Mobile vigilantes snap sex pests in action

[barb162]

Mobile vigilantes snap sex pests in action

Harassed women in New York are using a website to shame men behaving badly

David Smith, technology correspondent
Sunday April 30, 2006
The Observer


The day that a man was caught masturbating on the subway was the day that the women of New York said enough was enough. Thao Nguyen, a disgusted fellow passenger, took a picture of the man with her camera phone and posted it on the internet.

A cyber-storm gathered, the photo made it to the front page of the New York Daily News and the man, 43-year-old Daniel Hoyt - a repeat offender - was convicted of public lewdness. Supporters compared Nguyen, 23, with civil rights activist Rosa Parks who famously refused to give up her seat to a white man on a segregated bus.

Inspired by Nguyen's use of technology, Lauren Spees and six friends launched a website, hollabacknyc.com, which invites people who have been sexually harassed in public to take a picture of the offender and post it online, thus shaming the guilty party.

The growing interest in the site, which receives an average of 1,500 hits a day, has been described as 'cyber vigilantism' by critics and raises new questions about where society draws the line between an innocent chat-up line and 'harassment'.
snip
http://observer.guardian.co.uk/world/story/0,,1764585,00.html

[bloom]

1. Exposing harassment is not harassment.

If the perpetrators don't want their crimes exposed - they can quit. Seems pretty simple.

If they can't quit - they should get help.


In smaller communities - some people would avoid being public with their perversions - because they would be recognized.

So this is just making that community - the internet.

[rd_kent]

2. Hold up a sec!

I was browsing that website a while back, and while I would admit, most of the men that had their pics taken could certainly be called pigs, speaking your mind in public is not a crime. Telling a woman she has nice legs, looks good in a skirt, etc, etc may be rude, it certainly isn't harassment. Now, if a woman turned around and gave the guy a piece of her mind and he continued to display the same behavior, THAT is harassment. Many of the stories on that site that accompany the pictures are instances of an asshole making a rude comment ONE TIME and the woman takes his pic and posts it.
I'm no lawyer, but THAT could be construed as harassment, I think!

[bloom]

4. "making a rude comment ONE TIME"

How many times do you think they should make sexually harassing comments before it is posted?

Those guys probably go around making rude comments "ONE TIME" to a lot of different women.

If the website is clear about what the person did and they aren't misrepresenting it - I don't see it as a problem.

[Orrex]

5. Does the alleged harasser have any recourse?

To wit, short of taking the site's owners or host to court, is there any way for an alleged harasser to have himself removed from the list, presumably with an apology for erroneous inclusion on it? Or is inclusion permanent with no exceptions?

The "one time" or "many times" nature of a comment doesn't even seem central to me, because it can be harassment from the outset. I'm not even opposed to adding a man to the list if his accuser can substantiate her claims; if, for example, a harasser is successfully sued, then the inclusion on the list could reasonably be part of the settlement. But the burden has to be on the person who would add a name to the list, rather than on the person who wants to remain off of it.

If the website is clear about what the person did and they aren't misrepresenting it - I don't see it as a problem.

But who gets to judge whether the site is misrepresenting it or not? The accuser? The alleged harasser? The site itself? IMO this guilty-by-fiat policy seems inherently problematic if the site (or a contributor to it) is in a position to present just one side of a case.

[bloom]

6. If the person was caught in the act of harassment

with photographic documentation - or in the case of words - a recording - that would seem sufficient. Usually things aren't anticipated - but it might be an incentive to keep a recorder on - if one were in a place where this was commonplace or around people who were known harassers.

It would also be evidence that could be turned in for whatever kind of suit. I would think that turning it in to the police would be a good idea as well.


For a libel suit or whatever - it seems to me the burden would be on the person trying to prove that the documentation was fabricated.


Celebrities are photographed and get their goings on published all over the place - how is this different? You seem to be suggesting that harassers are some kind of protected species or something.

[Orrex]

7. "Caught in the act" is still a matter of context, is it not?

Short of a video, with sound, showing the events before, during, and after the alleged harassment, then simple photographic or audio evidence is inadequate. They can be corroborative, but in themselves they should not be taken as sufficient evidence of harassment without additional evidence.

