Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 169 posts

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#101

Post by rcpt »

m463 wrote: post #52
WalterBright wrote: post #3

Anonymous accusations are a fine way to harass and intimidate anyone you disagree with or have a grudge against. As the article points out, it's a fine tool for oppression. A fundamental right we have in the US is the right to face our accusers, for good reason. Here's the text of it: > Sixth Amendment > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…

how does that work with speed cameras?

The person operating the camera is the witness in the trial. Same deal as security camera in a bank

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#102

Post by prepend »

Animats wrote: post #20

At least there's a public incident list: https://protectedidentityharm.stanford.edu/news

> What happened: On the morning of Monday, November 29 a student reported seeing two long cords that may represent nooses in a tree near the intersection of Campus Drive and Junipero Serra Boulevard, along the Lake Lagunita walking trail. What is being done:Updated as of 5/10/22 Based on statements from staff and students, and photos showing the scene at Lake Lagunita, it was determined the cords in the tree had been in that location for several years prior to it being reported to DPS. Photos showed the cords in the tree dating back to at least June 2017. Separately, a former student reached out reporting their recollection that a rope swing used to be in that location. DPS closed the case on December 6, 2021, and the incident was not classified as a crime.

It took a year of investigation to determine that two ropes hanging from a tree were the remains of a swing rather than the work of the world’s laziest lynch mob.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#103

Post by chowchowchow »

stale2002 wrote: post #96
chowchowchow wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it is a gap in your argument as stated then. Like, you need to do some work to explain why principles which are important in extreme circumstances, dealing with the use of force by and punishment power of the government, apply in less extreme ones like workplace disputes. You don't get to just point at the constitution and go "a ha!" and have everyone applaud your brilliant argumentation.

Edit: deleting comment due to the worthlessness of dealing with someone who is intentionally engaging in bad faith. I can't argue against intentional misphrasings.

You refuse to outline what you mean by due process, and only point to the constitution. Just name a standard, man. "Any concept of due process" is meaningless if the only reference you're able to produce is the constitution. Is that the problem? You can only reference the constitution because it's the only example you're familiar with?

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#104

Post by chaps »

You hear this from police, too and it's one of the reasons police will often require you to go to a specific station, sign an affidavit, record an interview of you, and provide maximal information to show that your complaint is valid, and now your name is stored in their systems forever.

Which, you know, leads to situations where a complaint is filed, but eg there's fear of retribution. So maybe they'll fill out an affidavit but don't go downtown for an interview. Or they'll do everything by the book, but because they didn't know the badge number of the cop who physically harmed them, the complaint is dropped. This shit happens all the time.

Hell, I've seen complaints get dropped -- despite videos proof attached to the complaint -- that show cops slamming a kid against a wall and threatening to beat the kid up. Because the person getting slammed against a wall didn't know the badge number. There are probably ten different ways to figure out who the thug cop was, but nope.

Point is -- anonymous complaints are important because they give people with real claims of harm the comfort of reduced exposure to retaliation. Not being able to file a complaint because of genuine fear of retaliation is a threatened voice. Anonymity is important.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#105

Post by dragonwriter »

stale2002 wrote: post #96
chowchowchow wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So it is a gap in your argument as stated then. Like, you need to do some work to explain why principles which are important in extreme circumstances, dealing with the use of force by and punishment power of the government, apply in less extreme ones like workplace disputes. You don't get to just point at the constitution and go "a ha!" and have everyone applaud your brilliant argumentation.

Edit: deleting comment due to the worthlessness of dealing with someone who is intentionally engaging in bad faith. I can't argue against intentional misphrasings.

> But, I think it is self evidently clear, to most people, that the principle of due process is something that matters outside of just this singular extreme circumstance of the government sending people to jail.

Yes, that’s why, e.g., the Constitution requires due process from government generally (see Amendments 5 and 14), not just in the criminal sphere.

But the 6th Amendment confrontation clause right is not the same thing as due process.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#106

Post by dsfyu404ed »

Nifty3929 wrote: post #39
WalterBright wrote: post #3

Anonymous accusations are a fine way to harass and intimidate anyone you disagree with or have a grudge against. As the article points out, it's a fine tool for oppression. A fundamental right we have in the US is the right to face our accusers, for good reason. Here's the text of it: > Sixth Amendment > In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury…

Yes, exactly. And I understand that you are not suggesting that Stanford is violating the 6th amendment, since this is not a criminal prosecution. What you're saying is that Stanford should adopt the same line of reasoning embodied in the 6th amendment, to the extent that being accused in this fashion is a very high cost, and that the accuser should not be able to escape accountability for making false or misleading…

>since this is not a criminal prosecution.

