Debugging conference anti-harassment policies [LWN.net]

By Jonathan Corbet
January 31, 2011

Linux.conf.au 2011 distinguished itself in a number of ways, one of which was the uniformly interesting and thought-provoking nature of its keynote talks, two of which have already been covered on LWN. Mark Pesce's keynote was no exception, but this talk also stood out as the only one at the conference to trigger the newly-adopted anti-harassment policy, leading to apologies from the organizers and the speaker. This action was controversial on all fronts; perhaps the only clear conclusions are that we have not yet come to a real consensus on what harassment means or the best way to prevent it.

The source: As of this writing, the talk is not available on the LCA 2011 videos page. Mark has posted the text of the talk and the slides [ODP] for the curious.

The talk itself was about freedom and privacy on the net. There was much discussion of the evils of sites like Facebook and a bit of talk about the Plexus project which is trying to create alternatives which are more free. To your editor, the most chilling point was that the net itself is not free; the crusade against Wikileaks and the Internet shutdown in Egypt were given as examples. The net, he said, functions at the whim of government; we need to build alternative transports - using smoke signals, if necessary - to ensure our right to communicate. We are at war for our freedom, he said, and we need to start approaching the problem that way.

The message clearly resonated with many people in the audience, but the presentation of that message was less than pleasing to many. The speaker aimed for a high level of drama, made heavy use of profanity, and put up some slides that struck some attendees as overtly sexual in nature. In your editor's opinion, the presentation style, which was clearly intended to shock and disturb, detracted from the message which was being delivered. It also ensured that much of the subsequent talk would be about the slides and the language, and not about what was really said. Your editor, who, at the outset, wondered if he could learn something from the speaker to spice up his own talks (which are notably less dramatic), concluded at the end that there was indeed something to learn, but the lessons were all negative.

A number of attendees complained, and the organizers, in response, apologized (to applause) at the closing session. Mark later posted an apology of his own. It seemed like a reasonable handling of the situation, and the discussion could have stopped there - but it didn't.

The lca-chat mailing list, which had mostly occupied itself with (1) making Brisbane's public transportation system seem much more complicated than it really is and (2) discussing the lack of toilet paper in one of the lodging choices, hosted several threads on whether the response to the talk was right. Interested parties are encouraged to read through the threads - which remained civil throughout - for the full discussion. But there are a few things which can be summarized:

Some attendees were upset by the talk and fully supported the apology.
Some participants, while supporting the posted anti-harassment policy, felt that the talk did not violate that policy.
Others went further, saying that the language and imagery used were effective and necessary for the talk to attain its objective of making attendees uncomfortable with the current state of affairs.
Others yet objected to the entire conversation, claiming that a discussion of whether the policy applied made them feel unsafe and asking people to stop.

Your editor disagrees with the last group and feels that the discussion is absolutely necessary. We are partway through a process - likely to take years - aimed at making our community and its gatherings more welcoming for all those we would like to have attend. LCA 2011 adopted a new style of policy on harassment which had not been used before, and Mark Pesce's talk was the first time it was invoked. The idea that we have everything right and that no further discussion required is, frankly, laughable. Some debugging will certainly be necessary - once we are sure we have the core design right.

While evaluating the design and pondering debugging, there are a couple of viewpoints from LCA organizers that warrant reading in full. The first is from LCA 2011 organizer Russell Stuart, who opposed the policy from the outset - though, having lost that battle, he argued for apologizing when the policy was violated. He says:

One of the roles of LCA organisers is to bring popular, enlightening and if we get very lucky even inspiring talks. By two measure's Mark Pesce's talk was one of those. It received one of the longest, it not the longest acclamation of any talk at LCA 2011. And if the chatter on our lists is any guide, it caused more people to stop, think and act than any other talk. And yet we have a small minority of people who evidently take offence at images and words that would be perfectly acceptable on Australia broadcast TV, and are now suggesting the vast bulk of the LCA attendees who enjoyed the talk should not have been allowed to see it because they object to it. And they got very close to achieving just that.

Russell fears that the policy heads toward outright censorship and should not be used by other conferences until it has been "substantially reworked." He found agreement from Susanne Ruthven, one of the lead organizers of LCA 2010 and the author of that conference's anti-harassment policy. That policy was aimed at preventing broadly-described "harassment or discrimination" and, seemingly, would not have been invoked for this talk:

As organisers of LCA2010, Andrew and I have discussed this current situation and think some of Mark's slides could be inappropriate and considered bad taste, but they have certainly achieved their purpose of making us all sit up and think, and more importantly, to question. In our view, Mark's talk was not discriminatory or harassment. It obviously offended some people, but then he is entitled to shock, horrify and offend under his right to freedom of expression (as long as his actions aren't breaking any laws, like discrimination laws etc).

Clearly there is a balance to be found here; outright harassment is not a freedom of speech issue, but the desire to create a more welcoming environment in general will almost certainly require curtailing certain types of speech. Those who see speech freedom as fundamental will resist such moves. Those who have suffered assault, or who simply do not want to circulate in a highly sexualized environment, will push in the other direction. Conference organizers - and speakers - may find themselves caught in the middle.

The problems addressed by anti-harassment policies are real. Conference attendees have had to put up with some horrifying experiences which - hopefully! - do not reflect what our community is about. Practices like the employment of booth babes or the use of women as sexually-charged attention magnets on slides do not create an environment which is conducive to the acceptance of women as equal participants. We absolutely need to clean up our act. But doing so will be an iterative process which must also respect other, equally fundamental freedoms. It's a design and debugging problem, and we are far from the final release on this bit of code.

Index entries for this article
Conference	linux.conf.au/2011

to post comments

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Jan 31, 2011 21:40 UTC (Mon) by Baylink (guest, #755) [Link] (4 responses)

First, let me agree that "please stop discussing whether this was bad because I feel harassed by that meta-discussion" is Right Out; such conversations are a Non-Maskable Interrupt (or, if you prefer Robert's, a Point Of Personal Privilege), and by their nature immune from such things, just as, for example, discussions about ... well, let me not start a meta-meta-argument.

In any event: clearly some of the material was offensive to some people.

Clearly, that wasn't accidental; the speaker chose his material *precisely because* he expected it to evoke a response.

So, the question becomes, should it be reasonable to consider that "harassment"?

While harassment is *generally* targeted at some small number of specific people, it certainly doesn't need to be; it can be targeted at a group, such as homosexuals.

Harassment, though, is generally used to describe a *pattern* of behavior, with what a reasonable man would say was no other specific goal in mind except the discomfort of the targeted person or group.

Neither part of that description applies here: the talk was going to end at some point; there was no reason any specific person had to stay; the discomfort wasn't necessarily *aimed* at any specific group, and there was a completely separate goal: to identify as bad specific situations, and motivate attendees to do something to fix them.

This is not the first time we'll have had a debate here about a topic like this, and this one will likely end poorly as well, with people quoting Derailing For Dummies, and other such tactics which are, themselves, derailing from the actual topic.

My personal reaction, in a one off case like this, is "if you're uncomfortable, leave the damn room". But then, I've always been as much a libertarian as a liberal. :-)

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Jan 31, 2011 22:48 UTC (Mon) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link]

I don't understand why speakers at recent technical conferences have been using slides displaying porn or BDSM scenes (if only in PG-13 form) to illustrate their technical points. It certainly increases the emotional content of the presentation, but it in no way improves the factual merit of what is being said. Being deliberately provocative leads to an arms race: Each speaker needs to be a little more outrageous than the last to get any attention. It's better to nip this in the bud, and try to make our arguments compelling on their own merits.

The tradeoffs are different when we're speaking to people we've known for a long time. They know how shocking we are on a day-to-day basis, and will notice when we say something out of the ordinary. But since "unexpectedly shocking" is defined on a per-person basis, it doesn't normally lead to an arms race.

And to speak to the "libertarian" issue: LCA has every right to decide what kinds of presentations are appropriate, and take action accordingly. For example, if I were running a technical conference, I would frown upon some of the slides used in this talk.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 5:08 UTC (Tue) by jdub (guest, #27) [Link]

(There are definitions of harassment in which all of this comfortably fits, but I suspect you're better off focusing on the weight of the matter, rather than picking nits with the name of the policy.)

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 8:43 UTC (Tue) by epa (subscriber, #39769) [Link]

The infamous CouchDB porn star presentation also had a specific goal in mind (to promote CouchDB and teach about it), would end at a set point, was not forced on anybody, and so on.

Really I think the issue is that personal 'harassment' is a quite separate topic from the content of presentations.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 21, 2011 12:54 UTC (Mon) by job (guest, #670) [Link]

"If you're uncomfortable, leave" pretty neatly sums up the actual problem which these policies aim to solve. Please understand the actual issues here before you form your opinion. Some of us actually want minority groups to feel more welcome, not less. That these issues are completely unrelated to free speech bears repeating.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Jan 31, 2011 21:44 UTC (Mon) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link] (3 responses)

Excellent post from David Woodhouse here : http://www.advogato.org/person/dwmw2/diary.html?start=223

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 8:17 UTC (Tue) by AlexHudson (guest, #41828) [Link]

I read that, and then I went to read the presentation. Basically it was a talk about a social networking system based on RFC2822-style messaging.

If the presentation really required images of sexual domination and fruity language to make an impact, to be honest that says more about the content than it does about taste. There's more to "impact" than the Dick Cheney school of shock'n'awe.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 10:44 UTC (Thu) by dunlapg (guest, #57764) [Link] (1 responses)

It seems to me that the problem with the policy was that it didn't actually describe accurately what "problem behavior" was. It just said flatly that any image with sexual content was inappropriate, regardless of the way in which it was used.

Well, the talk clearly had images with sexual content; so, it violated the letter of the policy. However, most people seem to agree that although it violated the letter of the policy, it didn't violate the intent -- i.e., the intent was to stop harassment, and nobody was harassed. (I haven't seen the talk yet, but I've browed the slides, and I can certainly imagine a talk with those slides not being harassment.)

I think David's talk is the first comment I've seen which attempt to define more clearly exactly in what way a sexual image might be "harassment":

Mark's presentation was not demeaning to any set of people, did not portray any set of people as sexual objects, did not marginalise or reinforce negative stereotypes of any set of people. As such it did not fall under the major raison d'être of the Anti-Harassment Policy.

One of the main activites of "debugging" is sorting out what you actually want (proper program behavior) from what you said you want (the buggy code). So it seems to me that a more thorough discussion of the intent which constitutes harassment, rather than a list of general activites which contain harassment, is key to debugging policies in the future.

That said, the policy was pretty clear on "no sexual images", full stop. Mark should have read the policy, and abided by it, whatever he thought of it.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 4, 2011 22:31 UTC (Fri) by Tet (subscriber, #5433) [Link]

the talk clearly had images with sexual content

It did? I looked through the slides, and I didn't see any. It might be clear to you, but others with different values will see the situation differently. I'm one of them. I saw nothing that I'd call sexual content in those slides.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Jan 31, 2011 21:47 UTC (Mon) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link]

Others yet objected to the entire conversation, claiming that a discussion of whether the policy applied made them feel unsafe and asking people to stop.

I've not been following this particular situation, but as a general principle, I've seen that sort of thing used as a rhetorical device to argue against policies that are written not in terms of actual conduct, but in terms of other people's responses. Such policies ban anything that someone says makes them uncomfortable, even if that person is actually the one being unreasonable. Clearly if the policy makes people feel uncomfortable, it then conflicts with itself.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Jan 31, 2011 22:27 UTC (Mon) by cjb (guest, #40354) [Link] (94 responses)

First of all, it's great that -- unlike past sexualized-keynote incidents -- there was a prompt apology from both the organizers and the speaker. We're making progress!

I'd like to talk a little about this argument, though:

> And yet we have a small minority of people who evidently take offence at images and words that would be perfectly acceptable on Australia broadcast TV

.. because I think it's problematic in at least two places. The only justification for introducing the phrase "a small minority" can be to argue that the majority should always get to do what they want, but this completely misses the *point* of adopting an anti-harassment policy: to protect groups less powerful than the majority from experiencing extremely-negative reactions to something that the majority find somewhat-positive and therefore want to do.

The second problem is the comparison to Australian broadcast TV. As far as I'm concerned, a conference talk should be held to the same standards as a workplace professional interaction -- for many attendees, that's simply what it *is*. Many people, but most consistently women, are very clear about not wanting their workplace interactions to be sexualized; it's a reasonable request even if you don't personally understand why it's so important to the people making it. Life gives people different experiences, so we should assume that someone telling us that our behavior is hurting them is probably not making it up.

So, I'd like to argue that if you think you might get fired or criticized for giving a sexualized presentation at work, you should certainly not be giving one at a conference. The broadcast TV standards of the country the conference happens to be in aren't relevant; broadcast TV is something that people are generally free to disconnect from without repercussion, unlike a packed keynote, and it usually isn't watched together in a room with hundreds of people who you're going to spend the next few days interacting with.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Jan 31, 2011 22:36 UTC (Mon) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link] (91 responses)

The only justification for introducing the phrase "a small minority" can be to argue that the majority should always get to do what they want

No, it isn't. Your argument assumes that the majority's interests are antithetical to those of the minority, and that members of the majority don't care at all for the feelings of the members of the minority. Neither of those things is likely to be true.

