Comments

1. Aaron wrote:

   I don’t see what the Youtube/Google vs. Viacom story has to do directly with racialicious, but I’m glad you linked to it. The decision is just so absurd and such a direct violation of so, so many peoples’ privacy that people need to know about this.

   I can’t believe our judges. It seems most of them are completely clueless and 10 years behind with regard to technology. They need to take their duty to be familiar with the facts of every case they preside over – even the ones revolving around new fangled technologies – more seriously. If they find it hard to understand these things, because when they grew up, they didn’t have all these fancy computers, that’s too bad. They need to step up their game.

   Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 9:06 am ¶

2. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   @Aaron,

   It actually has a whole lot to do with us and how we present information to everyone here. I’ve been prepping a big post about how tech legislation and copyright decisions impact us – including the recent decision by the Associated Press to put in place strict rules for quoting their articles on blogs. Nothing is finalized, but we would basically be able to quote about a paragraph before we are accused of copyright violation.

   The YouTube decision is being used to prove that copyrighted videos are being viewed more often than amateur vids, and may impact how YouTube or other vid sites allow content to be added. The last post we did on the Daily Show used a YouTube grab – Comedy Central sanctioned vids expire after 15 days.

   So, things are about to get complicated.

   But, yeah, you’ll start to see a bit more about digital rights around here as well. Think of it as a bonus.

   Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 9:22 am ¶

3. Roger Green wrote:

   I’m interested in what folks think of this story: http://www.leanleft.com/archives/2008/07/09/6660/ While I know “black” can be used derogatorily, I don’t think it was in this case. But given the history of the place, maybe it’s a more charged atmosphere…

   Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 9:55 am ¶

4. Latoya Peterson wrote:

   Good find, Roger.

   I especially liked how all the analysis ties together. And this addendum at the end:

   PS: Several DMN posters noted the parallel case of David Howard, of the Washington, DC city government about 10 years ago. Howard – the budget controller – told two other government staffers that, because of a lack of resources, he would have to be “niggardly” with the city budget. He was white, they were black; outrage ensued; he attempted to explain that the term simply means “stingy” and has no racial meaning or etymology; they would have none of it; the next week, Howard voluntarily resigned, while at the same time the press was erupting with derision at the black staffmembers.

   At the time, I was among those who criticized the complainers. A friend of mine pointed out that the word was occasionally used in a racial sense, even if wrongly, and this contributed to the general understanding of its connotations. He also called Howard “a class act” for resigning in atonement and then re-joining the administration on amicable terms, and for not seeking to blame the complainants even while defending his own innocent intentions. Looking back, I am inclined to agree.

   Note Howard’s own assessment:

   I used to think it would be great if we could all be colorblind. That’s naive, especially for a white person, because a white person can’t afford to be colorblind. They don’t have to think about race every day. An African American does.

   That’s precisely correct. In saying that, he doesn’t admit that he himself was racist in using that word, and he doesn’t dwell on his critics’ linguistic errors. Instead, he notes the very different positions of blacks and whites in regard of race and racial sensitivity, and he places the responsibility on himself (and by implication all whites) to consider not only how their language is intended but the secondary meanings it carries with it, and even the possible mistaken meanings.

   Posted 10 Jul 2008 at 10:05 am ¶

5. superchunk12 wrote:

   I heard about this a while ago, and what the man said was NOT a racial slur. If someone had bothered to pick up a dictionary, they would have found this out. Does it sound like a red flag word? Yes, but it’s not, at best, poor word choice because of the similarity, but nothing someone deserves to lose their job over.

   Posted 11 Jul 2008 at 5:58 pm ¶