At some point it's a distinction without a difference. Local code enforcement office can unilaterally levy fines on the same order as what the police dish out. Stanford can unilaterally screw up it's customers lives at least as well as defending one's good name from prosecution can.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#107

Post by dsfyu404ed »

dragonwriter wrote: post #19
HALtheWise wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nitpicking, but I think people here often don't think clearly about the value of expecting Constitution-inspired behaviors from non-government organizations. This frequently comes up when discussing free speech on moderated online platforms. In particular, there are underlying reasons that we want the US government to respect certain individual freedoms, and to the extent that some other organization is sufficiently…

> Nitpicking, but I think people here often don't think clearly about the value of expecting Constitution-inspired behaviors from non-government organizations Especially when even for the government, those rules don't apply outside of the criminal sphere. (Those rules that apply to government outside of the criminal sphere are more often appropriate expectations for fairness in private interactions; “due process” in…

>Especially when even for the government, those rules don't apply outside of the criminal sphere.

Which is a travesty seeing as how many various organizations within government can unilaterally take action that will f-up one's life as bad as a nonviolent misdemeanor.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#108

Post by shockeychap »

chaps wrote: post #104

You hear this from police, too and it's one of the reasons police will often require you to go to a specific station, sign an affidavit, record an interview of you, and provide maximal information to show that your complaint is valid, and now your name is stored in their systems forever. Which, you know, leads to situations where a complaint is filed, but eg there's fear of retribution. So maybe they'll fill out an a…

> Hell, I've seen complaints get dropped -- despite videos proof attached to the complaint -- that show cops slamming a kid against a wall and threatening to beat the kid up. Because the person getting slammed against a wall didn't know the badge number.

If there was video evidence of a cop slamming a kid against a wall, why was this not used to identify the officer? This seems like a pretty outrageous claim that demands specifics - where and when did this happen - and citation of sources.

EDIT: Fixed grammar

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#109

Post by chaps »

shockeychap wrote: post #108
chaps wrote: post #104

You hear this from police, too and it's one of the reasons police will often require you to go to a specific station, sign an affidavit, record an interview of you, and provide maximal information to show that your complaint is valid, and now your name is stored in their systems forever. Which, you know, leads to situations where a complaint is filed, but eg there's fear of retribution. So maybe they'll fill out an a…

> Hell, I've seen complaints get dropped -- despite videos proof attached to the complaint -- that show cops slamming a kid against a wall and threatening to beat the kid up. Because the person getting slammed against a wall didn't know the badge number. If there was video evidence of a cop slamming a kid against a wall, why was this not used to identify the officer? This seems like a pretty outrageous claim that dem…

Your guess is as good as mine, man.

But -- I saw the video, I saw the cop's face, I saw his partner's face, and the faces of the cops who were also dispatched, I saw the reports, I've seen the dispatch data, I've seen the assignment sheets, I've seen the car number, the GPS logs, etc etc. It should have been easy, but...

Mind you, the only reason we have these docs is because a FOIA lawsuit that required their release, among about a hundred thousand other complaints, while the city's FOP was pushing to destroy those documents.

Your guess is as good as mine.

Re: Stanford faculty say anonymous student bias reports threaten free speech

#110

Post by krapp »

prepend wrote: post #99
imgabe wrote: post #92

> Mr. Sanchez, who describes himself as Chicano, said he has bristled in the past when another student has addressed him as “G,” short for gangster. He has let it roll off his back, he said, but less thick-skinned students should have a path for redress. Maybe less thick-skinned students should just develop thicker skins. Break the system. Flood it with bogus complaints until the people in charge learn why anonymous…

> Break the system. Flood it with bogus complaints until the people in charge learn why anonymous accusations are a bad idea. I’m surprised this hasn’t happened already. Since it’s anonymous I would expect 4chan to flood all these stupid policies. Maybe they selectively review and pursue.

You expect 4chan to fight against anonymity?
Post reply on HN