However, some states have laws against making audio recordings without the subject's permission, though video recording is okay. I don't know which states this applies to, but in those states unauthorized audio recordings might not even be admissable in court.

But I agree with your suggestion--if circumstances require someone to pass through an area where harassment is known to occur, then by all means take any possible steps to document it!

For a libel suit or whatever - it seems to me the burden would be on the person trying to prove that the documentation was fabricated.

I don't believe that's correct, in the US at least--though I believe you have described the UK's libel law accurately. Plenty of suits have been won against The Star and The Enquirer not because a celebrity proved a claim false but because the magazine could not prove a claim true. It's up to the person who made the statement and not the person who contests it.

Celebrities are photographed and get their goings on published all over the place - how is this different?

That's actually a great example. A quick perusal of any grocery store's checkout lane will reveal dozens of unflattering photos of celebrities taken out of context--are we to believe all of these at face value? Is it up to the celebrity to track down every photo and refute it?

You seem to be suggesting that harassers are some kind of protected species or something.

I'm saying that an alleged harasser is innocent until proven guilty. You seem to be suggesting that alleged harassers are not entitled to due process. Why is that?

[bloom]

8. "due process"

because often these are the kinds of things that

1. aren't dealt adequately by the court system

2. would be useful for women to know about.

Going through court does not alert other women to who and where the problems are. That would be really good for women to know.


I would be curious to know what the NYPD does about some of these things. They probably wouldn't ever bother catching the person for one thing - for a lot of things.

Plus if men were likely to be deterred from harassment by the knowledge that it would be recorded and posted - that seems like a good thing to me. And probably better than relying on the courts to solve every problem that there is.

If our society was dealing with this - we wouldn't be discussing it.

What's your answer to the problem of sexual harassment?

[Orrex]

9. "going through court"

Going through court does not alert other women to who and where the problems are.

That's probably true, and it's unfortunate. I may have mentioned this earlier, but it seems reasonable to me that, if a person is convicted of harassment, the inclusion of that person's name on a public "list of harassers" could be part of the sentencing. Such inclusion needn't even be permanent, and the time-frame could depend on the severity of the harassment, a history of repeat offenses, etc.

I would be curious to know what the NYPD does about some of these things. They probably wouldn't ever bother catching the person for one thing - for a lot of things.

How might this be policed, exactly? Where, specifically, is the line between free speech and harassment? What about context? What if, in a given environment, the standards of harassment differ from one's expectations?
These may seem like trivial or distracting questions, but I think that they're central and must be answered prior to implementing any sort of sentencing guidelines.

Plus if men were likely to be deterred from harassment by the knowledge that it would be recorded and posted - that seems like a good thing to me. And probably better than relying on the courts to solve every problem that there is.

So you are advocating vigilantism, then, with no recourse?

What's your answer to the problem of sexual harassment?

Well, that depends, doesn't it? Is all sexual harassment created equal, in your view? If so, then I imagine that one "answer" would be sufficient. But if not, then many answers are required for a broad-spectrum problem.

But here's one answer: If someone wishes to create or host such a listing, then that person has expressed an explicit willingness to face any potential resultant legal action.

[BoneDaddy]

3. My problem with it is this

my girlfriend and I are going out.... It doesn't end well for any various or sundry reasons. She wants revenge and posts my pic with some made up story. It is false, can I sue here for libel or slander?

[noamnety]

10. It's no different from any other blog as far as that goes

She could post a made up story about you on a myspace account, if she likes. You could post a made up story about your girlfriend here. Right?

It's not like women are getting special legal privileges by having this site set up, it's more like an action call to confront and stop harassment of women, cause frankly, some of us would like the luxury of being able to get home without some ass-hat feeling obligated to inform us what he wants to put in us.

I would hope that - out of respect for your girlfriend, and women everywhere - you'd join in the effort. If you see a guy obviously harassing a woman, why don't YOU take a photo and upload the story there?

Does it even occur to guys when they hear about this website that it gives them a way to become activists against the continual harassment of women? Or is the only thing that runs through your head the thought that you might someday end up on it through a false accusation?

[bloom]

11. Great points!

It seems odd to have people so worried that they would be posted on the site if they aren't doing anything to bother anyone anyway.

It's not any different from DU posting that photo of the "moran" guy.