The alternative, and more likely, reason for invoking the majority opinion is that there are common standards of behaviour, but some people find a range of other things to be offensive. While a person behaving in a manner that a majority finds offensive is probably doing something wrong, it's not as certain in the case where hardly anyone find them offensive. It is possible that the problem lies with the person with the problem, and it it them that is out of step with normal standards.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Jan 31, 2011 23:19 UTC (Mon) by lakeland (guest, #1157) [Link] (7 responses)

While I agree with you, I think cjb raised a number of other very good points which you did not address.

I particular I thought replacing the test of whether it would be acceptable on broadcast TV with whether it would be acceptable in the workplace was an excellent suggestion.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 2:37 UTC (Tue) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link] (6 responses)

I think cjb raised a number of other very good points which you did not address

I did indeed only address the single point about the "The only justification for introducing the phrase "a small minority" can be to argue that the majority should always get to do what they want" because it's specially problematic - it implies bad faith on the part of anyone that disagrees by saying that there can be no legitimate reason for doing so, and that sort of thing gets us nowhere.

There's a case to be made that conferences should have a workplace style 'professional' atmosphere, and there's a contrary case to be made that they should have a more relaxed and social feel. Both points of view are respectable; trying to shut down discussion by painting some people as purely selfish would-be oppressors of minorities is not.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 12:10 UTC (Tue) by emk (subscriber, #1128) [Link] (5 responses)

[T]here's a contrary case to be made that they should have a more relaxed and social feel.

Of course, this is tricky, because what one person finds relaxed and social (porn stars in a CouchDB presentation, for example), other people find downright icky. The nice thing about workplace social norms is that they tend to translate well across cultures, and that they're well-adapted to mixed groups of men and women.

I'm particularly concerned about behavior that makes a conference feel "relaxed and social" for particular 20- and 30-something male geeks, but makes it feel slimy to key technical contributors like Valerie Aurora. Now, there's no empirical link between the use of crass, sexualized metaphors in technical presentations and the all-to-frequent groping of female hackers. But I do know that some women perceive the sexualized metaphors as creepy, and part of a larger pattern. And if we are, in fact, trying to optimize for a "relaxed and social" environment, that very perception is a useful data point.

Now, I might feel differently about the BDSM imagery if it conveyed useful technical or political information, or if it were the actual subject of the talk. But when the sexualized metaphors are being used purely for "marketing" or rhetorical reasons, I'm already strongly biased against their use, just as I am biased against the use of "booth babes" to influence software purchasing decisions.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 15:29 UTC (Tue) by ewan (guest, #5533) [Link] (4 responses)

It is tricky, but that doesn't mean that we should just cop out and go for a 'workplace' atmosphere. In my experience the more relaxed, social, going-to-the-pub parts of conferences are often the most useful, and can make a valuable contribution to establishing friendly relationships that then persist in online interactions. Saying 'keep it professional' is superficially attractive, but I do think there's a cost to doing so.

That's not to say I'm necessarily all for BDSM imagery in keynotes, but any policy needs to be limited enough to deal with real problems, without causing direct collateral damage, or having a generally chilling effect.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 19:12 UTC (Tue) by donwaugaman (subscriber, #4214) [Link]

I think there are a couple different things to address here.

One is the content of talks, which does not seem to have much to do with the "relaxed, social, going-to-the-pub parts of conferences" and, it seems to me, should be slanted to emphasize a workplace or professional atmosphere rather than a casual or social atmosphere. In a one-to-many presentation, there's not a whole lot of socializing going on or friendly relationships being established. What's more, the lack of one-to-one contact and highly public forum makes quick apologies more difficult if you metaphorically trod on another's toes due to the content of the presentation, so keeping things professional is the right thing to do.

Conference events in the more social milieu can run on less formality than the workplace - these are smaller groups or one-on-one occasions - but I do think that participants really ought to consider it like a "workplace social event" - an office party or offsite, where you can let your hair down some, but don't go get plastered and act like a boor, which is something that keeps other people from being relaxed and social. You don't want to keep people from sharing a little of themselves or their outrageous opinions in a smaller group or social setting, but some basic politeness and mutual respect can go a long way here, and isn't going to have a chilling effect on communication or social lubrication.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 19:16 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] (2 responses)

Most people can have social, going-to-the-pub interactions without the use of BDSM or even gratuitous use of the word "fuck".

For the rest, well, they can actually go to a pub outside the conference sessions :-).

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 17:21 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link] (1 responses)

> Most people can have social, going-to-the-pub interactions
> without the use of BDSM or even gratuitous use of the word
> "fuck".

Most people with the exception of most US-citizens can use and hear the word "fuck" in any social context (from bars to university lectures) without a) sexual connotations b) getting ashamed c) finding it "offensive".

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 17:44 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

It's true! Yet most people who hear the word "fuck" while even lightly sexualised imagery are displayed are likely to make some association. Context is important.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 5:41 UTC (Tue) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (82 responses)

While a person behaving in a manner that a majority finds offensive is probably doing something wrong, it's not as certain in the case where hardly anyone find them offensive. It is possible that the problem lies with the person with the problem, and it it them that is out of step with normal standards.

This depends heavily on the makeup of the offended group. If the minority who are offended differ from the unoffended majority primarily in their ease of taking offense, you're right. But if the offended minority are disproportionately members of a minority that's defined some other way, then it's more likely that the behavior was genuinely offensive in a way that the minority are especially likely to feel. For example, jokes about an ethnic minority may be funny everyone else, but that doesn't mean the members of the minority are being sensitive when they're offended.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 6:28 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] (81 responses)

What about jokes about Canonical developers?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 8:24 UTC (Tue) by PO8 (guest, #41661) [Link] (1 responses)

OK, three Canonical developers are trying to submit a kernel patch. The first Canonical developer...oh. Never mind.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 8:37 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link]

If it wasn't obvious:
http://lwn.net/Articles/298864/
and the likes.

Or what about talks targeting developers from Oracle, Microsoft, Apple or Google?
Each such group will probably be outnumbered in a conference.

Automatically siding with the minority may not be such a good idea.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 13:37 UTC (Tue) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (78 responses)

> What about jokes about Canonical developers?

This is a classic "reductio ad absurdum" straw-man. It's a logical fallacy.

It goes like this: Everything is going to offend someone. Therefore, if we're going to ban anything which offends people, then we need to ban everything. Since we can't ban everything, therefore we must ban nothing.

There are a few non sequiturs there. First, between nothing & everything, there are lots of places to draw the line. We can agree that banning all offense is impractical & undesirable. I think we can also agree that conferences have some call on what content is presented there - even if it's only to ensure that presentations are on-topic - so no editorial guidelines at all is obviously bad also. Between those two extremes, we can draw the line in lots of places: "Don't do anything illegal" covers hate speech, public nudity, smoking, etc. "Don't do anything that standard workplace conventions would forbid" might cover things like drinking alcohol, sexualised content, inappropriate dress or behaviour. The line for free software conferences is probably somewhere between those two.

The thing is: sex is different from a lot of other potentially offending things in our society. Maybe it shouldn't be, but it is. As a father, I watch out for what's on pre-watershed telly sometimes, and there are some pretty violent cartoons and TV shows I don't let my kids watch. Blood & gore bothers me a hell of a lot more than a bit of tit or some bad language might, but in the WASP American culture which has now spread worldwide, sex & bad language are considered worthy of a 15 or 18 age tag on a film, and blood & gore creeps in under PG-13. Go figure.

Plus, we have a situation in our communities that they're seen as unwelcoming to women. Mostly, my guess is that it's because they're predominantly male, and we have more than our fair share of assholes in the free software world, and sometimes they're publicly visible figures.

Add those two together, and it seems clear to me that we need to engage in some positive discrimination to redress the balance and recalibrate the community. That means inviting more female speakers, encouraging female role models, doing outreach specifically to recruit new female developers & community members. If that also means going too far in being paranoid about sexual imagery, then so be it, as far as I'm concerned. The benefit outweighs the cost.

And next time you want to do a presentation where you want to get people's attention or shock, there are lots of potential photos you can use on animal welfare, AIDS awareness, children's charities, landmine awareness, etc. Be a bit more original than tits & ass, s&m. "No sexual imagery" doesn't mean you can't shock & offend.

Cheers,
Dave.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 17:16 UTC (Tue) by tzafrir (subscriber, #11501) [Link] (15 responses)

Thanks for your detailed reply.

Note, however that the parent message I was replying to specifically referred to non-gender issues (the example given was ethnic minorities).

But you mention that "sex is different from a lot of other potentially offending things in our society". So I guess you have no issue with ethnic jokes.

I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 18:12 UTC (Tue) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (14 responses)

> Thanks for your detailed reply.

You're welcome!

> Note, however that the parent message I was replying to specifically
> referred to non-gender issues (the example given was ethnic minorities).

The message I was replying to referred to making jokes about Canonical developers. Are Canonical developers considered an ethnic minority now? I know, being Irish I have trouble understanding the nuance.

> But you mention that "sex is different from a lot of other potentially
> offending things in our society". So I guess you have no issue with ethnic
> jokes.

What I'm OK with is not the point. (PS. I'm almost always OK with self-deprecation). Racial discrimination would fall under "illegal" where I come from, and incitement to racial hatred would come under hate speech laws. That said, ethnic jokes aren't necessarily incitements to hatred or discriminatory. Honestly, I guess it would depend on the joke. To some extent, it would depend on how persecuted the minority has been, and how serious the person telling the joke was.

An example: Someone telling a Paddy Irishman joke wouldn't bother me in the slightest. Someone telling a Jewish joke does bother me, and I ask people not to tell them. Similarly, Corsican/Belgian/Swiss jokes don't bother me in France, Arab jokes do.

These things are funny (odd)... context changes everything. When a joke is the expression of someone's prejudice, it bothers me. But if it's a caricature of a culture, it doesn't. And there's a grey area between the two.

> I'm just trying to understand where you draw the line.

Personally, I draw the line at "what behaviour would be OK in the workplace?" I don't mind people telling jokes in the workplace, I do mind racism. I don't mind lads chatting about a cute girl working in the local bakery, but I do mind someone hanging a centerfold from a lad mag.

I know these things aren't the same thing... like I said, there are some grey areas, always.

Dave.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 18:48 UTC (Tue) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (7 responses)

note that 'acceptable in the workplace' would also eliminate all alcohol from the premises or any related activity.

I don't drink, but I think this would be a MAJOR change to any conference (opensource or not, tech related or not)

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 19:22 UTC (Tue) by donwaugaman (subscriber, #4214) [Link] (1 responses)

I'm not a heavy drinker either, but I've worked at several jobs where offsite social events have included alcohol, though usually with a cash bar.

I'd think the analogous setting at a conference, not part of the technical presentation but rather at a time and place designated for socializing either at the conference venue or elsewhere, would be more than acceptable.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 22:40 UTC (Tue) by dtlin (subscriber, #36537) [Link]

On one hand, alcohol seems acceptable in at least some workplaces in the US. Here at Google, there are weekly on-site social events with free alcohol (beer and wine and sometimes more exotic drinks), and individual teams often have their own (whiskey seems popular).

On the other hand, my prior workplace was once similar, but banned all alcoholic beverages after an incident with one violent employee. So even in the US, what's acceptable can vary.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 4, 2011 23:06 UTC (Fri) by Tet (subscriber, #5433) [Link] (4 responses)

'acceptable in the workplace' would also eliminate all alcohol from the premises

From your workplace, perhaps. Not from mine. Note that many countries outside the US have a much more relaxed attitude to drinking at work. It's reasonably common here to drink at lunchtime. Less so while actually in the office, but not unheard of even then. All of which just points to the difficulty of drafting an acceptable behaviour policy when standards of "acceptable" differ so much among attendees.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 1:18 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (3 responses)

Even my US workplace has reasonable regular in-office events with alcohol. Google's Mountain View (at least) campus has one every week. One of the things I noticed when I moved to the US was that there was a very different dynamic in drinking at work when compared to the UK, but it's not as inherently as puritanical as some people imply.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 5:55 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

the point is that if you say 'same rules as the workplace' for a conference, for many (but not all) workplaces, this includes no drinking.

yes, it very much depends on the company, but if you are saying that you must meet 'workplace standards' to avoid offending people, don't you have to err towards the stricter workplace standards?

If you don't, then I'm sure you can find workplaces where the types of images that were being complained about here are accepted.

for that matter, what do you think the 'workplace standards' of a porn company are?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 5:57 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link]

continuing on 'workplace standards', think about the mandatory dress codes for women in Muslim dominated areas, if you tried to enforce those 'standards' on a conference you would get people even more up in arms

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 6:19 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

You're looking at this in the wrong direction. It's not "Are there companies where this kind of behaviour is unacceptable" - it's "Is an arbitrary company likely to consider this kind of behaviour acceptable". In the majority of the western world you're unlikely to win a lawsuit for constructive dismissal on the basis of being exposed to coworkers being allowed to drink alcohol in specific social situations. Unless you've explicitly chosen to join a company where exposure to sexual imagery is acceptable, an analogous situation would probably result in significant damages.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 7:16 UTC (Wed) by paulj (subscriber, #341) [Link] (5 responses)

Paddy Irishman jokes annoy me. If such jokes were told with Ahmad, or Krishnan or Ishmael as the object, they'd never be acceptable. And the cultural group who most enjoy telling Paddy Irishmen jokes *do* have a history of pretty overt discrimination against Irish. Recent enough that my mother remembers "No Blacks, Asians or Irish" text in ads *in the papers* for rooms to let in London and that I've experienced lesser degrees of it myself in more recent times.

