Your friend Jim George thinks you'd be a great addition to Ricochet, so we'd like to offer you a special deal: You can become a member for no initial charge for one month!
Ricochet is a community of like-minded people who enjoy writing about and discussing politics (usually of the center-right nature), culture, sports, history, and just about every other topic under the sun in a fully moderated environment. We’re so sure you’ll like Ricochet, we’ll let you join and get your first month for free. Kick the tires: read the always eclectic member feed, write some posts, join discussions, participate in a live chat or two, and listen to a few of our over 50 (free) podcasts on every conceivable topic, hosted by some of the biggest names on the right, for 30 days on us. We’re confident you’re gonna love it.
Is it common knowledge that it’s possible to file a report with the police but request they not press charges? I have done that, for the reason you describe.
Disagree. The woman does have a right to privacy. Up until she abrogates that right by making it public. It is now no longer a private bit of dirty laundry. The rest of us now have an interest in discouraging her behavior and revealing the woman’s name is our recourse.
Exposed by whom?
If Ansari wants to file a defamation suit then the answer is that her name will be exposed as a matter of law.
Any other government attempts to violate her privacy are out of line.
Ethical reporters won’t track down and publish her name.
But they don’t have to, there are all sorts of people with the savvy to find her and an entire internet to publish on – the same internet she used.
Once the champions of exposure have served up her name, the ethical reporters spike it over the net.
‘Should’ hardly enters into it.
My gut feeling is that the outing of an anonymous person who has written something objectionable may appeal in cosmic justice-y kind of way, once you factor in the sheer power of a weaponized internet’s Worst Person in the World Death Beam the punishment is too outsized for a mortal human being.
OTOH, Nierman’s kind of cute in a girl-next-door way and as a netizen I have the right to a jpeg of whatever I search for.
Isn’t that a two way street though? If you expect privacy then respect privacy. Why are we talking about Nierman as if she was just randomly caught up in some injustice? This all in her lap, of her own conscious doing.
Well, I’ll happily wave my interest to know about the woman. If this kind of thing becomes common, then we can deal with it. In the meantime, it all feels voyeuristic and prurient to me — a private mess elevated to viral status by virtue of it containing celebrity sex.
That isn’t the interest I was referring to. The rest of us have an interest in discouraging the behavior consisting of making private things public.
No, I understood your point. And, if this happened a lot, I’d probably agree. But the question of the original post was whether or not this particular woman should have her name published. Given how rare this is, and how stupid and petty the whole matter is, I’ll stand by my original answer in #5: No, not unless Ansari feels like doing it.
Unfair as it is, Ansari is a public figure and she wasn’t (I suppose she is now).
OK, but Nierman’s story wasn’t public. She chose to make it so. Why isn’t her default privacy forfeit – by her own action?
Abby Nierman made herself into a public figure.
The NYT had an excellent piece on her attack. She had a bad date, and assumed that the man was a mind-reader.
Yes.
I don’t think that is common knowledge, and it should be.
For the same reason that if you were to post something a lot of people found objectionable, said post was to make it to the Main Feed and from there all over the internet, and your post became a huge cultural flashpoint I wouldn’t want you to be doxxed. You are Ed G. in Chicago on Ricochet and not a complete name, address, and work telephone number for a reason.
Nierman isn’t the first star-redactor to ‘kiss’ and tell and she won’t be the last. Her exposure can be considered poetic justice, First Testament justice, or just desserts.
But not plain old justice. At least not the way I understand it.
There’s a big difference between objectionable and personally ruinous though.
Plus, it’s not as if she’s being unfairly caught up in the vagaries of modern life. She chose to make the private public.
As far as justice, I make no claims to any of the flavors you mention. But I do claim that being able to make publicly ruinous claims about someone without having to face examination is plain old unjust. I don’t know how the account can be examined without knowing who is making them.
Anyone can now anonymously slander anyone else. There are no gatekeepers who credibly can vet these allegations.
I think that anyone who blackens someone else’s name extra-judicially should be held liable for their words. Either handle things using the tools provided by the legal system, or stay quiet and move on with your life.
Whether or not Ansari really is a slimeball is irrelevant. Did he commit a crime? That is the standard, and it should be judged in the legal system, not the court of public opinion.
But since the Court of Public Opinion is always in session, exposing the anonymous accuser is the only way to hold them liable.
Please allow me to restate/reframe: does anyone here believe that he is personally entitled to the name of the woman who made the anonymous post regarding sex and the accompanying RoEs with Ansari? If so, why?
No, I don’t think I am personally entitled to this information. But the accuser is not entitled to her anonymity either. So if someone chooses to expose her, I do not find that wrong. She chose to change the RoEs, and should not be surprised that the new rules apply to her also.
Yes, especially if he files suit officially. I think so because I believe that the right to confront your accuser, cross examine, and a presumption of innocence are not merely legal concepts. I believe those are general principles of just treatment, and Lord knows the courts don’t have a monopoly on that.
But I also agree with Patrick above: she is not entitled to anonymity once she chose to pierce the veil which I hope protects us all.