Why Reno’s Free Speech Champions Don’t Have Your Back
Read Part I, Part II and Part III.
Good news was received last week. Patraw’s suit against the University was thrown out of court. The summary judgment is here. The judge agreed that Patraw’s allegations of what constitutes defamation – the same ploy she used against Jerz – was bogus, and most of her numerous other complaints were dismissed. (It wasn’t the first time, either.)
At first I rejoiced, as I’m sure Jerz did. Then it dawned on me that a social travesty of another sort had occurred – the silence of Jerz’s supporters and those who would normally rush to what I consider to be an obvious defense. At one point, Jerz had reached out to what he called the “who’s who” of Nevada bloggers. Few bothered to respond. He even spoke with personnel at the Reno Gazette-Journal. No one helped to publicize his legal harassment by Terri Patraw.
So I asked Jerz to send me comments for this post, specifically asking him for his response to the wholesale lack of support, especially in light of Nevada’s tradition for banner waving, liberty and free-speech issues (to the point where it’s annoying, frankly, as it contributes to wingnuttery on both sides of the political spectrum to a startling degree). Here’s what he wrote:
“What disappointed me the most, I think, is that I learned that the bloggers around here weren’t really into breaking any ground. They have their own agendas, but when my situation arose — something that was potentially groundbreaking — they were silent. I didn’t fit into their narrative. And what’s funny about that is that one of the major problems bloggers in general have with the media is that they write to fit a narrative. Bloggers criticize that, and rightfully so. What they don’t realize is that all bloggers have a narrative they’re trying to fit things into too. In my case, I think the story of something truly interesting and that should have brought some normally opposing viewpoints together fell victim to a mentality of “it’s not what I do.” Problem is, we all should have cared about it. In the end, I stopped following several of them and lost respect that I always had for people, despite what I might have said publicly.”
To me this is a somber indictment. At the end of the day I consider Jerz’s experience in this situation an example of the bystander effect. While less clear than what a typical news story would like to frame, and perhaps even a bit more complicated for an interpretive feature, the example set by Patraw and her legal bullying should have raised ire among those who are typically on-guard about such concerns.
At the very least, I would have expected the so-called progressive community of Nevada to stand against Patraw’s take-down notices and legal threats. Instead, as self-proclaimed champions against injustice, their silence continues to speak volumes.
Melanie
1 year ago
Tim Casey, a local but internationally known intellectual property rights attorney and the primary author of the part of the Digital Millennium Copyright Act that pertains to “notice-and-take-down,” also gave Ryan some free advice. He should get some credit for helping out. This case, however, points out that the DMCA can be abused and that ISPs aren’t willing or able to fight abusers or stand up for the “little people.”
You can read the story I wrote about Casey here: http://www.unr.edu/nevadasilverandblue/archive/2004/spring/index.html (You have to download the PDF.)
bconrad
1 year ago
Thanks for your comment. A number of folks helped Ryan behind the scenes — Tim Casey and David LaPlante among them. My point is about those who were publicly silent. They are too numerous to name. Perhaps we could start with Nevada bloggers….
Melanie
1 year ago
The bloggers should have cared. It’s obvious that ISPs aren’t going to stand by them, and will actually cut them off rather than stand up for freedom of speech. The questions is: Who’s next?
bconrad
1 year ago
Anyone who can’t afford an attorney to counter a take-down notice, apparently.
That’s why public outcry would have helped in Ryan’s situation. Had the press and/or bloggers picked up on the story, the outcome could have been radically different.
It’s not that bloggers in particular have an obligation to come to Ryan’s defense; it’s more that they look like dickheads when they wax on about society’s many other injustices while remaining mute about what’s going on in their own backyards.
Mike McDowell
1 year ago
I actually didn’t know about all of that hoopla going on until well after the fact. It’s, of course, easy for me to now say that I would have advocated for Jerz if I had known. So, I won’t say that. But I will say that you raise a valid point, and I hope that the “blogger community” has been growing closer lately (thanks to some in-person events in the past months) and will rise to defend the freedoms of a fellow blogger in the future.
bconrad
1 year ago
Thanks, Mike. Perhaps you could encourage Ryan to reinstate all of his posts about the Terri Patraw ordeal, so you can see exactly how it went down.