So no, Paddy Irishman jokes should not be acceptable, no more than jokes about the stupidity of any other group of people.

Also rather disgusting is the modern resurgence in rather cruel and nasty jokes about having ginger hair.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 2:44 UTC (Thu) by ofeeley (guest, #36105) [Link] (4 responses)

I read Dave Neary's comment as saying that it all depends on the context _and_ that it's irrelevant what we're all individually happy with or not: If we're aware that the potential exists to irritate someone then it's best to take that into account and avoid potential offense.

I'm not arguing against your own assessment of the annoyance. I have, personally, been both annoyed and also amused by Paddy jokes. It all depends on context: my friends can make them, others can't. I can imagine that it's much worse for someone with a more immediate source of unease.

I personally enjoyed Pesce's talk and wasn't in the least offended by it and was a bit surprised at the furore after I'd read the notes and viewed the slides, so probably it's useful for me that an explicit policy exists to let me be aware that some other people feel very differently.

That said, I do wonder where is the logical endpoint of avoiding offense once it's spelt out as a quasi-legal policy instead of being a set of cultural norms? The subjective nature of determining whether offense has been given (or was intended to be given) makes this very grey territory and the language[1] of the generic anti-harrasment policy enters boldly into this at several points, e.g. "Booth staff (including volunteers) should not use sexualized clothing/uniforms/costumes, or otherwise create a sexualized environment." Who exactly determines what is "sexualized clothing"? Is this according to Western norms? Do we accomodate the viewpoints of members of various Judaeo-Christian religions of a more conservative type?

A glib answer that it's the conference organizers who make the determination does nothing to answer the core question. On the whole this seems like a poor candidate to choose in order to exercise a policy which was initially debated[2] in the context of stopping the problem of women being "stalked, leered at, and physically assaulted at conferences".

1. http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/index.php?title=Conference_...

2. http://lwn.net/Articles/417952/

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 10, 2011 0:52 UTC (Thu) by rgmoore (✭ supporter ✭, #75) [Link] (3 responses)

If we're aware that the potential exists to irritate someone then it's best to take that into account and avoid potential offense.

I think this is a key point. Different people have different standards of offensiveness, and we need to keep that in mind when deciding what we want to say and do. And, perhaps more important, it is the role of the listener, not the speaker, to decide if speech is offensive. If a substantial group of people* thinks that something is offensive, then it is offensive even if the speaker meant it innocently, though I would hope that innocent intent- and a good apology- would be enough to mollify an offended minority.

That said, it's possible to get carried away with trying to avoid offense. It's important to be a welcoming community, but it's also important to have room for open debate and honest differences of opinion. You don't want to become so sensitive that you let people use pretend outrage as an excuse to shut down opinions they don't like. That doesn't seem to be the case in this instance- it doesn't sound as though anyone objects to Mr. Pesce's opinions, just his way of getting them across- but it is something to guard against.

*Exactly what "substantial" means is obviously open to debate. I think it depends on the nature of the offensive content, and on the group that's being offended. If the offensive behavior has a target (e.g. sexually suggestive pictures of women or ethnic jokes), a large minority of the target group is substantial even if- maybe even especially if- they're a tiny fraction of the whole population.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 10, 2011 10:08 UTC (Thu) by yeti-dn (guest, #46560) [Link] (2 responses)

> If we're aware that the potential exists to irritate someone then
> it's best to take that into account and avoid potential offense.

Well, I find talk like this offensive. This is no joke. Political correctness offends me more than even many direct personal attacks. I would be contradicting myself asking for banning of correctness on the basis that it offends me - but well, perhaps I will start doing so anyway because hypocrites might not be able to comprehend the absurdity.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 10, 2011 14:06 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

So it offends you whenever somebody gives a presentation and doesn't include nudity?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 12, 2011 8:04 UTC (Sat) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"So it offends you whenever somebody gives a presentation and doesn't include nudity?"

Are you really trying to hit all the logical fallacies in the book ?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 18:49 UTC (Thu) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (3 responses)

dneary said:
'"Don't do anything that standard workplace conventions would forbid" might cover things like drinking alcohol,
...
The thing is: sex is different from a lot of other potentially offending things in our society.'

Which confirm brilliantly that this whole discussion is about anglo-saxons (and particularly the US-WASP kind) generalizing their cultural and religious taboo to the rest of the world.... and rather than seek professional help to resolve their issues demand that the whole world become as neurotic as they are.

It's the story of the agoraphobic that demand that no game be played in open-air stadium because that makes him uncomfortable, and of course the his claustrophobic neighbour disagree strongly.

"it seems clear to me that we need to engage in some positive discrimination"
that is another example of an US-centric oxymoron.
discrimination is never 'positive', discrimination - in the context- is the selection of people based on irrelevant criteria, that cannot be 'positive', it can only be 'positive' from the point of view of the one benefiting of the discrimination, and there is always someone that is, on the other hand if it is 'positive' to someone, by definition if is 'negative' to someone else.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 19:06 UTC (Thu) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

No, the reason that sex is different is that the power balance is still heavily weighted towards men. It's got nothing to do with cultural prejudices or sex positivity.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 19:07 UTC (Thu) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (1 responses)

> Which confirm brilliantly that this whole discussion is about anglo-saxons
> (and particularly the US-WASP kind) generalizing their cultural and
> religious taboo to the rest of the world.... and rather than seek
> professional help to resolve their issues demand that the whole world
> become as neurotic as they are.

Not really. In a European, North or South American, or Australian context, monotheist christianity has influenced local culture enormously. In North Africa or south-west Asia, Islam would be a dominant cultural influence. In China, Korea, Japan and other parts of South East Asia, taoist/buddhist influences affect people's views of things like violence, sex, alcohol, etc.

So, as a conference organiser, you try to find a sane common denominator. Not the lowest common denominator of "offend no-one" (which some people seem to imply) but a more reasonable "don't do anything which could reasonably be expected to offend". And in different places this will be different things. At a salon for erotica, there will be different rules for decorum (both for participants and attendees) than at an AA meeting.

> that is another example of an US-centric oxymoron.
<snip>
> there is always someone that is, on the other hand if it is 'positive'
> to someone, by definition if is 'negative' to someone else.

Ahem. First, I'm an Irishman living in France. Second, I'm a WIC (white Irish Catholic) not a WASP. Third, and most importantly, positive discrimination can be all positive. I get your point, if you're talking about a limited resource like jobs, or places in a college course, where one person getting in implies someone else being kept out. But by bringing more women into free software communities, we're not excluding any men - we're just growing the community. Maybe some behaviour which was OK at 99% male becomes unacceptable at 80% male - honestly, I'm OK with that.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 4, 2011 5:32 UTC (Fri) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"Ahem. First, I'm an Irishman living in France."
Ahem, Well, I'm a Frenchman living in the US, but considering that you are living in france, this quote: "sex & bad language are considered worthy of a 15 or 18 age tag on a film, and blood & gore creeps in under PG-13. Go figure." sound very weird to me. Unless there has been a radical cultural revolution in France, in the past 3 weeks...

"But by bringing more women into free software communities, we're not excluding any men "
Except that this so called 'positive discrimination' has been advanced in support of thing like, among others, http://projects.gnome.org/outreach/women/2006/

"Not really. In a European, North or South American, or Australian context, monotheist christianity has influenced local culture enormously. In North Africa or south-west Asia, Islam would be a dominant cultural influence."
sure, you just named a core reason for the poor treatment and recognition of women in these societies and this has nothing to do with FLOSS.

"Maybe some behaviour which was OK at 99% male becomes unacceptable at 80% male - honestly, I'm OK with that."
In the top 100 of the world chess player there is only 1 woman (Judit Polgar), I wonder what should be done to set straight this clearly misogynistic cabal, after all their numbers are worse than those of the Linux Kernel.
I suppose it is all that sex, booze and bad language at chess tournament that are to blame.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 4, 2011 21:35 UTC (Fri) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (57 responses)

there are lots of potential photos you can use on animal welfare, AIDS awareness, children's charities, landmine awareness, etc.

You seem to be repeating the unfortunately popular social convention that sex is offensive while violence is not. It is coercive sex which is offensive, which is of course a form of violence.

Many of us would be more put off by imagery of violence to animals than, for example, Aaron's Railsconf presentation on Arel in which he composited pictures of himself kissing popular Rails developers (who I doubt all share Aaron's apparent orientation).

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 3:10 UTC (Sat) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (29 responses)

"It is coercive sex which is offensive, which is of course a form of violence."

Well, apparently that depend on the mood of the day. Not so long ago the up-in-arms was about the so-called 'soft-porn' in the CouchDB presentation.
Or maybe in some circle sexy model in lingerie are considered 'coercive sex' ?

"You seem to be repeating the unfortunately popular social convention that sex is offensive while violence is not"
Bruce, you are a US citizen, presumably you do watch on occasion US TV... how can you with a straight face that say it is a 'popular social convention' when it is the 'Law' of the land.
Do you know of many places where the Congress go in extraordinary session to address a a sub-second nipple-showing-episode on TV (aka the 'wardrobe malfunction' of Superbowl 38 )
My favorite illustration of this insanity is the movie The Shining. When aired on TV in the US, there is a scene where Jack Nicholson enter a bathroom where a woman is taking a shower. She is nude - as people rarely take shower with their clothe on- and the picture is blurred by censors... but then she step out of the tub, hug Jack and turn to a zombie-like monster... at that very moment the picture become crystal clear: a nude female body need to be hidden from view for fear of traumatizing our children, but a skeleton with flesh dripping from it, that's ok for the kids.
On TV, in the US, the only time you'll see a nude female body is a dead one, with her entrails open on an autopsy table (see CSI) point in case that it is indeed sex and not violence that is censored.

I may be unfortunate, but it is a very real state of affair and not a 'popular' myth.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 5:11 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (28 responses)

As has already been pointed out to you, this is unrelated to cultural perceptions of sex. Does the US have an entirely maladjusted view of the relative damage caused by sexual images compared to violent ones? In my opinion, yes. Is this what we're talking about? Not in the slightest.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 6:50 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (27 responses)

Is this what we're talking about? Not in the slightest.

Not so sure. Unfortunately ours is a warlike society and thus values coercive behavior.

You could take much of the ambiguity out of the process of determining what is appropriate at a conference by considering whether it is in some way coercive (and thus violent). Obviously touching is directly coercive behavior. It's the "take" in "take their emacs virginity" that makes it language about a coercive act.

Speakers can use imagery and language that makes you uncomfortable or offends you to make a point. It is when the language or imagery depict or encourage coercive behavior that they are unfair to the parties to which such coercion is directed. If a future conference policy were to focus on coercion rather than what makes one uncomfortable or offends, it would be much less ambiguous and much more fair.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 17:42 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (26 responses)

"Speakers can use imagery and language that makes you uncomfortable or offends you to make a point. It is when the language or imagery depict or encourage coercive behavior that they are unfair to the parties to which such coercion is directed."

I don't think this is an accurate characterisation of the situation. It's entirely possible to use imagery of women in bikinis in a non-coercive manner, but that doesn't mean that doing so is acceptable in a technical presentation. The reasons for this have been explained at length.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 18:00 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (25 responses)

It's entirely possible to use imagery of women in bikinis in a non-coercive manner, but that doesn't mean that doing so is acceptable in a technical presentation.

Or men in thongs. But the point there is that objectifies people (treats them as sexual objects). Which is easy to describe and identify as a category of material to be avoided, as is material that depicts or encourages coercion.

This still seems 1000 times more specific, unambiguous, and easy to identify than guidelines based on being offensive or making uncomfortable.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 18:16 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (23 responses)

No. The problem with the images is not that they objectify people. The problem with the images is the effect they have on the audience, which has nothing to do with objectification.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 18:28 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (22 responses)

The problem with the images is the effect they have on the audience, which has nothing to do with objectification.

Really? I was thinking that the images were offensive because they objectified a person. If you are merely objecting to them because they titillate, then state that clearly. "Effect they have on the audience" doesn't even state what effect, which I am sure you can produce. And of course it's an auteur's job to effect the audience, so it gets you into territory that can never be disambiguated.

Just classifying based on discomfort or offense is really "I know what it is, but I can't describe it". And you really don't know what it is in that case, because it's subjective.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 18:41 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (21 responses)

What? I'm not objecting to them because they titillate. I'm objecting to them because of the atmosphere they create, which disproportionately affects a specific group in the community.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 19:32 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (20 responses)

I'm objecting to them because of the atmosphere they create, which disproportionately affects a specific group in the community.

