IMPORTANT: Be aware of incited attacks by Salvation Army, others

[maymay]

A defaming bulletin against KinkForAll was published on March 20th, 2010.[0] It's mostly a slanderous attack on me personally, but I think it's important that everyone on this list is at least aware of its existence.

Don't give this bulletin much link love, and please read my blog post about the issue[1] before you take any online actions on your own blogs.

http://maybemaimed.com/2010/03/24/the-salvation-army-incites-personal-attacks-against-me-a-blog-reply/

Also remember that the incredibly admirable transparency with which we have conducted ourselves has proven extremely effective in showcasing the benign and educational nature of what we are and do at KinkForAll unconferences, and I hope this serves as a poignant reminder of how important it is for unorganizers and unconferences to remain transparent in this way.

That said, don't hesitate to contact one another or myself about this or any other issue that arises in private. Organizational transparency is not mutually exclusive with personal privacy. There are clearly people out there who are willing to incite hateful sentiments against us for speaking up in defense of sex education and sexual freedoms for all.

Thanks,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Talk show: http://KinkOnTap.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay

EXTERNAL REFERENCES:

[0] http://citizensagainsttrafficking.org/uploads/Kink_and_BDSM_event_open_to_children.pdf
[1] http://maybemaimed.com/2010/03/24/the-salvation-army-incites-personal-attacks-against-me-a-blog-reply/

[Sarah Taub]

Thanks very much for informing this list, and congratulations on the dialogue you have established with Marie.  Thank you for taking a public stand for sexuality education, for assertively stating your principles, and for establishing common ground with at least one of your attackers.  Let us know if you need additional support.

 

--Sarah

[Sai Emrys]

FYI: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_defamation_law

"Defamation per se

All states except Arizona, Arkansas, Missouri, and Tennessee recognize
that some categories of statements are considered to be defamatory per
se, such that people making a defamation claim for these statements do
not need to prove that the statement was defamatory. In the common law
tradition, damages for such statements are presumed and do not have to
be proven. Traditionally, these per se defamatory statements include:

* Allegations or imputations "injurious to another in their trade,
business, or profession"
* Allegations or imputations "of loathsome disease" (historically
leprosy and sexually transmitted disease, now also including mental
illness)
* Allegations or imputations of "unchastity" (usually only in
unmarried people and sometimes only in women)
* Allegations or imputations of criminal activity (sometimes only
crimes of moral turpitude) "

I presume that accusations of pedophilia and child exploitation are
well within points 1 and 4, but you may wish to retain a lawyer who is
conversant with libel law.

- Sai

[Siobhan Lynch]

wow, I actually think you have a case here .... if you want to pursue
it. I know some decent lawyers who work in that area, except you're out
west these days, right?

-†rish

[subversive_sub]

Good god. I didn't realize that the *entire* newsletter was about you, nor that it included photographs. This is fucking insane. 

WRT legal issues (and I expect you've probably already come to the same conclusion),  pursuing this would probably be extremely difficult, if for no other reason because it would essentially be putting your own sexuality on trial, and that's just a nightmare. If you sue someone for libel, you carry the burden of proving that what they're saying is not true; if it's true, it's not libel. Further, they could argue that because they had good reason to believe everything here was true (and here they drag out their many citations, the photographs, the blog posts), there's no actual malice = no libel. 

That said, if you do decide you want to pursue legal action, I have several good friends who are lawyers (here in SF) and could perhaps help. 

Having seen this, I'm all the more impressed with how mature and level-headed your response was. Like, crazy impressed. And inspired.

Let me know if there's anything at all I can do to help, seriously.

-Erin

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "KinkForAll" group.
To post to this group, send email to kinkf...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
kinkforall+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall?hl=en
Visit and contribute to the KinkForAll wiki at
http://KinkForAll.org

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to kinkforall+unsubscribegooglegroups.com or reply to this email with the words "REMOVE ME" as the subject.

