![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
maxomaiVia CaseyMalone.com and the Twitterverse comes this report of a disturbing kickstarter for a pickup artist guide that encourages men to commit sexual assault to speed up the seduction process. The evidence to support Casey Malone's claims requires some digging. The project itself is basically just binding the Reddit pages together into one volume. The Reddit page that contains the offending content, as of this writing, is down; fortunately, there is a Google cache of the incriminating content. The author of the book, Ken Honisky, is, among other things, encouraging his readers (socially awkward young men) to assume that their date is attracted to them, and, operating under this presumption, to grab their date's hand and put it on their dick in order to speed up the seduction process. Such an action, of course, is only sexy under very limited circumstances. The rest of the time, it's flat out sexual assault.
There is a campaign afoot to demand that Kickstarter revoke the project's funding and refund the backers, and to boycott Kickstarter if they can't or won't revoke and refund. I have mixed feelings about this campaign.
I actively hate the project itself. Ken Honisky is recklessly irresponsible for suggesting to young men with difficulty understanding unspoken social signals that they don't need explicit consent before touching another human being. The project is a catalyst for sexual assault and the continued victimization and objectification of women. Women have to put up with enough bullshit in our society without this being piled on to it.
Also, as a young man I found it extremely frustrating to connect with women in any context, especially the romantic context. This isn't uncommon among young men, but the pain still haunts me today. I personally resent projects that exploit this frustration. They are almost always snake oil sold by emotionally manipulative pricks, and this project is no exception.
The flip side, quite honestly, is that I hate censorship. It doesn't matter who the censors are. They could be the religious authorities, the government, a corporation, or, in this case, a secular social movement. I was taught from an early age that the First Amendment is sacrosanct, a lesson that reinforced itself through the days of the PMRC and the years after 9/11. The Manifesto of the OTO also states:
I despise Honisky, as much as I despise the Klansman; but I am bound by creed to defend his right to his work. There is also the none-too-insubstantial fact that free speech cuts both ways. It is a principle that protects my writings from censorship, not to mention my wife's art.
Which brings me to Kickstarter, and Kickstarter's relationship with Amazon Payment Services. They're not making a conscious decision to sponsor and promote Honisky's views, but they are facilitating him in publishing those views, and profiting thereby. Neither company is a common carrier. In particular, Amazon stopped doing business with Unglue.it for legal and business reasons. Kickstarter's terms of service are vague here. The book itself is legal (it doesn't violate copyright laws, for example), but the content argues for criminal behavior. The product itself could be considered offensive, and that would be a violation of Kickstarter's terms of service; but that, again, cuts both ways.
So, by demanding that Kickstarter revoke and refund, and threatening them with a boycott if they refuse to comply, is the campaign engaging in censorship, or not?
I don't know.
And that's what bugs me.
Maybe Honisky will solve this problem by editing the book to not encourage illegal behavior. Then the book will still suck, but it will suck less.
EDIT: Honisky offers a kinda-apology here, which, at best, tells me that he doesn't get the point.
There is a campaign afoot to demand that Kickstarter revoke the project's funding and refund the backers, and to boycott Kickstarter if they can't or won't revoke and refund. I have mixed feelings about this campaign.
I actively hate the project itself. Ken Honisky is recklessly irresponsible for suggesting to young men with difficulty understanding unspoken social signals that they don't need explicit consent before touching another human being. The project is a catalyst for sexual assault and the continued victimization and objectification of women. Women have to put up with enough bullshit in our society without this being piled on to it.
Also, as a young man I found it extremely frustrating to connect with women in any context, especially the romantic context. This isn't uncommon among young men, but the pain still haunts me today. I personally resent projects that exploit this frustration. They are almost always snake oil sold by emotionally manipulative pricks, and this project is no exception.
The flip side, quite honestly, is that I hate censorship. It doesn't matter who the censors are. They could be the religious authorities, the government, a corporation, or, in this case, a secular social movement. I was taught from an early age that the First Amendment is sacrosanct, a lesson that reinforced itself through the days of the PMRC and the years after 9/11. The Manifesto of the OTO also states:
Man has the right to think what he will:
to speak what he will:
to write what he will:
to draw, paint, carve, etch, mould, build as he will:
to dress as he will.
I despise Honisky, as much as I despise the Klansman; but I am bound by creed to defend his right to his work. There is also the none-too-insubstantial fact that free speech cuts both ways. It is a principle that protects my writings from censorship, not to mention my wife's art.