You really can arrive at a concrete statement, I'm sure you can see how vague this still is. How does it effect them, what specific group, why is it disproportinate?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 19:35 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (19 responses)

Have you read the rest of the discussion? I'd perhaps naively assumed that you wouldn't be offering solutions without having done so, but I'm now beginning to suspect that you haven't.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 19:42 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (13 responses)

Yes. I see a problem in that discussion that you still seem to be missing, which is that the problems come from a lack of specificity and a subjective nature.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 19:47 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (12 responses)

And you're proposing solutions that don't actually demonstrate any understanding of why the existing policy exists. It's not about coercion. It's not about titillation. It's not about objectification. It's about how the audience feels, and it's not practical to come up with an exhaustive list of things to avoid in order to prevent them feeling that way. It's inherently subjective, because so are people.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 22:47 UTC (Sat) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (11 responses)

It's about how the audience feels

You can go to jail for rape, or assault, or maybe even some form of harassment, and in some countries for hate speech, but not for simply hurting someone's feelings or making them uncomfortable with your words. Ever think about why? It's simply the difference between objective and subjective. We have no good way of fairly ruling on the subjective. That's why policies that rely on subjective parameters must, simply by their nature, be oppressive and unjust.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 22:57 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (10 responses)

We're talking about a policy that's analogous to a corporate sexual harassment policy, not a law. The original paper selection process was subjective too.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:14 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (9 responses)

We're talking about a policy that's analogous to a corporate sexual harassment policy

OK, let's look at some corporate sexual harassment policies, then. First, it's important to recognize that they are regarding the environment in which a person has to spend much of their life working, not just a conference. But they have a lower standard that we seem to have for conferences, and real rules. This is from http://www.elinfonet.com/human-resources/Sexual-Harassment/

In June, 1998, the United States Supreme Court issued two opinions addressing an employer’s liability for sexual harassment in the workplace—Faragher v. City of Boca Raton, Fla., 118 S. Ct. 2275 (1998), and Burlington Industries, Inc. v. Ellerth, 118 S.Ct. 2257 (1998). Although the Court’s opinion in these two cases left a number of issues to be resolved by the lower courts, the Court’s decisions in both Faragher and Burlington Industries unequivocally demonstrate the importance to an employer of developing an effective and fair sexual harassment policy, communicating that policy to company employees, and taking prompt corrective action when sexual harassment is found to have occurred.

Definition of Sexual Harassment

Regulations promulgated by the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (“EEOC”) defines sexual harassment as “unwelcome sexual advances, requests for sexual favors, and other verbal or physical conduct of a sexual nature when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual’s employment; (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual; or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect or unreasonably interfering with an individual’s work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment.”

There are two specific forms of unlawful sexual harassment, including (1) quid pro quo harassment, and (2) hostile working environment harassment, both of which are described below. Although the line between these forms of harassment has been blurred by recent Supreme Court decisions, they continue to be important elements of any sexual harassment analysis.

Quid Pro Quo Sexual Harassment

Quid pro quo harassment occurs when an individual’s submission to or rejection of sexual advances or conduct of a sexual nature is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting the individual or the individual’s submission to such conduct is made a term or condition of employment. Such behavior must be engaged in by an individual with the power to effect the employment action or decision affecting the employee. Actionable sexual harassment can arise out of consensual sexual relationship between a supervisor and a subordinate employee, generally in situations in which the consensual relationship ends and adverse employment consequences befall the subordinate.

Hostile Environment Sexual Harassment

“Hostile work environment” sexual harassment exists when unwelcome sexual advances, request for sexual favors and other verbal or physical conduct of sexual nature has the purpose or effect of unreasonably interfering with an individuals work performance or creates an intimidating, hostile, or offensive working environment. 29 C.F.R. § 1604.11 (a)(3).

In order to establish a hostile environment sexual harassment claim, an employee must show the following:

the harassment was unwelcome
the harassment was based on gender
the harassment was sufficiently severe or pervasive to create an abusive working environment
the employer had constructive or actual knowledge of the harassment
the employer took no prompt and remedial action

To determine whether an environment is hostile or abusive, a court will look at all the circumstances, which may include the following:

the frequency of the discriminatory conduct
the severity of the discriminatory conduct
whether the discriminatory conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance
whether the discriminatory conduct unreasonably interferes with an employees work performance

An employee is not required to show that he or she suffered psychological injury as a result of the hostile or abusive work environment. The Supreme Court uses the “reasonable person” standard—reasonable person must find the environment hostile or abusive, and the victim must subjectively perceive the environment to be abusive.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:17 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (8 responses)

...which appears to be a list of a variety of subjective rules. What point are you actually trying to make?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:27 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (7 responses)

The one that stands out most is:

whether the discriminatory conduct is physically threatening or humiliating or a mere offensive utterance

The point here is that an environment where obscentity is used is not for that reason alone a sexually harassing environment. The presence of a physical threat or humiliation is evaluated. Certainly we must entirely prohibit physical threats and humiliation at our conferences, and we can do so with much more precise language than we are using. But "mere offensive utterance" is so subjective that whether or not you are guilty is not based upon a "reasonable person" standard but upon the specific people who make the decision.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:36 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (6 responses)

With the difference between "humiliating" and "mere offensive utterance" being precisely and objectively defined?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:48 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (5 responses)

With the difference between "humiliating" and "mere offensive utterance" being precisely and objectively defined?

Obviously whether a communication is directed toward a person or class of people would be a determination. Calling a woman "b***h" is intended to humiliate her. Undirected obscentity is merely offensive.

But this is not to say that courts or corporate sexual harassment policies have really grappled with the subject, either. In fact, there is one place where they seriously blow it, which is that they consider harassment to be only unwelcome advances. Making it entirely dependent upon something the recipient decides after the message has already been sent. A fair rule would simply direct employees not to make such advances to their co-workers.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 0:55 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (4 responses)

Well, that would be one determination - but it's hardly the only one. Which seems to support my point. The rest of the world doesn't rely on precise and objective definitions of acceptable and unacceptable behaviour, and so your argument that a conference anti-harassment policy should doesn't seem to be terribly grounded in reality.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 1:00 UTC (Sun) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (3 responses)

So because those deciding a loosely-related topic don't do better, you think you don't have to either. And thus ignoring the fact that you could have drafted a fair policy, and still can is in some way OK, even though people are being oppressed and treated unfairly.

That hardly seems ethical.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 1:10 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

It is impossible to simultaneously achieve your definition of a fair policy and for that policy to achieve its desired goals for reasons that have been previously explained. While it's clear that conference organisers can take advantage of the fact that we're working in a grey area in order to unfairly punish individuals, the reality is that conference organisers can do whatever they want at their conference anyway. I haven't seen any evidence that they tend to do so, and I don't think I've seen any cases where the anti-harassment policy has been used to oppress or treat people unfairly.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 23:20 UTC (Sun) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (1 responses)

"I don't think I've seen any cases where the anti-harassment policy has been used to oppress or treat people unfairly."

Have you read the article your are commenting on?
I would imagine that Mark Pesce does not share your selective blindness.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 23:30 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

The policy states that no sexual images should be displayed in public places. Mark's keynote displayed sexual images in public places. There's nothing subjective whatsoever about the decision that followed, and Bruce's statement was related to the distinction between subjective and objective decision making. So on that basis, no, it wasn't used to oppress or treat anyone unfairly.

Mark's made no indication that he believes that the organisers' decision to apologise was unfair. In fact, without being required to in any way whatsoever, he made a personal apology. So even on the grounds that you're arguing, there's no evidence that anyone was oppressed or treated unfairly.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 21:36 UTC (Sat) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (4 responses)

"Have you read the rest of the discussion?"

he seems to have, and so did I, but the problem here is that you take a fallacy, turn that to an 'absolute and undeniable' Truth(tm)' and then demand that everybody subscribe to your unsubstantiated misandric position.

I challenge you to produce a study that demonstrate the causality that you claim. (namely that showing a girl in a bikini to a group of 'male' turn them into uncontrolled sex-maniac that are going to jump any female in the immediate vicinity, or even better in that case, showing them a cartoon of a pig doing a goose or a fake road-sign with some sexual content achieve the same result)

Furthermore, I did not read you or other proponent of your thesis demanding strict dress code for female at conference, after all if the mere sight of a sexy picture can have the devastating effect you claim they have, imagine what a good looking garment could do. Of course good looking female should also, by the same logic , be banned from conference, since they put - still by the same logic - every women in the audience in dire risk of rape.... stupid isn't it ? yeah I thought so.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 21:54 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (3 responses)

Oddly, that's not the argument I'm making. I don't think it fundamentally matters whether or not showing reasonably mild sexualised images at a conference results in a statistically measurable increase in the number of sexual assaults carried out by participants[1]. What matters is that the audience are able to enjoy the presentation without sections of it being made to feel distinctly different from other sections of it.

[1] There's various pieces of work that indicate that there's some level of association.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 6:52 UTC (Sun) by AdamRichter (guest, #11129) [Link] (2 responses)

"[1] There's various pieces of work that indicate that there's some level of association." I, for one, would consider your credibility increased if you would provide a little more detail in your citations, even it's just "I think a friend told me last year" or "I thought I saw it on a television advertisement in the United States about twenty years ago." If you don't remember a single reference at all, it would still help your credibility with me if you would explicitly admit it.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 6, 2011 16:36 UTC (Sun) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

Sure. Haavio-Mannila et al is repeatedly cited for sexual harassment being linked to the degree to which an environment is sexualised - sadly it doesn't seem to be online and most of the referring articles are also behind paywalls (such as Pryor et al, 1993, from which the relevant line is "If local norms are more permissive with regard to sexual behaviour, sexual harassment is more likely to occur"). There's also a fair amount of research into the role of sexism and rape proclivity, such as http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20042541 (exposure to sexist jokes tends to increase men's willingness to self-report willingness to engage in rape, but this is influenced by their attitude towards sexist jokes in the first place)

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 11, 2011 18:39 UTC (Fri) by AdamRichter (guest, #11129) [Link]

Thank you for the references. This response may seem nit-picking at first, but I way to honor your taking the trouble to provide references by providing a serious response, and also I think it is important to fight public misconceptions and moral panics, so here goes.

I got one hit on Google Books, zero on Google web, and zero on Google scholar for your quotation from "repeatedly cited" Elina Haavio-Mannila, whose wikipedia page is only available in Finnish, which I find surprising for someone being used used as an authority on a subject of such universal interest.

That quotation from Haavio-Mannila, "if local norms are more permissive with regard to sexual behavior, sexual harassment is more likely to occur", does not necessary even support your claim tht "showing reasonably mild sexualised images at a conference results in a statistically measurable increase in the number of sexual assaults carried out by participants", since showing an activity does not necessarily indicate that that activity is the local norm. Come to think of it, the opposite can be true. Quite often an activity is interesting enough to show because it is the not the norm, such as a news presentation. I think it's fair to say that a common theme among the other images in mark's presentation was that they were showing images outside of the "local norm", so the inclusion of an image in that set does not imply that is is the local norm, and would not, by the logic of Evina Haavio-Mannila's statement, necessarily make sexual harassment more likely to occur.

Moving to your second reference, the link to the abstract that you include only describes sexual jokes as making subjects more willing to confess, which is different from making people more willing to commit an act. Just to illustrate with a speculative scenario, it's not entirely implausible to me that seeing something made light of might make one feel revulsion, think introspectively about it and be more willing to confess as a path toward self improvement.

So, I'm not convinced yet that "there's various pieces of work that indicate that there's some level of association" for your claim that "showing reasonably mild sexualised images at a conference results in a statistically measurable increase in the number of sexual assaults carried out by participants."

However, I am digressing with this argument. As I acknowledged at the outset, you did say that you "don't think it fundamentally matters", and what I really objected to was that you then made an utterly untraceable reference to try to support your claim. It is important to me to reduce attempts to make vague untraceable references to authority, which I see as argument by intimidation, which I suspect contribute to public misconceptions (but I don't know of any studies to support this).

Anyhow, thank you very much for providing references. Even though I find the references unconvincing so far (maybe I need to go read Havvio-Mannila's book), your proving references of any kind has substantially increased your credibility in my view.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 11, 2011 9:49 UTC (Fri) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link]

> But the point there is that objectifies people
> (treats them as sexual objects). Which is easy
> to describe and identify as a category of material
> to be avoided, as is material that depicts or
> encourages coercion.

I absolutely concur with that. THIS is what
"harassment" is about (and what that policy should
prevent). It's not about somebody using "fuck" in
a speech, or showing pictures of pigs fucking geese.

And this is of course the prime example for it:
http://geekfeminism.wikia.com/wiki/CouchDB_talk

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 14:15 UTC (Mon) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (26 responses)

> You seem to be repeating the unfortunately popular social convention that
> sex is offensive while violence is not.

On the contrary, I explicitly said that violence is offensive, and bothers me more than a bit of profanity or sex - "blood & gore bothers me a hell of a lot more than a bit of tit or some bad language might".

What I am saying is that it's not covered by the policy. So if your goal is to shock people, or offend people, then you still have a lot of scope to do that, without using sexual imagery.

This is by way of rebuttal to the point that the sexual harassment policy has imposed some sort of political correctness standard on presenters and attendees - I am not arguing that you should offend people, merely pointing out that it's possible to do so in a way which is consistent with the policy.

Dave.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 17:06 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (25 responses)

If you are using the guideline that says "Avoid things likely to offend some people.", "Avoid unnecessary subjects." and "If someone in your audience is uncomfortable with something you've said, you're not doing your job." there is no telling what is in scope and what is not. It's subjective.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 17:52 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (22 responses)

Rules involving social interaction tend to be subjective. People tend to manage for the most part.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 19:39 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (21 responses)

Subjective rules are fine for parties. Although conferences have parties, their main function is a more serious one for which party rules are not appropriate.

You really should be made uncomfortable at times by a good speaker, because that speaker's purpose is to make you think of things you would not have otherwise. And thus it's no surprise that the most controversial speaker in our industry is the one whose message was entirely swamped by reaction to a well-meant joke about "emacs virginity" by the folks who have since imposed party rules. I would much rather have conferences tell that speaker not to talk about "taking" any sort of virginity, as "taking" from someone is easy to construe as a violent act, than I would tell him not to make people uncomfortable!