And as you say - it would be a great thing for men to get involved in.


I wish I had thought about photographing the masturbater in the park some years back - I probably had my camera with me - but it just didn't occur to me. And I could have turned it in to the police - of course he might have tackled me for my camera or some other thing. As it was - I ignored him. But it's one of those things - they get away with it - they go bother other people - it keeps going on until someone does something about it.

[Orrex]

12. Would you care to rephrase that?

It seems odd to have people so worried that they would be posted on the site if they aren't doing anything to bother anyone anyway.

The exact same argument have been made in favor of the TSA's No-Fly lists and the NSA's domestic spying program. If you aren't doing anything to bother anyone, why worry about being erroneously placed on either list?

Until now I've resisted this caricature because it seems almost too farcical, but the longer the discussion drags on, the more unavoidable the comparison becomes.

[bloom]

13. It's really not the same thing at all

People putting up pictures of people doing stupid things and No-fly lists, etc. As if private citizens are the government. You really don't have a case.


If it reminds me of anything - it reminds me of men putting up photos of women exposing themselves. Like at Mardi Gras or Spring Break or something.

[Orrex]

14. Not the same thing?

Photos are taken out of context and posted with whatever explanation the poster cares to offer? Likely without the knowledge or consent of the alleged harasser?

I can see how that's entirely different from a no-fly list, complied with whatever explanation the TSA cares to offer, likely without the knowledge or consent of the subject.

Clearly, there's no similarity whatsoever.

If it reminds me of anything - it reminds me of men putting up photos of women exposing themselves. Like at Mardi Gras or Spring Break or something.

Are those pictures posted without the women's consent? Or in an ambiguous or misleading context? Then it strikes me as pretty much the same thing, and the posters should absolutely be held accountable.

Hell, start that thread, and I'll be happy to voice my agreement again and again.

[bloom]

15. Do you have ANY idea

how many photos there are on the internet of people who did not consent to having those photos up.


Let's take all of the photos/movies down of women who don't want them up. Women who weren't harassing anyone. How likely would that be?

[Orrex]

16. I see--so two wrongs DO make a right

Let's re-focus the comparison a bit, shall we?

Find me a website displaying photos and names of non-consenting women along with a brief commentary for each detailing the woman's sexual exploits in great detail.

IMO that such a site would clearly be a violation of the woman's privacy and potentially libelous and should be shut down with legal repercussions to follow.

By your argument, each woman would be required to refute the accusations of such a site. Is that really your view?


Apparently it's fine to post damaging or embarrassing photos of men out of context, as long as someone is willing to claim that she's doing so for the common good, and the man is not entitled to any protections or consideration, because he has nothing to worry about as long as he's being a good little citizen.

Lovely.

[bloom]

17. Do women do that?

Do you know women who do that - post photos of men out of context to embarrass them. Is that common?

Or are you just thinking of what you would do - or what other men do?

You say two wrongs don't make a right.

I'd say that there are about a bazilllion wrongs done to women - quite a few of them are posted on the internet. And I say it's not a wrong at all to post sexual harassers so that women are aware of who and what all is out there. The only thing that would be wrong about it - is that a lot of the men would probably think it was the greatest thing and WANT the attention - at least until they were arrested.

[Orrex]

18. Do you ever NOT directly insult your opponent in a debate?

I'm attempting to discuss this issue, and you repeatedly go out of your way to insinuate that I'm some kind of deviant and to suggest that no one could possibly have any interest in people's rights unless one is a stalker.

Do you know women who do that - post photos of men out of context to embarrass them. Is that common?

If there's a site that allows women the unchecked ability to post photos of men whom they claim to be harassers, I'd say that it would get pretty common pretty fucking quickly.

Do you live in a vaccuum? I work in an office with dozens of women, and the conversations that they carry on in the workplace are far more graphic and explicit than anything that my male coworkers would dare to speak aloud. So I'd say that it's pretty clear that women can be every bit as vulgar as men are expected to be.

Score one for equality!

What most baffles me is that i've read your posts in other forums, and I'm confident that you're not actually insane. But in this forum you can't seem to discuss anything without flying into a sanctimonius rage.