Wolfy
1 year ago
You assume that bloggers actually supported his position. That’s a faulty assumption as a basis for your unilateral criticism.
-m
bconrad
1 year ago
It’s fairly common for people to assume free speech is meant for the kind of speech that they agree with. Champions of free speech — those addressed in this post — should especially defend against speech being attacked even if it not what they may personally believe in. That is actually a principle this country was founded upon and continues to be reinforced in formal rulings, despite how the DCMA is being abused.
Bloggers and journalists like to latch onto easily dissected free speech cases, but when they get mildly less black and white, suddenly it’s easy to back away from forming an opinion. The potential viral attraction dissipates. In other words, on principle there could’ve been outcry about this situation, but since it wasn’t as apparent who the villain was — Jake Highton chose to side against the University and thereby gave non-critical support to Terri Patraw — people remained silent.
I encourage the reading of Nat Hentoff’s book, Free Speech for Me–But Not for Thee: How the American Left and Right Relentlessly Censor Each Other, which addresses this issue in depth — the too-common, convenient stance of selectively choosing which speech is worth defending; again, usually the speech we agree with.
My fault is my idealism of assuming free speech champions would actually pay attention to this situation — the fact that anyone who can’t afford an attorney to counter a take-down notice or threats of lawsuits in other states, apparently does not have guaranteed First Amendment rights. And the fact that it’s taking place in their own town. And countless people know it.
So, you are correct: I was dead wrong, and I continue to be.
links for 2009-05-13 | The Computer Vet Weblog
40 years ago
[...] The Bystander Effect, Part IV | The Good, The Bad, The Spin [...]
Wolfy
1 year ago
The other thing you miss by indicting local bloggers is the wide criticism that bloggers post speciously and spuriously on such things. If bloggers felt their grasp of the issue and circumstance was insufficient to make a useful post on the matter I say it’s a good thing.
I don’t want to get into the debate about who was right or wrong, but your assertion that local bloggers left Jerz high and dry is buggs me. Jerz had to hire a lawyer to figure out what to do and what his rights were. The rest of us didn’t, and don’t have the ability to retain legal council to advise us on our reporting if we aren’t already experts. Between the two of you you’re linking to hundreds of hours of reading and research. That’s a lot to lay on a guy who posts about douche.
-M
bconrad
1 year ago
As it should. If anyone decides they don’t like what you post enough to threaten you with legal action, I would hope friends and foes alike would stand up for you.
To me it’s an error to take free speech privileges for granted, regardless of the level of speech is assumed to be protected. Boundary pushers such as yourself appear to forget what it is that allows you to post such content in the first place. You in fact benefit from the precedent of others whether or not you appreciate it — or can even see it in the first place.
Wolfy
1 year ago
this is why it’s impossible to have a blog conversation with you guys. It’s like talking to a [sick]wall[sick].
-M
bconrad
1 year ago
Moreover, your point about the time and expertise needed to form an adequate judgment is horse shit. None of that didn’t stop you at the time from posting on Ryan’s blog your disagreement with his posting of a personal email from Terri Patraw. THAT wasn’t okay, but Terri’s harassment was?
Here’s your post, in case you forgot:
“Wolfy, Apr 30, 07:38 AM #:
“Dude,
“I don’t think you need a confidentiality note at the bottom of your email to expect that it’s private. Email is private, and if you post it w/o permission, you get the shaft, and you deserve it. If she’d wanted to comment publicly she could have. It’s not your call. I use email to quote people all the time. But I ask permission and give people a chance to reiterate for the record. Might not be legally required, but it seems like the decent thing to do.
“-M”
mike
1 year ago
You see Jerz’s right to free speech. I saw pattraw’s right to privacy. The law is on his side not hers. That’s the more troubling precident in my opinion. What is the difference now between Ryans blog and his email?
-m