<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD XHTML 1.0 Strict//EN" "http://www.w3.org/TR/xhtml1/DTD/xhtml1-strict.dtd"><html xmlns="http://www.w3.org/1999/xhtml"><head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=UTF-8" />
</head><body>
<p>I never once stated that it was a mistake to approach the organizers, so please: no straw men. I said I believe the final action taken was wrong in my opinion. I stand by that. </p>
<p>Violet's account of the incident is the more believable one in my opinion (again, I have zero involvement with either party) and one of her slides makes her position very clear.</p>
<p>I abhor harassment in any form, but you won't be able to convince me that censorship and political correctness are valid solutions. And I don't believe it was too late to discuss prefacing the talk with a quick disclaimer. Obviously there was time for a talk on censorship.</p>
<p>Randy</p>
<blockquote type="cite">
<p>On September 23, 2014 at 4:45 PM Kristin-Leigh Brezinski <okrysmastree@gmail.com> wrote:<br /><br /><br />The organizers are ultimately responsible for the way they advertise<br />and present the events at their conference, so I don't think it was a<br />mistake to bring the issue directly to them. There's a disconnect<br />between VB's description of what the talk actually is vs the way it<br />was presented in the schedule, and ideally that could have been<br />addressed rather than cancelling the talk outright, but it may have<br />been too late in the game at that point.<br /><br />On 9/23/14, Randall Arnold <randall.arnold@texrat.net> wrote:<br />> But instead of getting the talk killed outright, doesn't approaching the<br />> speaker<br />> openly and honestly to request she preface the talk with reasonable<br />> disclaimers<br />> make much more sense?<br />><br />> I have no dog in this one so I'm being fairly objective I think when I<br />> submit<br />> that Violet was mistreated here. Fear over a provocative talk title<br />> followed by<br />> knee-jerking political correctness was not at all the answer.<br />><br />> Randy<br />><br />>> On September 23, 2014 at 4:13 PM Kristin-Leigh Brezinski<br />>> <okrysmastree@gmail.com> wrote:<br />>><br />>> What was annoying about the Defcon penalty cards? I saw them as a<br />>> clever<br />>> way to bring attention to conference harassment issues and give people a<br />>> low-stakes, humorous way to flag bad behavior.<br />>><br />>> Re: Violet Blue, I think the whole thing got blown out of proportion,<br />>> but<br />>> really, who thought a talk titled "sex +/- drugs: known vulns and<br />>> exploits"<br />>> wouldn't raise red flags to a lot of women(/people in general)? Anyone<br />>> who<br />>> considers themselves enough of a wordsmith to play on puns like that<br />>> should be<br />>> open to criticism of the double-meanings in the terms they're invoking.<br />>><br />>> AI isn't the only organization working on this stuff, but I very much<br />>> appreciate any organization striving to make solid anti-harassment<br />>> policies<br />>> and codes of conduct a default at professional conferences, fan<br />>> conventions,<br />>> and hacker/makerspaces. Thanks for the post, Liz - I'll definitely keep<br />>> this<br />>> in mind when I evaluate the flexibility of my budgets end of month. :)<br />>><br />>> - Kristin-Leigh<br />>><br />>> On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 1:08 PM, matt < matt@nycresistor.com<br />>> <mailto:matt@nycresistor.com> > wrote:<br />>><br />>> > > Ada has been a pretty toxic member of the infosec<br />>> > > community. Their stupid harassment cards at defcon were<br />>> annoying,<br />>> > > but the violet blue incident is but one of several incidents<br />>> of<br />>> > > manufacturing drama for PR. that sort of behavior is<br />>> unacceptable<br />>> > > in our community. And as you said... ada is a small org. 2<br />>> people.<br />>> > > so i don't see the culture of ada ever changing. I'd rather<br />>> people<br />>> > > invested in the gnome outreach program for women.<br />>> ><br />>> > https://wiki.gnome.org/OutreachProgramForWomen<br />>> ><br />>> > -matt<br />>> ><br />>> > On Tue, Sep 23, 2014 at 3:46 PM, Al Billings <<br />>> > albill@openbuddha.com<br />>> > <mailto:albill@openbuddha.com> > wrote:<br />>> ><br />>> > > > > Yes, the real problem that people care<br />>> > about<br />>> > > > > is that Valerie hates Violet Blue and it isn’t that<br />>> > > > > Valerie, using her role in AI, got a sex-positive talk<br />>> > by<br />>> > > > > a woman cancelled at a conference because she didn’t<br />>> > like<br />>> > > > > it. Since she still runs AI and clearly nothing has<br />>> > > > > changed, I’m not sure why you’re surprised that<br />>> > people<br />>> > > > > have a negative reaction.<br />>> > ><br />>> > ><br />>> > > On Sep 23, 2014, at 12:44 PM, Liz Henry <<br />>> > > lizhenry@gmail.com<br />>> > > <mailto:lizhenry@gmail.com> > wrote:<br />>> > ><br />>> > ><br />>> > > > > > > Ada Initiative: A small non<br />>> > > profit<br />>> > > > > > > run by two people who once pissed off Violet<br />>> > > Blue.<br />>> > > ><br />>> > > > > > ><br />>> > ><br />>> > > _______________________________________________<br />>> > > Discuss mailing list<br />>> > > Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org<br />>> > > <mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org><br />>> > > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss<br />>> > ><br />>> > ><br />>> > > > ><br />>> ><br />>> > _______________________________________________<br />>> > Discuss mailing list<br />>> > Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org<br />>> > <mailto:Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org><br />>> > http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss<br />>> ><br />>> ><br />>> > ><br />>> _______________________________________________<br />>> Discuss mailing list<br />>> Discuss@lists.hackerspaces.org<br />>> http://lists.hackerspaces.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss<br />>><br />><br />><br />><br /></p>
</blockquote>
</body></html>