@sarahjeong The one extra point I'd make is that if we want to change things, change the law not FB's policies.
-
@sarahjeong But I am confused - do you see the 1st Am influencing FB's policies/processes? I don't.
@jilliancyork I believe obscenity law is problematic fr women / also that fighting words, imminent harm, Brandenburg are implicitly gendered
-
-
@sarahjeong Interesting, care to elaborate? -
@jilliancyork Re: obscenity, it's ultimately judged by community standards, but other common phrases are problematic re: feminism-- -
@jilliancyork "prurient interest" for example. Basically it's subjective and nebulous but it is implemented in a weird patriarchal way -
@jilliancyork BUT MORE IMPORTANTLY, feminist attempts to redefine obscenity have in general been rejected -
@jilliancyork e.g., Catharine Mackinnon's porn thing, which I totally disagree with, but it makes a very bizarre juxtaposition -
@jilliancyork On one side, the "community" (oh come on, we all know it's just the flip side of male gaze) decides what porn is -
@jilliancyork on the other side, porn is defined in relation to the women in it. porn is only that which degrades women -
@jilliancyork re: Brandenburg, etc., online harassment against women often skirts right up against it being a direct threat - 18 réponses de plus
Nouvelle conversation -
-
-
@sarahjeong (I am learning a lot in this convo btw. Not the level at which this topic is usually engaged on Twitter!) -
@jilliancyork@sarahjeong (I'm very happily lurking here, please continue.)
Fin de la conversation
Nouvelle conversation -
Le chargement semble prendre du temps.
Twitter est peut-être en surcapacité ou rencontre momentanément un incident. Réessayez ou rendez-vous sur la page Twitter Status pour plus d'informations.