[maymay]

Hi everyone,

I've personally invited Margaret Brooks and Donna M. Hughes to help us address their concerns over KinkForAll unconferences. Please read my blog post, "Addressing Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks' concerns over KinkForAll unconferences" before you reply to this thread.

http://maybemaimed.com/2010/03/27/addressing-donna-m-hughes-and-margaret-brooks-concerns-over-kinkforall-unconferences/

As I know both Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks are very familiar with this mailing list, I wouldn't expect them to have any trouble speaking here. Therefore, I feel it is a good time to remind everyone who may be reading that every person participating in discussions on this list should be aware of and is expected to abide by the simple list rules, posted on the list's front page,[0] as well as the more detailed guide on the wiki.[1]

If either Donna M. Hughes or Margaret Brooks feel they can offer sound advice for how to improve KinkForAll unconferences, as well as the safety of all participants, including young people, and the communities in which KinkForAll unconferences are held, then their ideas deserve to be heard here.

In accordance with the KinkForAll principles of education and inspiring conversation, I thank everyone for approaching this discussion in as constructive and helpful a way as possible. I know how hard that can be, having myself been deeply hurt by the statements Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks published about me and certain others subscribed to this email list.

Here is the email I sent to Margaret Brooks and Donna M. Hughes:

> Subject: I invite you to help me address your concerns over KinkForAll unconferences
> From: maymay
> Date: March 27, 2010 4:20:52 PM PDT
> To: dhug...@cox.net, mbr...@bridgew.edu
> Cc: dhu...@uri.edu
> […some email headers clipped…]
>
> Dear Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks,
>
> I recently learned that you published a bulletin on a website[0] that raises concerns about the KinkForAll unconferences of which I advocate in support. Many of the statements you present as fact are simply not true.
>
> Since I understand that you have concerns about KinkForAll unconferences, I invite you to help me and the rest of the KinkForAll participant community address them. I’ve composed an initial description of some of the things KinkForAll unconference planners (“unorganizers”) have done to protect the participants at local events, as well as the communities where events are held. If you feel you can do so, it would be my privilege to work with you to further the safety of individuals, both young and old, at KinkForAll unconferences, while simultaneously improving the available educational resources about sexuality as well as all of the things that sexuality affects in people’s lives.
>
> To work with me on this, I invite you to speak up on the KinkForAll mailing list,[1] which I know you follow quite closely, or to reply to my recent blog post discussing your concerns,[2] which I also know you follow quite closely. :)
>
> In point of fact, I am deeply hurt by your statements, but I also recognize that you seem to share my passion for keeping people safe and self-empowered to lead happy lives. Therefore, if you have a good suggestion for how I and other KinkForAll participants can keep ourselves safe and improve the quality of our lives and the lives of our friends, neighbors, fellow citizens, and peers, I don’t really care that you insinuated evil things about me in the past. If I think your suggestions are sound, I’ll support them.
>
> I am looking forward to hearing your suggestions for improving KinkForAll unconferences.
>
> Sincerely,
> -Meitar “maymay” Moscovitz
>
> […redundant external references removed…]

Cheers,

-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Talk show: http://KinkOnTap.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay

EXTERNAL REFERENCES:

[0] http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall
[1] http://wiki.kinkforall.org/UsingTheKinkForAllMailingList

[maymay]

Hi all,

It has been almost a week with no word from Donna M. Hughes or
Margaret Brooks, so I have reissued my invitation to a discussion in a
follow-up blog post on this matter:

http://maybemaimed.com/2010/04/02/stand-against-stigma/

Thank you all again for setting an inspiring example of how to turn
attacks into constructive dialogue. By linking to my blog posts in
your own writings and discussing these matters openly in public
forums, we have already sparked numerous blog posts, tweets, and other
writings that are spreading the conversation. There has never been a
better time to show people that making the world a healthier, safer,
happier place for all of its inhabitants won't come from spreading a
message of fear, but from spreading a message of freedom and
supporting educational efforts like these KinkForAll unconferences.

