks that are throwing the words “libel” in the same sentence as “Limbaugh” really isn’t newsworthy. But we’re going to mention the most recent dustup because it deals with the Harvard Law Review, and therefore encroaches onto our turf.

How asking a book to be banned is always counter-productive. Last week, jury selection began for the Cheshire murder trial, a process that might take months. Could a controversial book cause a miscarriage of justice?

Buried in Priest's article is her revelation that American citizens are now being placed on a secret "hit list" of people whom the President has personally authorized to be killed

By the prevailing wisdom of the day, I'm behaving rationally for a non-expert prudent investor. By Roberts' standard, I am "too stupid to keep track" of what every one of these companies is doing and shifting my positions day by day in response.

California lawmakers took a historic first step toward legalizing marijuana when an Assembly committee approved legislation that would put the drug on the open market as a regulated and taxed product.

The CIR ASAP bill is the first comprehensive immigration reform bill that aims to rectify some of the egregious immigration practices set in place since 1996 while simultaneously establishing a 21st century approach to protect and secure our nation’s borders. Below is a thumbnail sketch of the contents of the bill:

Several studies suggest that making it harder for sex offenders to find a home or a job makes them more likely to reoffend. Gwenda Willis and Randolph Grace of the University of Canterbury in New Zealand, for example, found that the lack of a place to live was “significantly related to sexual recidivism”.

Rejecting the plea of a Muslim student that he should be permitted to sport beard in his convent school, the Supreme Court observed secularism cannot be overstretched and that "Talibanisation" of the country cannot be permitted.

Are English courts stifling free speech around the world?

Legal Times has confirmed that Georgetown law professor Neal Katyal, who successfully argued the landmark detainee rights case Hamdan v. Rumsfeld before the Supreme Court

In his complaint, Vishwakarma said that the film depicted slum-dwellers in bad taste as it used derogatory and objectionable title "Slumdog Millionaire" allegedly making mockery of the poor.

One can spend a long time in jail in the U.S. without ever being charged with a crime. It happened to H. Beatty Chadwick, a former Philadelphia-area lawyer, who has been behind bars for nearly 14 years without being charged.

The RIAA (Recording Industry Association of America) has announced that they're going to stop suing people for pirating music on P2P networks. For people under 30 years old, this has been the cause of much rejoicing.

The lawyers designing interrogation techniques cited Bauer more frequently than the Constitution.

Once you’ve been found guilty of a DUI, the judge will schedule a time for your prison term. Virtually everybody will be subject to mandatory time at Tent City.

Be careful when hooking up with other "adults" online—even if they say they're 18, you'll be the one in hot water if they turn out to be 14 instead.

"When America declares war on things -- drugs, terror -- usually the subject of that war ends up doing quite well."

When it comes to red light cameras there's a special line that drivers can't cross.

For prices starting at $50, two nonfederally recognized Indian tribes are offering membership to thousands of illegal immigrants, claiming they can achieve legal status by joining the groups.

Google has pulled a brilliant swerve, requesting to depose late night comedians Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert in their court case against Viacom.

Soon even voicing an anti-war opinion would be illegal. 1984?

But we all know he won't.

I am not sure I agree with the interpretation of 'multiculturalism' in this article.