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 19:54 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (18 responses)

If you're defining problematic behaviour in terms of whether or not it could be easily construed as violent, how do you objectively make the determination of whether a given behaviour is problematic or not?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:34 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (17 responses)

If you're defining problematic behaviour in terms of whether or not it could be easily construed as violent, how do you objectively make the determination of whether a given behaviour is problematic or not?

You need to analyze past situations and build rules based on how the actions violate an individual's civil rights rather than how they create feelings in that individual.

Don't touch because it violates the right to safety.

Don't portray or encourage violence or coercion because it encourages violation of the right to safety, even in so mild a form as jokes about taking virginity.

Don't demean or humiliate racial, religious, ethnic, or sexual (including sexual orientation, not just gender) classes of people for being themselves. Such things tend to excuse discrimination against those classes, the violation of their right to safety, or repression of them.

But also do not tolerate the imposition of religious or sexual rules upon others against their will, because it violates their freedom from repression.

Understand that people can be very different from you, and you may parse their actions incorrectly because you have not understood them. Unless you are in immediate physical danger, consider how their intent may not have been to violate your rights.

Make the rules specific. And if you find that one has been left out that should have been there, add it and make that specific too.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:47 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (15 responses)

You still seem to be trying to solve a different problem. I don't have any objection to that, and if you honestly think that you can codify a set of rules that covers every problematic behaviour we're likely to see without any subjectivity (such as "encourages" - who decides whether it encourages or not?) and without forbidding things that should be allowed, and if said rules aren't so long that it's impossible for anyone to reliably adhere to them, then I'd really encourage you to do so. It'd be a useful thing to have. But it wouldn't be a replacement for what we're talking about here, which is seeking to ensure that conference attendees enjoy a safe and relaxed atmosphere and as such requires consideration of human reaction rather than speaker motivation.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:59 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (14 responses)

But it wouldn't be a replacement for what we're talking about here, which is seeking to ensure that conference attendees enjoy a safe and relaxed atmosphere and as such requires consideration of human reaction rather than speaker motivation.

I am pretty confident that I can define rules about keeping them safe. I think "relaxed" is vague, what we want is for all attendees to be confident that all in the event will respect and not violate their civil rights.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 21:03 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (13 responses)

"I am pretty confident that I can define rules about keeping them safe. I think "relaxed" is vague, what we want is for all attendees to be confident that all in the event will respect and not violate their civil rights."

Why do you keep using "we"? I'm pretty sure that that's not what the authors of the AHP want.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 21:10 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (12 responses)

"We" would include both speakers and attendees, the two parties whose rights are to be protected. I feel at least the speakers rights are endangered at present. The AHP authors simply missed the mark.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 21:14 UTC (Mon) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (11 responses)

...so by "We" you mean the speakers and attendees other than the speakers and attendees who have explained to you that your approach doesn't achieve the desired goal?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 0:24 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (9 responses)

I mean the speakers and attendees other than the ones who, in my honest opinion, came up with an unfair and discriminatory strategy. It doesn't protect the people it is intended to protect well because it is so vague, and what protection they get is at another party's expense.

The fact that it is "what you wanted" doesn't give you any special rights, but it does give you the responsibility to take the blame. You're violating people's civil rights, including mine. You could have done better. "Man up" and take responsibility.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 0:55 UTC (Tue) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] (8 responses)

Bruce, are you seriously suggesting that the organizers of a conference are violating your civil rights if they do not choose to invite you as a speaker? Or by not choosing to invite a particular speaker you would like to hear?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 1:22 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (7 responses)

Bruce, are you seriously suggesting that the organizers of a conference are violating your civil rights if they do not choose to invite you as a speaker? Or by not choosing to invite a particular speaker you would like to hear?

Let's not be silly, please.

Were you to speak as much as I have, you would not really want to go to yet another conference and deprive your 10-year-old of his daddy for another week. I make sure Stanley gets lots of my time, and consider conference opportunities very carefully. I turn down opening keynotes more often than not.

However, I have seen opportunities where I would have submitted a paper, were the speaker guidelines not in place. But a policy that violates my rights is not acceptable, so I refrain from submitting. I understand the problem the guidelines are meant to address and wish to solve it fairly.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 2:02 UTC (Tue) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] (6 responses)

That is a distinction without a difference. If you choose not to submit a talk that you think will be turned down as being contrary to the guidelines for selected presentations, that is a rational choice that saves everyone involved from a hassle. But nowhere in that scenario is there any violation of your civil rights.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 2:12 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (5 responses)

You don't seem to have parsed my reason. I am not refraining from submitting because I believe I would be rejected. I know how to produce speech proposals that are reliably accepted and have keynoted a conference of the organization behind the policy in question.

I am refraining from submitting because I would have to be subjected to a policy that violates my rights, and is arbitrary and non-deterministic in the way it does so because of its vagueness and subjective nature - so there is no telling what will "offend" or "make someone uncomfortable" and no way to defend myself.

For you to tell me "just don't submit" is like saying "That lady should simply have stayed in the back of the bus".

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 3:35 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

"You don't seem to have parsed my reason. I am not refraining from submitting because I believe I would be rejected. I know how to produce speech proposals that are reliably accepted and have keynoted a conference of the organization behind the policy in question."

You're confusing the Gnome Speaker Guidelines (which I wrote the first draft of) with the Anti-Harassment Policy adopted by LCA (which I had nothing to with).

"I am refraining from submitting because I would have to be subjected to a policy that violates my rights"

Given that you don't have any right to appear at a conference in the first place, and given that conferences have the right to terminate presentations at any time for any reason and issue whatever apologies they want to, I'm struggling to see how this violates your rights in any way whatsoever.

'For you to tell me "just don't submit" is like saying "That lady should simply have stayed in the back of the bus".'

You're genuinely arguing that a private event's requirement that speakers and attendees be conscious of the effect that their behaviour may have on others is equivalent to state-backed discrimination against its own citizens in their public life on the basis of the colour of their skin? There's... rather a lot of ways in which these things aren't analogous.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 4:05 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link] (1 responses)

You are correct, I am connecting the AHP with the GSP erroneously - at least if the AHP is not in any way derivative of the GSP. They both seem to embed the same problem of not being rights-based.

Given that you don't have any right to appear at a conference in the first place, and given that conferences have the right to terminate presentations at any time for any reason and issue whatever apologies they want to, I'm struggling to see how this violates your rights in any way whatsoever.

Suppose the conference decided to handle the problem of bad things happening to women by prohibiting women from attending. By your theory, the women's rights would not be violated. Apply your statement to the women instead of me: "they don't have any rights to attend in the first place". Sounds wrong, doesn't it?

The plight of a speaker who values intellectual freedom (within clear limits designed to protect others) may be a lesser plight than the plight of women (or Blacks, in my previous example) but his rights are still worthy of protection.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 14:07 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link]

"Suppose the conference decided to handle the problem of bad things happening to women by prohibiting women from attending. By your theory, the women's rights would not be violated. Apply your statement to the women instead of me: "they don't have any rights to attend in the first place". Sounds wrong, doesn't it?"

If a conference chose to discriminate along those lines, it's not a conference I'd choose to attend. But as a privately-run event, the organisers would be within their rights to discriminate in that manner.

"The plight of a speaker who values intellectual freedom (within clear limits designed to protect others) may be a lesser plight than the plight of women (or Blacks, in my previous example) but his rights are still worthy of protection."

And that speaker has the right to speak at a different conference, or to organise a competing conference with a different set of behavioural policies. But since that speaker never had a right to speak at this conference in the first place, putting boundaries on their behaviour within the context of the conference is not limiting their rights.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 4:36 UTC (Tue) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link] (1 responses)

Your position may be more nuanced, but if so you are not explaining it very well. From where I sit, it comes across like a parody:

Organizers: We welcome talks that meet the conference theme and guidelines.
Bruce: Your guidelines are oppressive! I want to speak, and my talk will demonstrate the futility of your guidelines!
Organizers: No thanks, we can find someone else.
Bruce: I'm being oppressed! My rights are being violated!

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 5:03 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I do want the conference to accept topics that make people uncomfortable, like "why you should not use mono". I don't feel the conference is doing its job otherwise. I do feel that speakers (doesn't have to be me) have a right to present on that sort of topic and that intellectual freedom is harmed if they can't.

I want to be able to present my speech without being judged using rules that I can't parse and can't prepare for.

I accept that there should be rules to protect other's civil rights. They just have to be clear.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 17:45 UTC (Tue) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"who have explained to you that your approach doesn't achieve the desired goal?"

since you picked on the Bruce's 'we' usage: not "the" desired goal, but 'their' (the speaker and attendee you speak off) desired goal.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 8, 2011 0:35 UTC (Tue) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I should have added to this one problem I've already discussed. Don't present people as sexual objects. Specifically, don't use images or live persons meant to direct attention mainly through sexual attraction, because 1) that deprives a person or class of people (often women) of their right to be treated as human beings and 2) the recipients of such messages (often men) are manipulated sexually for business purposes, which is molestation, thus violence. This deals with the T&A graphic and "booth babe" issue without imposing a dress code upon attendees, etc.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 19:58 UTC (Mon) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (1 responses)

Hi,

> it's no surprise that the most controversial speaker in our industry is
> the one whose message was entirely swamped by reaction to a well-meant
> joke about "emacs virginity" by the folks who have since imposed party
> rules.

That's exactly the point. He made plenty of people unconfortable that day with his history lesson on the origins of GNOME and the reasons why we should avoid depending on Mono. What do people remember? The well, meant but ill-phrased emacs virginity joke.

Cheers,
Dave

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:40 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

I think that walking out of the hall, many more people remembered what he had to say about mono.

The fact that people now remember the emacs joke is a result of subsequent beating of political drums about it, IMO way over the top and I still believe that one of the parties beating drums used the women's issue to promote his own agenda.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:03 UTC (Mon) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (1 responses)

Even though it is is subjective, most people will get it "right" most of the time. Aren't people amazing!
And when people don't get it "right", someone will complain (politely I hope as I think was the case at LCA), an apology can be offered, and the incident becomes information that future speakers can use to guide their subjective decisions.

Thus workable guidelines get defined largely by a set of examples.

Sure: the mathematician in me would rather precise guidelines, but the community member in me knows that it not possible and tends to create as many problems as it fixes (and hence is only valuable if the problems it fixes are much more severe that the problems it creates).

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 20:43 UTC (Mon) by BrucePerens (guest, #2510) [Link]

It is possible to create working, precise guidelines from past incidents, based on analysis of the violation of civil rights in those incidents. I sat down and wrote down a start of this in another LWN message. Don't be lazy.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 0:34 UTC (Tue) by xyzzy (guest, #1984) [Link] (1 responses)

The test of "would you be comfortable with this slide being used in a 6 o'clock news story about the conference" would probably also work. A problem with these big arguments about talk content is they can become the only (or the main) thing people hear about the conference. Far better to leave out the unprofessional pictures (and language) in the first place.

I don't recall seeing similarly controversial content in talks at academic conferences I've been to (e.g. OOPSLA) -- is there something different about the free software world that encourages this sort of thing?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 8:27 UTC (Tue) by PO8 (guest, #41661) [Link]

Even higher male/female ratio of presenters and attendees. Much younger mean, medium and modal age. Much less experience with professional conferences and presentations. There's probably other big differences, but those are the relevant ones I notice most, as an occasional attendee of both kinds of events.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Jan 31, 2011 22:46 UTC (Mon) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (2 responses)

An early slide in the talk did warn that it would contain content that was not suitable for under-12s.

On one hand, this is good and I could have chosen to walk out if I had wanted to - though there was no sub-text like the OFLC provides: e.g. "profane language, sexual imagery". "simulated violence" etc. That would have informed my choice more effectively. I don't think censorship is appropriate (for adults), but I do believe in "informing your choices". Mark made a step in that direction which should be commended, but it wasn't a very big step.

On the other hand, the fact that he clearly knew it was offensive in this way and went ahead with the talk was, I think, misguided. Certainly I think it is appropriate to shock your audience some times, but in this case I think the bare facts, when explained as Mark explained them, are shocking enough. If provocative imagery is wanted, I feel that imagery of slavery would be much more apt and less contentious than the imagery that was used.

(OFLC == Office of Film and Literature Classification in .AU)

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 8:19 UTC (Tue) by C.Gherardi (guest, #4233) [Link] (1 responses)

>>An early slide in the talk did warn that it would contain content that was not suitable for under-12s.
>>
>> On one hand, this is good and I could have chosen to walk out if I had wanted to - though there was no sub-text like the OFLC provides: e.g. "profane language, sexual imagery". "simulated violence" etc. That would have informed my choice more effectively. I don't think censorship is appropriate (for adults), but I do believe in "informing your choices". Mark made a step in that direction which should be commended, but it wasn't a very big step.

Out of curiosity, would OFLC sub-text (or country specific equivalent) be a useful addition/revision to the policy?

>> On the other hand, the fact that he clearly knew it was offensive in this way and went ahead with the talk was,

I'm not convinced he thought it was offensive. Provocative certainly, 'shocking' perhaps, but deliberately offensive?

I understand and support the policy but would hate to see it used as a weapon, especially for something like acceptable language.

>> ... If provocative imagery is wanted, I feel that imagery of slavery would be much more apt and less contentious than the imagery that was used.

Thats an interesting distinction. Would images of slavery have drawn the same reaction? I think they probably would have.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 9:57 UTC (Tue) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link]

>>> ... If provocative imagery is wanted, I feel that imagery of slavery would be much more apt and less contentious than the imagery that was used.