The only thing that would be wrong about it - is that a lot of the men would probably think it was the greatest thing and WANT the attention - at least until they were arrested.

Do you have any idea how disgusting and sexist that is?

Consider this statement, which is no more idiotic than yours: "A lot of nicely dressed women would probably think it the greatest thing and WANT the attention - at least until they were raped." Who in their right mind would make such a statement? No one, because it's disgusting and sexist and just plain wrong. But apparently it's fine for you to make an equivalent statement about men.

[bloom]

19. And you don't attack

and you are perfectly reasonable :eyes:

I don't see anything reasonable in any of your arguments.

You are the one living in a vacuum.

We are talking about men who harass. Men who sit in their trucks facing a woman who is alone and masturbate in front of her to try to scare her off. Men who are exhibitionists - who get their kicks from disturbing others. So yeah - those kinds of people - not all men :eyes: (you must be the sexist if you think I'm saying that) - would get off on the attention.

And I think if we were talking about an equal opportunity crime like people doing hit and runs to cars - we wouldn't be having this discussion - because you wouldn't care. You just don't seem to want men to suffer any consequences when they are being assholes - and criminals for that matter.


You just look for something to attack me on. That's all you're about. This isn't the men's rights section. And I'm done with you.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[mongo]

21. At least you were spared Bloom's worst insult

she could have called you a libertarian

[bloom]

22. Isn't it funny that on a website that rants constantly about

perceived crimes (sometimes with pictures) - mostly by men (in the gov't and elsewhere) - who have not been convicted of a crime, btw - that there would be anyone with a problem with women (or anyone) who would make a website that exposes men's sexual crimes.

Isn't it funny that some people (mostly men) are so concerned about the rights of alleged sex criminals but not about the rights of any other alleged criminals (esp. political ones).

Ha.


:rofl:

[Orrex]

23. Who has that opinion?

Any alleged criminal--sexual, political, or whatever--is presumed innocent until proven guilty and is clearly entitled to due process. Who's the idiot who's suggesting otherwise?

[noamnety]

24. Well, it's clear you aren't going to join the fight

You don't believe this is a valid way to fight the constant barrage of harassment women deal with when they dare to go out in public unescorted. Fair enough.

Why do you suppose women have been driven to this point?
Why do you suppose men don't even THINK to join this effort?

What are you personally doing to help stop harassment in public spaces? Anything? Or you're just content with the status quo?

[rasputin1952]

25. The problem with this type of "vigilante" situation, is that there will

always be people who will use this for any of a number of spiteful reasons.

What would one do, if they were innocent of any impropriety, and suddenly found themselves on this website?

There is no way to keep people off of this site if someone decides to post a pic. A jilted lover, someone who has a "problem" w/someone else, there are many reasons that could account for someone arriving on this site unbeknown to them. How would I feel if I went to work on a Monday morning, after a quiet weekend at home, and suddenly, I am avoided like the plague because my co-workers believe I am some sort of pervert?

There would be little recourse for me, and now I have to spend a shortened eternity trying to clear my name. I could lose my job, my friends, my neighbors, not be offered a future job...the list of "Oh Crap"'s is immense. I didn't do anything, but I have been accused of such by a scorned or disillusioned lover. Is this fair?

The possibility of abuse is huge, and for that matter, I think sites like his should be avoided, and most likely are, except for voyeurs and those others that find joy in condemning others.

What this individual did was awful, and I believe he should have been dealt within the law. There is no excuse for this type of behavior, and people should be held accountable...but not in the manner described.

[noamnety]

26. Your laws do nothing for me.

There is no way to prosecute random nameless guy on the street who you run into once.

[rasputin1952]

27. But what of the random nameless guys that will be harmed by

allegations that are unfounded?

TO assume that this is the only way to deal with this is a pretty poor attitude, and one that will inevitably harm many innocents.

I certainly do not condone this type of behavior, and I do not pretend to have all of the answers, but I do know human nature; and many innocents will be irreparably harmed using this technology.

I know there is not a cop on every corner, and I don't want that either, but how was tis dealt with before cell-phones had camera's??

I am not willing to advance a concept that has the potential to destroy innocent people on another's whim. I am willing to bet, that there are many out there now more than willing to put someone's pic up on that site just for spite. We need to deal with activities that are reprehensible, but we cannot do that when such access is so easy and can destroy an innocent individual for life.