Which brings me to Kickstarter, and Kickstarter's relationship with Amazon Payment Services. They're not making a conscious decision to sponsor and promote Honisky's views, but they are facilitating him in publishing those views, and profiting thereby. Neither company is a common carrier. In particular, Amazon stopped doing business with Unglue.it for legal and business reasons. Kickstarter's terms of service are vague here. The book itself is legal (it doesn't violate copyright laws, for example), but the content argues for criminal behavior. The product itself could be considered offensive, and that would be a violation of Kickstarter's terms of service; but that, again, cuts both ways.
So, by demanding that Kickstarter revoke and refund, and threatening them with a boycott if they refuse to comply, is the campaign engaging in censorship, or not?
I don't know.
And that's what bugs me.
Maybe Honisky will solve this problem by editing the book to not encourage illegal behavior. Then the book will still suck, but it will suck less.
EDIT: Honisky offers a kinda-apology here, which, at best, tells me that he doesn't get the point.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
Doing what is right over what is doing what is easy
Date: 2013-06-19 11:02 pm (UTC)While true, you get damned in the eyes of the public. I agree with your concept of hating censorship but in this case I think you are making a mistake all to common these days. The "fair and balanced" trap.
This guy is promoting illegal and probably immoral concepts. Full Stop. Thus you are 'censoring' in the same way you would if the guy was giving out instructions on how to be a better peodophile. If society says X is illegal, then someone promoting X shouldn't act all surprised when some agency comes in and says, "Hey buddy, we'd like a moment of your time."
Plus once again, as was written out in a thread about the Open Street event concerning a gun-groups intent to show up with Open Carry, just because you may be able to do something doesn't mean you should. Plus we put limitations on things all the time. It's legal for adults to drink but there are plenty of times when we're not allowed to do so. Is this illegal? Of course not.
While we have free speach, can you call for the assassintion of the President. Sure you can...and you could be arrested for it regardless of you exercising your views because we, as a society, have agreed that certain things like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded movie-house is a bad idea.
So in this case, I think you're having a bit of slippery slope jitters. As stupid as we Americans can be, I still am very confident that most people are okay with saying a guy promoting sexual assult being targeted won't mean they'll be okay later to having someone promoting gay marriage. While gay marriage is illegal in many states, I think most adults with two functioning brain cells can tell the difference between these two illegal acts.
Re: Doing what is right over what is doing what is easy
Date: 2013-06-19 11:06 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-06-20 12:17 am (UTC)IMO asking Kickstarter to kick him to the curb doesn't qualify as censorship. For one thing, he doesn't need Kickstarter to publish his book; if nothing else, he can publish it as an e-book via Smashwords for free. For another thing, free speech doesn't mean "he's allowed to say whatever he wants without repercussion". It means he can say what he wants, but he gets whatever repercussions he earns. In this case, the repercussions are that many people do not want him taking a huge shit in the Kickstarter pool they're all swimming in, and they want to make sure everyone is aware of the shit he's peddling.
Personally, I hope that the folks who run Kickstarter realize that there are a whole lot of people who will be unwilling to be associated with this asshole, even by proxy... and will exercise their own wills by taking their crowdfunding elsewhere, if this problem isn't cleared up ASAP.
Re: Doing what is right over what is doing what is easy
Date: 2013-06-20 05:08 am (UTC)This guy is promoting illegal and probably immoral concepts. Full Stop. Thus you are 'censoring' in the same way you would if the guy was giving out instructions on how to be a better peodophile. If society says X is illegal, then someone promoting X shouldn't act all surprised when some agency comes in and says, "Hey buddy, we'd like a moment of your time."
Well said. Also, no one is stopping this sleeze from publishing his crap, he could find a printer and print copies to his heart's desire. Kickstarter dumping him just means he can't use them, and I'm entirely for them doing that. There's also precident for this, Kickstarter dumped a kickstarter for an impressively rapey hentai RPG a while back after they got numerous complaints about its content.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-20 03:01 pm (UTC)You and I have complete freedom to advocate boycott business that do things we find inappropriate. Sometimes, that's the only way to get a message across.
no subject
Date: 2013-06-21 08:10 pm (UTC)no subject
Date: 2013-07-09 08:05 pm (UTC)Kickstarter has responded by deciding henceforth to not fund PUA guides anymore. I think this is unfortunate since I believe an ethical PUA guide - one that respects boundaries and encourages mutually agreeable fun - is possible. But, if it is, it will not be funded through Kickstarter.
Perhaps an Indiegogo fundraiser is in order.