> Thats an interesting distinction. Would images of slavery have drawn the same reaction? I think they probably would have.

I claim no ability at predicting reactions of others (I doubt I'd beat a coin-toss in reliability) but here is my attempt to rationalise the situation.

A significant thrust of Mark's talk was about power plays. I almost wrote "power struggles" but in a lot of cases there is no struggle - just power. Whether it is a large company which gains power over their customers through creative use of the personal information they collect, or national governments which attempt to control information infrastructure through filtering or disconnecting, it is about power and control.

Power is a very big part of many sexual behaviours, and particularly those that were depicted. Whether it is about real power, an illusion of power, and whether it is explicit or subtle, power is often an important issue. When Mark asserted that "we had been .....ed" (or something like that) the implication was clearly that someone had exercised power over "us" without our consent.
I am convinced that the idea that linked Mark's message and the language and imagery under question is power.

Now any sexual imagery is fundamentally asymmetric and polarising. i.e. there are two different sides and people will tend to identify with one side or the other. It should be expected that there would consequently be a polarisation of reactions (though still lots of variability in those polarised sides).

When a power play is paired with sexual conduct, then the polarisation connects some people with the idea of being in power, and others with the idea of being under that power. People in the first group might think it is funny, people in the second group are less likely too.

This is where the discrimination comes in. A sexual image will always look different to one half of the population than it does to the other half. So using sex to make a statement about anything other than sex will always be discriminatory. Equally, using ethnicity to make a statement about anything other than ethnicity will be discriminatory.

Compare this with an image of slavery. There is still a side that is in power and a side that is under that power. But the contrast doesn't need to be paired with anything else.
If the master/slave are clearly of different genders, or different ethnicities or possibly even different socio-economic backgrounds you would have the same problem. But if you pictured slavery in a way that only focussed on the power issues and avoided other distinctions then you might have a very offensive image, but it would not be discriminatory - it would offend everybody equally.

So I would hope and (toss ... heads!) expect people to react differently to an image of slavery used to illustrate power imbalance than to a sexual image used to illustrate that power imbalance.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 0:12 UTC (Tue) by gdt (subscriber, #6284) [Link] (13 responses)

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.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

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

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] (1 responses)

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 (guest, #53265) [Link] (4 responses)

> 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] (3 responses)

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 (guest, #53265) [Link] (2 responses)

> 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.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 2:02 UTC (Wed) by jensend (guest, #1385) [Link]

Thank you for providing a voice of sanity. People who are claiming that this brings up issues about free speech and censorship are out of their minds. And anyone who claims that Mr. Pesce's presentation made its points more clearly or better by making a point of blasting the audience with sexual metaphors and foul language and images needs to go back to middle school and hope that this time they manage to escape their adolescence.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 3:38 UTC (Wed) by motk (subscriber, #51120) [Link]

Well spake that man.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 20:48 UTC (Wed) by pebolle (guest, #35204) [Link] (1 responses)

> 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.

Who are (is?) "we"?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 3:18 UTC (Thu) by motk (subscriber, #51120) [Link]

The Australian Academic Research Network, AARNet, supplied a nice big pipe to the conference.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 0:53 UTC (Tue) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] (12 responses)

One of the most retarded things I read about this talk is this: "As organisers of LCA2010, Andrew and I have discussed this current situation and think some of Mark's slides could be inappropriate and considered bad taste, but they have certainly achieved their purpose of making us all sit up and think, and more importantly, to question. In our view, Mark's talk was not discriminatory or harassment. It obviously offended some people, but then he is entitled to shock, horrify and offend under his right to freedom of expression (as long as his actions aren't breaking any laws, like discrimination laws etc)."
So this person thinks that it's no problem if you offend or shock people, as long as you don't discriminate(there's a discrimination law for speeches?! since when?). This is the culmination of a current trend. Intelligent people would go for the "as much freedom as it's possible" kind of approach, on the other hand people with problems would go for the "let's censor every kind of offending words or thoughts"(which is stupid but at least it's somewhat coherent), then there's the aberration of the mind kind of approach, that is "let's censor just the things I don't like(like discrimination), but everything else is just fine".

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 0:58 UTC (Tue) by fuhchee (guest, #40059) [Link] (2 responses)

"there's a discrimination law for speeches?! since when?"

Since about the late 1980s. Look up "hate crime" laws or what some human rights commissions and courts have been up to in the free world lately.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 1:03 UTC (Tue) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] (1 responses)

For speeches?! Then how come there's still something like the KKK? It depends on what you discriminate for? I think you're making this up.

Hate Crimes

Posted Feb 1, 2011 3:10 UTC (Tue) by mrshiny (guest, #4266) [Link]

Not every country is the United States. Canada, in particular, has Hate crime laws which prohibit certain kinds of speech. I don't know about Australia specifically, but Wikipedia has more info.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_crime

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 1:16 UTC (Tue) by cjb (guest, #40354) [Link] (8 responses)

Intelligent people would go for the "as much freedom as it's possible" kind of approach, on the other hand people with problems would go for the "let's censor every kind of offending words or thoughts"

Wow, so people who agree with you are "intelligent" and people who disagree with you "have problems"? How convenient!

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 1:27 UTC (Tue) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] (7 responses)

In the Middle Ages women accused of being witches were burned at the stake. That was horrible and due to the censors of the time, the inquisitors and the stupid people who supported them and the church, that is almost averyone. Is this subjective or objective? Is there any difference now just because I'm talking about the current times instead of the past? Remember that we're talking about speeches. There is absolutely no good reason for any kind of censorship in speeches, whatsoever! But if you prefer censorship, try at least to have some coherence.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 1:34 UTC (Tue) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link] (3 responses)

Now I'm going somewhat offtopic, but just to put this into perspective: look at that guy who put that book on amazon which was about pedophilia and was arrested for that. The argument of the book was horrible, but it still was just a book and he was arrested for that?! You should try to consider the times we're in and if we really need some more censorship than we already have.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 1:45 UTC (Tue) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (2 responses)

You're right, it's obscene that a privately run conference should have any right to interfere with what potential speakers are able to say in front of their audience. We should abolish the paper selection committee forthwith and force speakers to engage in a battle to the death to obtain one of the available slots.

More seriously. There's a great deal of censorship involved in the entire process of running an event like this. Abstracts that aren't deemed "interesting" don't get picked. Speakers that have proven problematic in the past are likely to be frowned upon. Though I don't believe it's ever happened at LCA, it's plausible that speakers might be ejected from the conference for unrelated reasons before they have an opportunity to present. But you know what's wonderful about free speech? Anyone unable to present their opinions can choose to do so elsewhere, and anyone interested in those opinions can view them there. Crying "censorship" the moment someone is taken to task for breaching a policy that was voluntarily implemented by the conference organisers is ignoring the reality of the situation - to wit, speakers have never been at liberty to say whatever they want to, and likely never will be at this kind of event.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 3:25 UTC (Tue) by MisterIO (guest, #36192) [Link]

Oh, come on! Sure, we can do this game for fun, but that's it. Censorship isn't as ambiguosly defined as you imply. By the way, these last messages you commented on weren't directly related to conferences, I was merely answering to this comment "Wow, so people who agree with you are "intelligent" and people who disagree with you "have problems"? How convenient!", trying to explain why I took that approach about censorship.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 3:52 UTC (Wed) by motk (subscriber, #51120) [Link]

We should abolish the paper selection committee forthwith and force speakers to engage in a battle to the death to obtain one of the available slots.

Do I detect sarcasm? You say that as if you believe the idea has no merit!

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 16:53 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link] (2 responses)

> In the Middle Ages women accused of being witches were
> burned at the stake.

(Completely Off-Topic)

No, they were NOT. This happened in the Renaissance and later!

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 17:04 UTC (Thu) by halla (subscriber, #14185) [Link] (1 responses)

And mostly where the power structure of the church had broken down and the new protestant churches hadn't gained ascendancy much. The whole witch-burning-myth is part and parcel with a whole lot of other 19th century myths that have been accepted as truth, from primary school books up to university lecturers, but which aren't true. The kalevala, kilts, ravens at the tower, Columbus being persecuted by the inquisition and so on. "The Invention of Tradition" by Hobshawn and Ranger is a really interesting read.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 11, 2011 8:32 UTC (Fri) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link]

> "The Invention of Tradition" by Hobshawn and Ranger
> is a really interesting read.

Many thanks, I immediately got it and am reading it right now.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 8:11 UTC (Tue) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (11 responses)

You forgot one group in your summary, and thisgroup is, in my opinion, the major problem.

They are the people who are offended - outraged, even - that people might be made uncomfortable by anything with which they themselves don't have a problem. These are the people who turn useful exploration of grey areas into a confrontational situation.

I'm perfectly happy for someone to say "that didn't bother me" or even "that shouldn't be forbidden by the policy" but I draw the line at "other people shouldn't be offended by this".

Dave.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 12:39 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link] (9 responses)

So you are offended by people who are offended by others' offense? Is there any way your post can be interpreted as anything but straightforward hypocrisy?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 17:41 UTC (Tue) by daniel (guest, #3181) [Link] (1 responses)

"So you are offended by people who are offended by others' offense? Is there any way your post can be interpreted as anything but straightforward hypocrisy?"

Yes, it could be interpreted as an unterminated recursion.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 18:17 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link]

>Yes, it could be interpreted as an unterminated recursion.

That's even worse!

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 19:15 UTC (Tue) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (6 responses)

> So you are offended by people who are offended by others' offense?

I didn't say I was offended. Angry is what I am.

You're not me. You don't get to decide what does & does not offend me. And don't try to impose your world view of what should & should not be offensive on me.

My position: conference organisers should agree on a standard, and adhere to it. Now & again something (like mpesce's presentation) will be in a grey area. The standard will get recalibrated, one way or another. People uncomfortable with the standard won't go to the conference. Companies uncomfortable with the standard won't sponsor. Some attendees will get offended at the conference. And that's fine. Because the standard was known, agreed on, publicised, and adhered to by attendees, presenteres and organisers.

And if people take offense, and something is in a grey area, then apologise - it was not intended, I understand you were offended, this does fall under the policy, I'm sorry. It won't happen again. We're going to tighten the loophole so that people know where they stand next year.

And if you notice, that's exactly what happened - my compliments to Mark & the organisers.

The *only* people turning this into the mud fight are the people who are complaining that someone should take offense in the first place.

> Is there any way your post can be interpreted as anything but
> straightforward hypocrisy?

Apparently so.

Dave.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 19:24 UTC (Tue) by nye (guest, #51576) [Link] (4 responses)

>> So you are offended by people who are offended by others' offense?

>I didn't say I was offended. Angry is what I am.

>You're not me. You don't get to decide what does & does not offend me. And don't try to impose your world view of what should & should not be offensive on me.

Is this a parody? Have I been trolled? Or do you somehow not see that what you are saying applies precisely to your own behaviour?

>The *only* people turning this into the mud fight are the people who are complaining that someone should take offense in the first place.

You are joking? If not, your hypocrisy is staggering.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 19:36 UTC (Tue) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link]

> Is this a parody? Have I been trolled?

If that were the case, I would doubtless reply in a provocative manner which would prolong this conversation further.

Dave.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 19:44 UTC (Tue) by sfeam (subscriber, #2841) [Link]

@Nye: You might want to recalibrate your definition of "offense". I'm fully with dneary on this one. If I were session chair of a conference with a formal policy as in this case (which I have been), and one of the session speakers launched into a talk with the correct prediction that "some people may be offended", I'd be angry. Not offended, angry. Also I'd probably be so surprised and flustered that I'd let the speaker proceed anyhow, and then I'd spend the rest of the conference wishing I'd had intervened on the spot. If nothing else, hearing about this incident at least prepares me mentally to exercise responsibility as a session chair more assertively. The case of a keynote speaker deliberately flauting the policy is both more egregious and harder to handle, since there is typically neither a session chair to intervene nor a next speaker to bring on in his place.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 23:23 UTC (Tue) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (1 responses)

Let me try once more to explain. I feel a little misunderstood, even though I feel like I've been clear here.

Taking offense is a very subjective act.

It's entirely possible for me to offend someone without meaning to - it happens all the time because of cultural differences, or when people have different expectations of a situation.

In that situation, I tend to apologise, because I don't like offending people. It might be appropriate to just explain that no offense was intended, but not apologise. What is not OK is getting upset with the person because they were offended.

Now, let's transfer to this specific situation. I looked at the slides. I'm not offended by the slides, but I can certainly see how some people would feel uncomfortable with the bondage imagery. Apparently you are also not offended by the slides. Some people were.

Let's give a name to a hypothetical person who was offended - Anne. Anne comes from a conservative catholic family, and changes the channel on the TV any time scantily clad women appear on the screen. Anne is a 35 year old free software developer, mother of 2, big into her Ruby, and at her first tech conference. Anne didn't really like the playful S&M photo - it was outside her comfort zone. The language bothered her a bit, but you know, she can live with it. The road sign was funny. But Anne felt really uncomfortable with the lesbian bondage photo. And everyone around her seems to have no problem with it - they're well into the mood. So Anne feels out of place.

These are certainly sexualised images in public, and thus covered by the anti-harrassment policy.

Now, Anne's not the type of person to go blogging & tweeting afterwards, but (in considerable evolution on the part of our community) there are others who will.