[noamnety]

28. what of the random nameless women and girls?

Why do we always have to be the ones that shut up and play nice?

When some asshat calls out to get my attention and I look over out of pure instinct, and he's jerking off leering at me, why is it my job to shut up and play nice about it?

When did it become my obligation to society to accept that graciously, with the justification that if I do speak out and make him accountable, it MIGHT lead to some OTHER woman making a false accusation?

[rasputin1952]

29. I am saying that I do not condone the behavior that has been

described, and I find it vile. I also find it vile that there are people out there that will use any excuse to torment those that are innocent of any such act, and for all of the wrong reasons.

I also believe that putting a person's image on the internet will not do much else than ensure that people far from the scene of the interaction get a "good look at a pervert"; which in itself is a perverted act.

Like I said, I don't have all of the answers, but putting an image on the net will nor prevent this type of abhorrent behavior and may well damage innocent people.

Knowing myself, if I came across an act as has been described, I have no doubt that someone would pay in some way for what had happened. I shall not go into detail.

I am actually on your side in this matter, I find the act described despicable, and something that needs to be dealt with. I just have seen many times where even the best of motives was taken to the point where many others have been crushed under undo accusations. And that is equally intolerable, as well as inevitable.

[noamnety]

30. I don't consider you on my side at all

Saying it's vile is not on my side. It's just words. Meaningless.

Saying someone would pay if you came across it does nothing for me. That's right up there with telling me a court will deal with it if a random stranger grabs my ass in a crowd. Meaningless. Women don't want to have to rely on a guy's physical strength or heroic acts to protect them. We shouldn't have to need a male escort to protect us from other males. The last thing I want is you reinforcing the patriarchy with macho talk and swagger so us little women will be safe.

Again, MY taking action against a person that assaults or harrasses me is my own business. I'm under no obligation to NOT take action, just because you're worried somebody else might hypothetically falsely accuse a person. You'll need a stronger argument than that, cause if someone else falsely accuses someone of a crime, that's on their shoulders, not mine.

"It needs to be dealt with."

Exactly.

[rasputin1952]

31. Well, I guess we will just have to disagree on some points...

But will you stand idly by when someone gets falsely accused?
Will you stand your ground that people are guilty until proven innocent?
Is it OK that lives of the innocent can be destroyed by a false allegation?

I don't hold those positions, and there are numerous occasions where things like this have happened. Back in the '70's a law was passed in NY that only the word of the victim need be used to convict a rapist. At first, I thought this was a good idea, later, it was reported that 16 men were in prison, one for 7 years, before it was determined that these 7 were innocent. One case in particular brought nationwide attention, (the 7 year incarceration one), when the woman came forward and stated that she had fabricated the story to "get even" with the man in question. Seven years in prison because someone had a grudge, and found a way to excercise "revenge". A life destroyed, out of falsification.

I stated I didn't have all the answers, I stated that I found these acts reprehensible; I also stated that this particular way of dealing with this situation is subject to false accusations. What I did not do is condone was the act this person was accused of, nor the act taken by the woman in the story.

I wonder what the other passengers on the train were thinking when this happened, and why they didn't take issue with this creep? Obviously, people are different than I, because I would have done something about the situation. The outcome would have been different, and in the end, the man would have been turned over to the Transit Police. There is no reason why people should be forced to tolerate the type of behavior this man displayed; but I have to wonder if someday MY picture might show up on a website as a "pervert", even if I had done nothing to deserve such a nomenclature.

Just out of curiosity, how would a woman feel if her pic showed up on a site discussing something to the effect, "She was a great sex toy last night. Into S/M and all kinds of kinky things", when none of this had the slightest bit of truth to it? I do believe there would be an outcry of the highest order.

My entire position in this discourse is that there is a very serious case for abuse, and I am positive this will happen.

[noamnety]

32. I view it the same way I view welfare queens

Some people need welfare to survive, and it's our obligation as a society to provide for their wellbeing.

Some people will abuse the system. That's a given in ANY system.