I can only hope that Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks show us that
they care about encouraging the kind of education that promotes peace
and understanding among all people by joining in this expanding
discussion. Thank you so much for continuing to speak up against
stigma and shame on your blogs, for standing up for the fundamental
human right of education, and for celebrating and promoting self-
empowerment to all your readers.

[Sai Emrys]

Hopefully you've also sent them a nice email, rather than assuming
that they read your blog?

Also, is there any reason to believe this isn't going to be gone in a
week or two? It may well be simply beneath your notice.

- Sai

[maymay]

On Apr 3, 2010, at 1:11 AM, Sai Emrys wrote:

> Hopefully you've also sent them a nice email, rather than assuming
> that they read your blog?

Yes, they have both received a personal email. I mentioned this on my blog, as well.[0] Furthermore, their writings make it clear that they absolutely do read, or are at least extremely familiar with, my blog and this mailing list.

> Also, is there any reason to believe this isn't going to be gone in a
> week or two? It may well be simply beneath your notice.
>
> - Sai

It may. It may not.

I would rather see us give Donna M. Hughes and Margaret Brooks an opportunity to pleasantly surprise us, even though they seem not to have offered us the same courtesy. Now, they've been given two opportunities.

Openness and a welcoming atmosphere is the premise underlying this community.[1] I believe we can keep ourselves safe, continue to work towards the safety, freedoms, and education of all people, and still remain welcoming to these professors. I consider the onus to be on them to prove me wrong about that, if they insist.

Cheers,
-maymay
Blog: http://maybemaimed.com
Talk show: http://KinkOnTap.com
Community: http://KinkForAll.org
Volunteering: http://ConversioVirium.org/author/maymay

EXTERNAL REFERENCES:

[0] http://maybemaimed.com/2010/03/27/addressing-donna-m-hughes-and-margaret-brooks-concerns-over-kinkforall-unconferences/
[1] http://wiki.kinkforall.org/ThePrinciplesOfKinkForAll

[Adrian Lee]

On Mar 26, 2:18 pm, subversive_sub <subversive...@gmail.com> wrote:
> If you sue someone for libel, you carry
> the burden of proving that what they're saying is not true; if it's true,
> it's not libel. Further, they could argue that because they had good reason
> to believe everything here was true (and here they drag out their many
> citations, the photographs, the blog posts), there's no actual malice = no
> libel.

Just wanted to say that at least according to my Journalism 101 class,
neither untruth or malice are required for a statement to be libel or
slander.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google
Groups "KinkForAll" group.
To post to this group, send email to kinkf...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
kinkforall+...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at
http://groups.google.com/group/kinkforall?hl=en
Visit and contribute to the KinkForAll wiki at

http://wiki.KinkForAll.org

[Sai Emrys]

On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Adrian Lee <isaacs...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Just wanted to say that at least according to my Journalism 101 class,
> neither untruth or malice are required for a statement to be libel or
> slander.

In the US, truth is an absolute defense to both. Malice is, AFAICT,
not relevant at all per se.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defamation#Truth

- Sai

[Doug Henwood]

On Apr 16, 2010, at 7:21 PM, Sai Emrys wrote:

> On Fri, Apr 16, 2010 at 3:15 PM, Adrian Lee
> <isaacs...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Just wanted to say that at least according to my Journalism 101
>> class,
>> neither untruth or malice are required for a statement to be libel or
>> slander.
>
> In the US, truth is an absolute defense to both. Malice is, AFAICT,
> not relevant at all per se.

In Britain, a true statement can still be found libelous. That's not
true in the U.S. For public figures, there's a great deal of latitude.
It's not libelous to report something that turns out to be false about
a public figure if the reporter in good faith thinks it's true. There
has to be proof of malicious intent. The standard is tighter with
people who aren't public figures. Obviously clever lawyers can fight
about who's a public figure.

Doug