My point is: it's not my place to tell Anne to get a life, that it's her problem. Anne felt uncomfortable, and now as an individual, I have a choice how to deal with that. I can deal with that by saying "Anne, you know, you're really not the type of person we were expecting", or I can say "I'm so sorry - we're making a real effort to reach outside our usual constituency, and we really did not want this to happen", or I can say "Anne, you're more than welcome here, but this kind of thing is to be expected - Mark was pushing everyone out of their comfort zone in some way".

Whatever I do, the fact that offense was caused cannot be undone by telling Anne to get a life (as I saw on Twitter), or calling her a "prude" (as I saw on the LCA chat list).

Have I cleared up any confusion on what my position actually is?

> You are joking? If not, your hypocrisy is staggering.

As Inigo Montoya said to Vizzini, "you keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means".

Dave.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 9:40 UTC (Thu) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link]

"Let me try once more to explain. I feel a little misunderstood, even though I feel like I've been clear here."

You've been clearer, and you've made it clear that you've missed the point made here.

In your story, you are conflating the fact that Anne originally took offence, with the subsequent behaviour of Anne or others, complaining about that fact and and demanding that something be done about it.

I don't think any reasonable person is annoyed or offended by the former; only the latter when it is taken to excess (where 'excess' is obviously subjective).

By all means we should reassure Anne that she is welcome and safe the third of your suggestions seems best to me.

But what do we do about the people outside with pitchforks, who seem to be talking about the presenter's behaviour as if it were an actual physical assault? And who then turn on people who calmly express their concerns about that reaction, saying that those people are also causing people like Anne to feel "threatened, hurt and upset", and applying cheap ad hominem labels.

Please, do not conflate annoyance with the pitchfork mob, with annoyance at Anne for her original fragility.

Going off at a slightly different tangent, I'd observe that I don't want to live in a world where I am never challenged and made to feel uncomfortable either intellectually, religiously, emotionally or in other ways. That way lies boredom, complacency, fragility and intolerance.

We have words for people who have never really been challenged in any of those ways, and learned to take those challenges in their stride.

They include "child", "patient", and "fundamentalist".

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 4, 2011 6:21 UTC (Fri) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"You're not me. You don't get to decide what does & does not offend me. "

very true, yet you seems to feel very comfortable in making sure that _I_ won't be able to enjoy such material in a conference anymore because _you_ were offended.... funny how that argument seems to be a one way street for you.

"Because the standard was known, agreed on, publicised, and adhered to by attendees, presenteres and organisers."
Clearly not. this thread being a case in point.

"The *only* people turning this into the mud fight are the people who are complaining that someone should take offense in the first place."
These people reacted to an aggression. I'm pretty sure most of them don't give a damn if someone take offense but they do care when that someone lobby to deprive them of content because of their 'religion^Hsensibility'.

No one was chained to his chair, each could have leave the room at any time. But no, that fundamental freedom is not enough, they want to make sure that no-one could see what _they_ consider 'inappropriate'.
oh, and that is not a monopoly of such conference:
http://www.radaronline.com/exclusives/2011/01/magazine-co...

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 12:48 UTC (Wed) by dwmw2 (subscriber, #2063) [Link]

I'm perfectly happy for someone to say "that didn't bother me" or even "that shouldn't be forbidden by the policy" but I draw the line at "other people shouldn't be offended by this".

I don't remember anyone seriously saying "other people shouldn't be offended by this" and really meaning it in that sense.

You have a right to be offended.
You have a right to tell me about it.
You do not have a right to demand that I take you seriously.

Imagine there's a paranoid nutter in the back of the room who thinks that every time the room laughs at a joke, we're laughing at him and he gets offended. That he takes offence per se is not what annoys me; it's only if he then starts complaining about it and claiming that his problems are somehow our fault that I will be annoyed.

If instead of that scenario, it's someone who is making assumptions about the effect that a picture will have on what another group of people is thinking, and then starts playing Thought Police and raising objections on the basis of what she assumes that group of people may be thinking then yeah, that's going to get on my tits a bit, too.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 8:27 UTC (Tue) by Klavs (guest, #10563) [Link] (5 responses)

It's amazing that those slides caused such much uproar.

I have a hard time understanding whats so bad about them, but then again I don't live in a country where every swear word is "beeped" out :) (ie. I live in europe, Denmark to be precise :)

I can understand "booth babes" etc. - but I saw none of those kind of images in the talk, and some of them (f.ex.McD clown stuffing a burger in a kids mouth) was outright funny, and clearly showed what many seem to forget about companies, like McDonalds.

I see no harassment of any sorts - I didn't hear the speech going along with it (is there a video yet?) though. The slides reminded me of a Michael Moore documentary, and considering the topic, as I understand it (reminding us of the fact that we rely on none-free infrastructure, it doesn't seem outlandish.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 13:37 UTC (Tue) by dneary (guest, #55185) [Link] (1 responses)

> I can understand "booth babes" etc. - but I saw none of those kind of
> images in the talk, and some of them (f.ex.McD clown stuffing a burger in
> a kids mouth) was outright funny, and clearly showed what many seem to
> forget about companies, like McDonalds.

Yeah, I know what you mean - I have no idea how anyone could be offended by a swarm of bees, either!

(I assume that you accidentally skipped slides 36, 38, 39, 42 and 63, which were all sexual in nature (although I'm sure that if 38, 39 and 42 were the only ones in there, there would not have been anything said).

And for the record, without having seen the presentation yet, they didn't bother me (but then I'm not everyone, and they are clearly sexualised images).

Cheers,
Dave.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 17:11 UTC (Thu) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link]

I read the presentation, and took a look at the slides.

First off, there is NOTHING in the talk that could be construed as "harassment". There's some use of the word "fuck" in there, but being european where the use of it is quite normal, I consider this a US-problem. It might be "offensive" to them, but it's certainly not harassement.

The pictures: Yes, there is clearly some sexual content there, but that does not imply harassement per se. Most of these clearly are not harassment (except maybe for pigs, who might object that they're depicted as goose-fuckers).

I don't know about BDSM-people, but they could actually feel harassed and ridiculed by Image Number 36, and certainly, homosexual people could feel offended by picture 39.

So it might have been right to trigger anti-harassment policies, but certainly not on the grounds mentioned thus far.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 14:14 UTC (Tue) by kh (guest, #19413) [Link] (1 responses)

I agree with you.

I also don't understand why people are so nervous about sex but seem to be comfortable with violent images. It seems to me that a Swimsuit magazine would be better than Call of Duty, but I think most parents would rather their children have the latter.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 14:45 UTC (Tue) by patrick_g (subscriber, #44470) [Link]

>>> I also don't understand why people are so nervous about sex

Seems related to the "WASP American culture" described by dneary above in this thread. Here in France I don't think that people are nervous about sex and Mark Pesce's slides would not be considered as offensive.
However we have a specific taboo about money. Different cultures, different taboos.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 16:18 UTC (Tue) by terber (subscriber, #3311) [Link]

> It's amazing that those slides caused such much uproar.
> I have a hard time understanding whats so bad about them
Fully agreed.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 11:35 UTC (Tue) by Lovechild (guest, #3592) [Link] (2 responses)

I fundamentally disagree with the whole "am offended by your use of language, you are the one in error" approach to solving any problem. You never had the right not to be offended.

I suffer from Tourette's, meaning that during high stress situation for me such as a conference I am certain to utter words that are 100% sure to offend someone. The thought that this now is likely to have severe adverse effects on my conference experience such as being thrown out and being publicly shamed for it (like people have done with Mark despite the point of his talk and the use of the imagery/words clearly was not to cause offence). And I don't even have to worry about longterm effects on my job situation, whereas I imagine other people do, and don't tell me there won't be any, accused, mistakenly or not.

I will never attend any conference which upholds any such anti-harassment policy, it is simply not conducive to having an enjoyable time and it is likely to end with undeserved pubic humiliation on my part.

To see this in any way declared a victory is painful, everyone was a loser coming out of this, especially Mark.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 12:07 UTC (Tue) by roc (subscriber, #30627) [Link] (1 responses)

Any sane policy would apply only to voluntary actions, i.e., not words spoken due to Tourette's.

Presumably Mark doesn't have a medical disorder that forces him to say "fuck" and put sexual images in his presentations.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 13:46 UTC (Thu) by Lovechild (guest, #3592) [Link]

There are no sane policies when it comes to censorship and protecting people from offense. I've been kicked out of my fair share of busses and establishments before even being given a chance to explain. The on the spot decision is, always, to side with the offended party and while offense lasts a moment, clearing ones name and regaining ones diginity is a far longer process.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 1, 2011 16:07 UTC (Tue) by eean (subscriber, #50420) [Link] (3 responses)

So probably those images would be OK on Australian television. But its not Australian television, is it?

I guess the pink elephant in the room is that this a predominately male conference (actually not sure of this; just making a well-educated guess). Even if thats not the case, I think "workplace rules" should be implemented at such events. It is a bit difficult to think about: for instance sexual harassment of this kind usually implies some sort of on-going problem. But LCA is a on-off thing. However there certainly is plenty of continuity between open source and the open source conferences (I always see the same people all over the world) and we should endeavor to make it a welcome environment for everyone.

So really I don't see this as about separating people into the offended and the offenders. The problem isn't so much about people feeling offended; its about the awkward situation it creates. Its ultimately about creating the culture that we want to be.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 7:25 UTC (Thu) by ekj (guest, #1524) [Link] (2 responses)

Workplace rules are the wrong set of rules, for the general case. Because many things are to various degree taboo in the workplace, though central to many talks that are totally on-target for an open source conference.

It's not popular in most workplaces, to talk about Freedom. Opression. Choice. To make clear and strong political statements. ("People should be allowed picking apart machines that they legally bought" is a political statement)

Nevertheless, I agree with the workplace-test for *sexual* imagery and phrasing. Few or none of our topics are really *about* sex as such, and so when they are not, it should not be nessecary to use strong sexual imagery for the shock-value.

But I *totally* want to hear strong defences of Freedom, that I'd expect, perversely enough, that most workplaces would consider to controversial.

It's a weakness with the Geek Feminism anti-harassment policy that it confuse offence with harassment. It's totally possible to be offensive, without *harassing* anyone. And not everything that -somebody- doesn't like (or even that make them uncomfortable) is harassment.

We *definitely* want to ban all sorts of harassment.

We equally definitely do NOT want to ban all sorts of offensive (to some!) statements - allthough I guess we probably *do* want to encourage less statements that are both offensive and offtopic.

Making statements that offend the RIAA or that mocks the creators of the DMCA for their handiwork and lacking comittment to freedom, is totally on.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 14:19 UTC (Thu) by eean (subscriber, #50420) [Link]

Yep fully agree. There are some fine threads to walk, but also some things clearly out of bounds.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 11, 2011 9:02 UTC (Fri) by Seegras (guest, #20463) [Link]

> Nevertheless, I agree with the workplace-test
> for *sexual* imagery and phrasing.

You imply that there is any consensus on what
"workplace-rules" are.

I'm constantly baffled by "Not Workplace Safe"-
disclaimers in blogs and news sites, and concluded
that this "workplace" they're referring to must be
somewhere else, probably in the USA.

So you've got exactly the same underlying cultural
differences as everywhere else, and as are mentioned
by various commenters in this thread. There's apparently
a vast difference between Europe and the USA, and we
haven't even mentioned Japan yet.

Speaking of looking at porn in the workplace: I used
to work at a large webhosting company, which had
porn-sites among it's customers. Of course you sometimes
had to look at porn to help them debug their php-problem.

Would it be acceptable in the workplace?

Posted Feb 1, 2011 17:32 UTC (Tue) by grahame (guest, #5823) [Link]

I didn't attend the talk, but I did download and look at the slides. If someone at my workplace (or, any Australian workplace) gave a talk using that imagery, it would be seen as both inappropriate and unprofessional. I'm almost certain it violates the sexual harassment policy of my employer.

I don't see how the slides can be defended. They're certainly offensive to some people, and any argument that they're necessary is clearly rot - I think we can communicate a technical message, and provide emphasis and energy without that particular imagery.

The argument that it'd be fine on Australian broadcast TV doesn't hold much muster either. You can choose not to watch TV, and you watch that for a different reason than you attend a technical conference. To go to a conference you have to agree with what's shown on television?

Clearly people were upset by the content of the talk. I've read through the mailing list discussions and seen some suggestion that the offended people should just leave. That's not exactly inclusive - people pay to attend a conference and then have to opt out of the keynotes? Other people suggested that those that were offended should have spoken up. That's definitely something that's easy to do if you're already in the minority. Sure, the marginalised should always confront power, that's easy, right?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 7:38 UTC (Wed) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link] (1 responses)

Wow, those images were remarkably tame compared to the buildup they got in this article and its comments.

Some of them were quite arresting, even. (Admittedly, for me, not the ones drawing attention here.)

I was nervous that I would see something along the lines of images from the Rape of Nanking or the corpses left in the wake of the Union Carbide explosion in Bhopal. Those who have not looked can rest assured that there's nothing even close to those horrors on offer in the slide deck, whether in tone or content. James Joyce's _Ulysses_, published something like 90 years ago, and today recommended as a landmark work of literature to the sophisticated reader, offered more to offend the sensitive reader than Mark Pesce's slide deck.

Any growing society--as FLOSS is, and will, with luck, remain--undergoes ineluctable evolution as it assimilates new members. But such assimilation processes are never wholly one-way. New people will change the FLOSS community, but will also be changed by it. Some of that evolution we can direct, and some we cannot. I counsel our community to think carefully about what is to be gained and lost before we deliberately restrict our shared social spaces exclusively to the intersection of presentation and paper content that all participants find utterly, or even substantially, unobjectionable.

