sarah jeong

@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

@jilliancyork And it's funny, b/c A LOT of seminal jurisprudence pre-Brandenburg is dudes threatening to punch each other over speech

@jilliancyork and that's the line that gets drawn: if it's speech that inevitably provokes a punchout, it's not protected

@jilliancyork harassing women online is effectively silencing while remaining protected speech--

@jilliancyork (as long as it skirts against direct threat) & I believe it's protected b/c those who invented FIrst Am in 20th century ...

@jilliancyork ... not only never experienced that, they couldn't conceive of that being a thing. [becoming less eloquent as I get hungry]

@jilliancyork Anyways, there's a rash of other issues there as well: other int'l standards, third party platforms as markets of speech, etc

@jilliancyork It's complicated and that's why I have been writing a response for like three months & I'm still not sure how it's coming out