The fact that some people will abuse the system does not affect my basic conviction that we need to maintain the system. The number of people who would starve without welfare greatly outweigh the number that abuse it. In its coldest terms, you could think of it as a cost benefit analysis. The cost of having a website like this is that some innocent people will be falsely accused. The benefit is that some guilty people will be held accountable in some way for their actions - possibly leading to a shift in our culture. The cost of not having a website like this is that women are mainly left powerless to confront the people that assault them, and the people doing the assaulting are free to continue doing it indefinitely. Pluses and minuses on both sides of the issue. My personal belief is that the potential change in society and the number of women who are victims of this outweighs the number of men who would be falsely accused.

Your view, I guess, is that the potential for abuse negates the value of the opportunity for change, and the numbers of those who would be falsely accused is greater than the number of women who are victimized by this type of behavior.

I see a radical change from the status quo as necessary. We don't have a system that deals with sexual assault in any meaningful way. 99% of the men in this county (*made up statistic) will fight to prevent us from having a system that deals with it in a meaningful way, will fight handing over control of the issue to women (they want MEN to make and enforce the rules when it comes to how assaults on women will be handled), and will also fight for their entitlement to partake in a culture that promotes rape.

As a final note, people aren't guilty til proven innocent, nor innocent til proven guilty. They are one or the other, no matter what we presume, no matter what evidence is found. Either they did the crime or they didn't. It's not like they actually change from innocent to guilty (or vice versa) when a verdict is handed down. One lesson I've learned is that the court's findings are not relevant to whether a person is guilty or innocent - as you yourself pointed out.

[rasputin1952]

33. Well, to each their own. The few that will visit this site will not exact

social change, Essentially, very few will care if this individual is posted on the site. The man is sick and needs to be dealt with in one of several ways. The quickest is to jail him, but that won't stop the behavior, neither will posting his picture on a website. People in Salt Lake City or Cheyenne, don't care what happens on the NYC Subway, except to use it to bash all of the NY'ers, good and bad.

What WILL bring about social change is being active in a productive way to ensure said change is made. I know this works, I was there in the '60's fighting for Civil Rights, and Women's Rights. I have the patent view that all persons are equal and should be treated as such. Sure it takes time, and change, unfortunately is slow in coming...but it is change.

[lukasahero]

35. "how would a woman feel if her pic showed up on a site "

You sound like you don't believe this is already happening? Have you read the news reports of "shoe cameras"? Some creeps think it's fun to tie a camera to their shoe, hop on the train and snap pictures up women's skirts and then post them on the internet. Last I heard it was decided this was not against the law. I guess it probably boils down to "what was she doing wearing a skirt" though... :eyes:

And since men have never been known to discuss the woman they "scored" with other men (locker room talk anyone?), the idea that someone out there has already cornered the market on bringing this phenomenon to the internet is, of course, totally incomprehensible. :eyes: again.

[Orrex]

36. Shoe cameras

Typically, the courtroom defense (often successful) amounts not to "why was she wearing a skirt" but rather "you can't discern her identity" from the picture. Clearly, it's still a violation of privacy, but if the picture can't be traced back to the woman, it's difficult to argue (in legal terms) that she's been harmed. It's my understanding that some states are correctly moving to change this law.

Elsewhere in the thread Bloom referred to photos of women exposing themselves at Spring Break or Mardi Gras, wherein the woman's face is as visible as whatever she's flashing. That, I think, is a better analogy to the post-a-perv website idea, because it's generally a voluntary (though very possibly peer-induced, I grant) exposure and identity can be discerned.


Incidentally, "locker room talk" is a unisexual phenomenon. The particular modes of discussion may differ, but women and men are equally capable of graphically descriptive vulgarity.

[lukasahero]

34. Thank you

This is the best description of the problem women face I have read in ages. Be it rape, domestic violence, sexual harrassment, whatever, when women find ways to protect themselves and "fight back", people come out in droves to suggest that women then become the problem and a danger to men with this new "power". When will we stop worrying about the potential damage (some) women could cause men less than the real damage (some) men cause women by their violent and hateful behavior?

Thank you for your attempt at explanation - not that many will listen.

[Orrex]

37. In a similar vein

Of course, no man could ever possibly be the victim of a false or damaging post on such a website...

[Cell 17B]

38. Likewise.

Another site -- more popular is

http://www.dontdatehimgirl.com/