Debugging conference anti-harassment policies [LWN.net]

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 0:12 UTC (Tue) by gdt (subscriber, #6284)
Parent article: Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

We sponsored linux.conf.au confident that the anti-harassment policy agreed to by speakers and other participants would minimise the risk of damage to our brand. To have a speaker -- a keynote speaker -- be well aware of that policy and to ignore that policy is so outrageous I don't hold the organisers responsible for not considering it likely. It is a betrayal of the trust that organisers necessarily place in speakers.

This is not a matter of free speech. If Mr Pesce felt strongly that the images were integral to the message then he could have chosen a conference with a different policy. Or, since Australia is a very free country, used a local park. If his message is compelling as some people are using to explain his behaviour, then doubtless he would find an audience without requiring the podium at linux.conf.au.

Mr Pesce places linux.conf.au in a difficult position. The only way to prevent this sort of betrayal in the future is to vet the slides of all speakers -- even the keynote talks of distinguished people. I find that very sad.

A short apology to attendees, which is then contradicted by making available the same imagery from his website, is hardly adequate expression of remorse to organisers and sponsors for the amount of time and trouble his talk has caused.

I have long enjoyed sponsoring linux.conf.au, but the actions of high profile speakers last year and this year are making continued sponsorship of linux.conf.au a career-limiting move. The event is rapidly moving from one I sponsor because I wish to help the development of free software in return for the large benefit it has given our organisation, to one where every year's sponsorship seems to bring some new nightmare. This is not a reflection on the organising committee, but upon some speakers.

(Log in to post comments)

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 8:32 UTC (Tue) by niner (subscriber, #26151) [Link]

I for one am very glad that he made available his slides and the accompanying text of the talk. That way I was able to pass my own judgement rather than having to rely on the comments here. And surprisingly enough this judgement ended up being completely different.

As far as I can tell the talk discriminated noone and did not attack, make fun of or objectivate any group. The only maybe inappropriate things it contained were the word "fuck" and a nudityless picture with some fetish content illustrating what kind of stuff we might not want to share with the whole world and/or Mark Zuckerberg.

After reading the article and the comments here, I expected way more than that.

I am glad to have read his talk for another reason: it's a fucking good and important talk (pun intended)! He raised a very important point that may influence our whole lifes and our freedom. Unfortunately people seem to find it more important, if he used a word, that I have heard from every single native English speaker I've ever met. Or a picture that shows nothing (yes, sex exists! Deal with it...).

I find this really sad. No wonder, it's so simple to opress people, when people are letting themselves get sidetracked so easily.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 9:36 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link]

There's a way to avoid sidetracks: don't try to provoke people with language and images that aren't needed to make your point.

Newsflash: people give talks about Very Important Subjects ALL THE TIME without using the word "fuck" and without displaying images that could be taken the wrong way. There are many ways to give a memorable talk; going for shock value is a cheap hack.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-8860158196198824...

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 9:51 UTC (Thu) by mitchskin (subscriber, #32405) [Link]

The imagery he used was specifically relevant to the point that he was trying to make, though. This wasn't like having booth babes just to turn heads in your direction, which I would agree is cheap and manipulative. This is different--it's not just a talk about "Very Important Subjects", it's a talk specifically about privacy and control. And the images that he used were not titillating, but specifically about information that one would want to control and keep private.

Having read the text and the presentation, I agree with the people here who are calling it appropriate and relevant to the point of the talk.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 11:05 UTC (Tue) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]

> I for one am very glad that he made available his slides and the accompanying text of the talk. That way I was able to pass my own judgement rather than having to rely on the comments here.

I expect that a person that (i) _sincerely_ regrets using a bunch of images on a talk because (ii) it agrees that they were offensive (to some group), _not_ to place said images online. Since this person would be aware of the offense it causes (point ii), and regret offending people with people it (i).

At least that is what I would do. IMO placing them online does discredit his apologies.

> As far as I can tell the talk discriminated noone and did not attack, make fun of or objectivate any group.

It is always too easy to tell other groups when they should not be offended. I agree with rgmoore (http://lwn.net/Articles/425786/) that you need to look at the composition of the offended group.

> Or a picture that shows nothing (yes, sex exists! Deal with it...).

There are endless topics that (i) exist, (ii) polarize, and (iii) are completely off topic (sex, religion, sports clubs etc). When people go to a software conference, they expect to deal with _software_ issues.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 11:31 UTC (Tue) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link]

How are we supposed to evaluate the talk if the slides and/or videos are not available online?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 11:56 UTC (Tue) by fb (subscriber, #53265) [Link]

> How are we supposed to evaluate the talk if the slides and/or videos are not available online?

To promote the talk (technical) contents, the author can replace controversial images in 5 minutes and post version 1.1 online. Assuming, again, the author does regret the images.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 13:42 UTC (Tue) by coriordan (guest, #7544) [Link]

Posting the slides as-used is useful so that we (here, in this forum and other forums discussing this) can see what the conference policy discussion is about.

It provides an example of what gets labelled as "unacceptable". Without examples, people who find Mark's presentation acceptable would continue to think that the label "unacceptable" is only for slides which are much more sexual than Mark's.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 17:26 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

If you care about that, read the lecture notes (there's a link to them in the article). Much less graphic. Much more informative. Much faster to download.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 2:36 UTC (Wed) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link]

If you think that it's those who felt the conference should stick to its policies who "got sidetracked" you need to get a grip on reality- BSDM is off-topic for linux.conf.au, and it's Mr. Pesce who chose to make that and associated language and imagery a prominent part of his presentation, contrary to policies he had agreed to. Seems a long way off track to me.

And please, you don't need to drag his language into this forum. LWN has made a point of trying to keep discussions more reasonable, civil, and decent than you often find on other fora like /. etc- not that Jon deletes every post with a swear word, but it's discouraged as it always detracts from the discussion. In particular your use here is nothing but an immature attempt to jab it in the eyes of anybody who disagrees with you about its appropriateness in a technical setting. You don't have a reasonable argument to justify it so you resort to trying to make your point more forceful with vulgar language.

I don't mean it as an insult to you, but I think the quote "Profanity is the weapon of the witless" seems apropos here.