I cannot yet comment substantively on the verbal content of the presentation. However, given the panoply of images on offer, and the nature of the subject matter, I'm not surprised that the incidental facts that vertebrate sex and people dressing in funny clothes came up. (The Internet is, after all, the book in which Rule 34 is written.)

That any significant number of people in the FLOSS community are scandalized by any of these images, or believe they will lead to personal verbal harassment, gropings, or sexual assault, saddens me. (I'll be even more saddened if this is actually true.)

LCA can manage its conference as it sees fit. But I would urge its sponsors to reflect on the role they are playing in the evolution of the FLOSS community, and to retain in mind the significant distinction between creative materials submitted to an audience for its edification and education, and interpersonal contacts that either "fly below the radar" or are deliberately concealed from public view. Incidents like those reported by Valeria Aurora should not be tolerated; apart from the serious legal and liability issues they pose for the conference organizers, they are affronts to personal dignity--a resource our community, which stresses individual, voluntaristic contribution, would do well to guard jealously.

In contrast to most creepy guys with lascivious words--or worse--to offer their fellow conference attendees, presenters like Mr. Pesce instantaneously face a large jury of their peers, and those peers may render their verdicts vigorously, as they are doing here. It behooves us to recall that, for the most part, the individuals whose actions provoked the development of LCA's anti-harassment policy in the first place have remained anonymous. I conjecture that, in part, Mr. Pesce is enjoying the experience of facing some music he had no hand in inspiring, simply because no environment quite so perfect for the immediate pronouncement of outrage has presented itself. I don't feel sorry for Mr. Pesce on this account--I do think this response was predictable, and I expect a fellow intelligent member of the community with sufficient cachet to keynote a major conference to have anticipated it. The annealment of Mark Pesce may even be a necessary step as the community takes its first crude steps toward facing up to and rectifying the admitted injustices of the past.

At the same time, when we locate a slide deck like Mr. Pesce's near to the offenses reported by Ms. Aurora on the continuum of conferee behavior, we fail to cultivate the development of individual judgment that is our first line of defense--before conference policies, before the hand-on-the-shoulder friendly advice of conference organizers and sponsors, and before the courts of law--against verbal, physical, and sexual assaults in the first place.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 7:40 UTC (Wed) by branden (guest, #7029) [Link]

I swear I proofread that thing, like, five times.

I hereby solemnly apologize to Valerie Aurora for misspelling her name.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 21:26 UTC (Wed) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link] (8 responses)

Judging by this article and the outrage created, I expected to see soft-core pornography when I opened that odp file.

Instead I found a slideshow full of slides that 1) appear to accompany a *very* interesting talk (I hope that LCA posts it soon) and 2) barely push the offensiveness needle into the "PG" category, let alone PG-13.

If we have gotten to the point where this type of slideshow produces a feature article on LWN, we have some serious problems as a community.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 21:37 UTC (Wed) by corbet (editor, #1) [Link] (7 responses)

People wondering why some might have had trouble with this presentation could read this message from Jacinta Richardson which explains things in a very personal way.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 22:20 UTC (Wed) by jordanb (guest, #45668) [Link] (5 responses)

To be honest, it doesn't.

It drops a red herring (you can have a 'witch hunt' in the modern meaning of the word without executions). It cut-and-pastes some geekfeminism talking points to produce some faulty statistical reasoning, and then makes the argument that there's some possibility that 1) someone who is a rape survivor might be at the talk and 2) might interpet one of the PG-rated bondage-suggestion scenes as a "rape" scene and could become very uncomfortable.

The only "personal" component is that she discloses that she was a rape victim --- but she did not feel the things she suggested a rape victim may feel.

Using her argument, we have many people in our society who have been exposed to moments of great violence (and more returning from wars every day). The vast majority of those people are male. Should any remotely violent image (say, video game screenshots) be banned?

Moreover, I know people for whom *images* of spiders or cockroaches or photographs taken from great heights can induce panic and vertigo. Should we be so insensitive to allow images that have identified phobias attached to them?

With regards to her feeling "uncomfortable" at the thought of all the men in the audience viewing vaguely sexual material, apparently believing that those men (virtually all of whom, no doubt, are non-rapists) would not be able to control their sexual impulses --- I would that I find that highly offensive as a non-rapist member of the sex --- but I will refrain from doing so out of an understanding that her very unfortunate experience may have left her with some highly emotional prejudices for which I should blame her rapist and not her.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 2, 2011 23:26 UTC (Wed) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (3 responses)

> Moreover, I know people for whom *images* of spiders or cockroaches or photographs taken from great heights can induce panic and vertigo. Should we be so insensitive to allow images that have identified phobias attached to them?

Banning such images is probably inappropriate, but using them should certainly been seen as insensitive.

That doesn't mean that speakers should be afraid of offending the sensibilities of some unknown member of the audience, but a little caution is appropriate. Any speaker who wants to be heard needs to give careful thought about how to present - not just what to present. When a speaker does over-step a boundary, a simple polite complaint and a simple apology should be the end of it.

The real problem here isn't the original offense - it is that fact that some people don't seem to be able to accept that others can reasonably have different standards, and that a community works best when people make concessions for each other.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 0:47 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (guest, #40059) [Link] (2 responses)

"[the problem is the] fact that some people don't seem to be able to accept that others can reasonably have different standards, and that a community works best when people make concessions for each other."

Neil, who said either of those things exactly?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 2:19 UTC (Thu) by neilbrown (subscriber, #359) [Link] (1 responses)

> Neil, who said either of those things exactly?

I assume you mean "you said:
Other people cannot reasonably have different standard to me
or
a community doesn't need people to make concessions to each other"

Obviously no-one said those things explicitly.
However when someone says something like "I cannot see why anyone would be bothered by that" (when people clearly were bothered) it comes very close to rejecting people with different standards.
And when someone says that people who are bothered should just get over it, or walk out, or whatever, it comes very close to rejecting the need to make concessions.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 12:43 UTC (Thu) by fuhchee (guest, #40059) [Link]

"... However, when someone says something like ..."

The difference between what these people said, and what you said they said, is the qualification/specificity. No one said "there exist no other reasonable standards". They suggested that some particular standard may not be reasonable. No one said "people don't need to make concessions". They suggested only that some particular concessions should not be made.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 4, 2011 7:39 UTC (Fri) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link]

"The only "personal" component is that she discloses that she was a rape victim"

No, she said: "I have been sexually assaulted"
and since she clearly make the distinction between rape and sexual assault earlier in the post, she is cognizant of a distinction, and presumably choose her words adequately.
Not that the severity of the assault really matter here, but in view of the already wide liberty taken with the numbers and the facts, there is no need to distort the picture even further.

On the other hand she qualify it with 'survivor', and associate the term with every victims of sexual assaulted, which logically imply that every victim of sexual assault was also victim of attempted murder... Since that is clearly unsupported by the references given, I must conclude that this is merely a 'appeal to emotion' fallacy, as if being victim of a rape was not grave enough.

And, talking about being offensive:
"I still felt unease. Why? Because suddenly [...] at least some of the overwhelmingly male audience around me were thinking
about sex."

In other words: show a picture with a content somewhat remotely sexual in nature and these 'animals' won't be able to control themselves anymore.

I wonder why would anyone make any effort to be 'inclusive' of someone who pre-judge them as a uncontrolled automaton prone to turn to a rapist at the mere view of a cartoon of a pig doing a goose ?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 3, 2011 20:31 UTC (Thu) by ricwheeler (subscriber, #4980) [Link]

Thanks Jon for pointing this thread towards something actual relevant and moving. I see the way the organizers and the speaker reacted as a success and a model for how to handle things tactfully and properly.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 0:39 UTC (Sat) by AdamRichter (guest, #11129) [Link]

Since a lot of people seem to care, perhaps someone who monitors upcoming technical conferences more closely than I do could maintain a table of the policies of upcoming conferences to make it easier for people to factor these differences into their decisions about which conferences they want to participate in.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 6:06 UTC (Sat) by rahvin (guest, #16953) [Link] (3 responses)

First, I didn't read the talk or look at the slide. I'm not a software developer and I work in a profession that frequently deals with the public and government.

There are lot of people here trying to turn this into some sort of culture war, either people forcing X values on others, or people from Y culture implying Y culture is correct and X culture is bad and even a little of Z culture implying everyone is wack and that culture shouldn't be relevant and both Y and X just plain suck. From my perspective aside from this all being rather silly and ignorant of living and working in a multi-cultural world the key point is being ignored.

If you want to have conference with broad participation and support you need to declare the ground rules and abide those rules regardless what the rules apply to or who they affect. By ignoring a stated policy or having no policy the result will be companies and people not attending the conference. If you won't abide your own policy there is little point to the whole thing.

Regardless of your personal opinion on the validity of cultural offenses the fact remains if you enact a policy that allows offensive behavior in a culture the result will be that a significant portion of that community from that culture and the businesses from that culture won't attend and provide support. If you enact a policy that forbid a behavior or imagery that a culture finds offensive then presentations with such content are provided you will be publicly endangering the support and attendance from those that culture.

Can you imagine the damage you could do to the support form a business from culture Z if the owner/manager finds out that offensive behavior for culture Z was prominent and expected at the conference? The key point here is that unless you want this to be a private conference with limited attendance only from the culture and people who feel exactly like you do then feel free to engage in talks and presentations that other cultures find offensive.

But if on the other hand you want broad attendance and support you better create a policy and abide that policy or you might as well write the conference off because in the long run business support and attendance will drop off the face of the earth. There are a number of FOSS conferences that no longer exist, I'd argue primarily for that reason. IBM and governments aren't going to support or send employees to conferences where sexual material is presented and that's a fact. Arguing that US culture is wrong doesn't change that fact and just moves to point out your own biases.

If you want an example look above. We've already got a post by a person representing a government supported agency saying that they've been burned twice now and they are going to consider carefully whether they support the conference next year. Do that enough and you won't have sponsors and attendance will fall off. There is a reason it's called business standards, if you want to do business in this world and don't abide those standards you are going to offend a lot of people from a variety of cultures and you won't be in business anymore.

If someone displayed a BDSM image (nudity or no) at a conference in my profession their career would likely be over, and I mean go get a degree in something else and start over in some other career dead. It astounds me just how out of touch with the standards in the rest of the business world software development appears to be. Maybe I'm wrong.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 6:11 UTC (Sat) by dlang (guest, #313) [Link] (2 responses)

on the other hand, if you go too far in banning anything that could be considered offensive to anybody, will you have any attendees left? or will they all stay away because the environment is just too uncomfortable doe to the large number of rules that must be followed at all times, etc?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 5, 2011 6:32 UTC (Sat) by mjg59 (subscriber, #23239) [Link] (1 responses)

If somebody managed to conclusively demonstrate that rules along the lines of those being discussed resulted in more people refusing to attend than were attracted due to the tougher behavioural standards, I suspect people would listen to that argument.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 7, 2011 17:17 UTC (Mon) by fuhchee (guest, #40059) [Link]

"If somebody managed to conclusively demonstrate ..."

Was such a standard of proof required to enact "rules along the lines ..." in the first place?

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 10, 2011 23:35 UTC (Thu) by jaymzh (subscriber, #57150) [Link] (2 responses)

My take:
http://www.phildev.net/phil/blog/?p=235

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 12, 2011 8:30 UTC (Sat) by shmget (guest, #58347) [Link] (1 responses)

Thank you for that.

one detail though:
"Others yet objected to the entire conversation, claiming that a discussion of whether the policy applied made them feel unsafe and asking people to stop. [...] This is the most asinine thing Ive ever heard"

You seems to have missed the sarcasm in that 'position'.
It is a rhetorical position meant to illustrate the self-contradiction in the claimed rational used to slander the speaker involved.

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Feb 13, 2011 9:27 UTC (Sun) by jaymzh (subscriber, #57150) [Link]

Thanks for the feedback.

To be honest, I didn't read through the lca-chat archives to determine if they were being sarcastic or not. Corbet's article did not portray those in that category as being sarcastic, and I was relying on his summary. Either way, there are people who take such stances, and it's worth noting how counter-productive it is.

- Phil

Debugging conference anti-harassment policies

Posted Mar 4, 2011 19:02 UTC (Fri) by wookey (guest, #5501) [Link]

Is the talk video ever going to be posted? I'd like to see the talk.

The text was fascinating (I read the text a month ago - but the powerpoint file crashed my openoffice so I've only just finally got to see what the fuss was about - It works on Ubuntu maverick but not on Debian squeeze it seems).

Like many people I am amazed at how mild the offensive material is. I do hope Mr Pesce isn't put off giving similar talks in the future - this is the sort of notable talk that makes a conference interesting (at least for me). Notable for the thought-proviking subject matter, not the fuss around the slide images.

Perhaps people are right that it could have been just as effective with blander images - I don't know. That's why I'd like to see the actual presentation and make up my mind, hence my question above. I'm assuming the conference people don't really want to post it because they'd get a load of moaning they can do without. But could anyone else volunteer?

I have no time at all for the people posting here complaining that the document remains online. Every historian knows that original sources are vital in finding out what really happened. I'd have formed totally the wrong idea if I'd gone by the postings talking about the presentation, as opposed to looking at the actual presentation myself. I am very glad that that opportunity remains.