The (New) Court of Public Opinion

[OldGoat]

To add to what has already been said (and I tend to agree with Pan's position), while the internet has made things travel faster, there is also much more anonymity in exercising free speech than there used to be. For instance, I don't know any of you guys. You don't really know me. So much of what is said nowadays cannot even be attributed to the actual speaker/author.

Back in the day, everything you said had the consequence of being attributed to you. Now, most of what you say is not.

The court of public opinion has always acted this way. Hell, it used to be much worse. It used to be that your free speech and religious beliefs might invite you to an actual lynching (see Elijah Lovejoy or Joseph Smith). Hell, our country's founding included tarring and feathering people for unpopular speech. And today we are going to complain because more people can hear what you say? Really?

Yeah. Really.

Especially with blatant double standards that reward a racist black professor who is public and quite serious with her abhorrent view compared to a white wrestler who is being pilloried for words said in private.

 

[panamaican]

Hulk was videotaped secretly having sex. If you think that it's acceptable to have that level of intrusion into one's private affairs you have less sense than I've given you credit for.

You're still missing my point. I'm not judging the right or wrong of how the public learned what it learned. I'm saying that once the public learns, it will respond. Demanding otherwise isn't viable.

Now, we have a legal system to punish the people for making the tape, which might have been criminal (I've barely paid attention to that part of it). And Hogan can always sue for damages.

But society? What is society supposed to do - pretend they didn't hear it?

 

[panamaican]

Yeah. Really.

Especially with blatant double standards that reward a racist black professor who is public and quite serious with her abhorrent view compared to a white wrestler who is being pilloried for words said in private.

So, it's not about the court of public opinion but about how that court is ruling?

That professor got her own thread, people had the chance to express their outrage at her comments. In that thread, I said I'd be fine with her getting fired. But since the court of public opinion didn't think it rose to that level, you're calling that a double standard? Not because either her or Hogan's comments weren't offensive but because society didn't see both instances as you did?

Sometimes, the court rules in your favor. Sometimes, it doesn't. That's life in a free society.

 

[Sabin]

The court of public opinion has always operated this way. Mob rule has always settled social matters that don't concern the law.

More often than not, when people decry the effect of the court of public opinion, they're often decrying that they're on the less popular side of the issue. In these cases, it's not the court of public opinion that they are upset with - it's that the court doesn't agree with them and they fear that the consequences of an issue will negatively impact them.

Tellingly, people often ignore the numerous issues/agendas that don't "go viral". There are literally thousands of new videos/audio of individuals and celebrities uploaded to the internet every day. 99.999% of them are mostly ignored because the issues being addressed don't contradict the general public's idea of what's best for society. The very few that do, go viral not because of someone's agenda but because society as a group has strong feelings about the subject.

In short, people just don't like being on the wrong side of public opinion because they feel that it will eventually hurt them. But that's life. What society deems acceptable is always in flux and what was accepted last year or 2 years ago or 20 years isn't guaranteed to be accepted tomorrow, in 5 years or in 15.

Unfortunately I think I would have to agree with you in regards to why I dislike this new court. I would be on the wrong side of it if I were a celebrity or leader and certain things came to light (misdemeanors or less). Instead I'm protected by the legal precedents towards average people.

That being said I also know a few secrets of others, or just basic stats and observations. The people around me growing up were on average doing the same or worse. People like to rebel, experiment, do stupid things to impress a group. As long as certain lines are not crossed, I see it as a question of human nature. 80 years is a long time and on average we have a lot of weaknesses. Stressors, boiling points, pet peeves that trigger a bad side. Impulses, moments of weakness, ways to seek gratification to ease living... we can look bad at our worst moments. Was it recorded?, if not consider yourself lucky nowadays with 6.8 BILLION cellphone subscriptions and cameras and microphones potentially everywhere.

http://qz.com/179897/more-people-around-the-world-have-cell-phones-than-ever-had-land-lines/

And I call it new because I think the old one was more local and with people who actually knew or knew of the offender or his family and still treated him as a human being (depending on the offense of course). Whereas we have suicides from online bullying, which I would imagine suicides were less frequent in the past. It's ok until it starts happening to your friends and family, which it very well might as I think it's possible the scientific technological elite are creating some things that are hard to control, ie this online court.

 

[OldGoat]

So, it's not about the court of public opinion but about how that court is ruling?

That professor got her own thread, people had the chance to express their outrage at her comments. In that thread, I said I'd be fine with her getting fired. But since the court of public opinion didn't think it rose to that level, you're calling that a double standard? Not because either her or Hogan's comments weren't offensive but because society didn't see both instances as you did?

Sometimes, the court rules in your favor. Sometimes, it doesn't. That's life in a free society.

Do you believe in the so-called Heckler's Veto?

 

[OldGoat]

Unfortunately I think I would have to agree with you in regards to why I dislike this new court. I would be on the wrong side of it if I were a celebrity or leader and certain things came to light (misdemeanors or less). Instead I'm protected by the legal precedents towards average people.

That being said I also know a few secrets of others, or just basic stats and observations. The people around me growing up were on average doing the same or worse. People like to rebel, experiment, do stupid things to impress a group. As long as certain lines are not crossed, I see it as a question of human nature. 80 years is a long time and on average we have a lot of weaknesses. Stressors, boiling points, pet peeves that trigger a bad side. Impulses, moments of weakness, ways to seek gratification to ease living... we can look bad at our worst moments. Was it recorded?, if not consider yourself lucky nowadays with 6.8 BILLION cellphone subscriptions and cameras and microphones potentially everywhere.

http://qz.com/179897/more-people-around-the-world-have-cell-phones-than-ever-had-land-lines/

And I call it new because I think the old one was more local and with people who actually knew or knew of the offender or his family and still treated him as a human being (depending on the offense of course). Whereas we have suicides from online bullying, which I would imagine suicides were less frequent in the past. It's ok until it starts happening to your friends and family, which it very well might as I think it's possible the scientific technological elite are creating some things that are hard to control, ie this online court.

Exactly. This is celebration of the concept of mob rule. Furthermore it's incredibly invasive.

Imagine going through adolescence with hidden cameras everywhere in your house. Can't even masturbate in peace.

And no, this isn't about unhearing or unseeing this is about ignoring what isn't meant for you nor is all that important.

Any of you get in a verbal fight with a s/o? Would all those words you have said in private during sex, role playing, after a night of drinking, or during a heated argument make you proud if broadcast worldwide? Doubt it. But self righteous persecutors with a side of asshole just want to see people fall.

 

[mtron929]

Strictly public scorn? So negative feedback from the public and people that he knows personally? No government responses, right?

Would he deserve the same treatment? I don't think he deserves any treatment, I think public responses to private thoughts becoming public is a normal part of life. I wouldn't judge him any differently but I wouldn't find it odd for other people to judge him.

The point that I think OG, and maybe you, are missing isn't that I'm saying people should scorn him for his private thoughts. It's that asking the public to ignore something after it has become public is unrealistic. It's normal, humans are social. We discuss and judge other humans. If knew information about another person becomes public, then society will judge.

That's what I'm disagreeing with - the idea that society should ignore what it learns, regardless of how it learns it.

Well, maybe then you are not the right person to have this conversation. I think there is a big debate on whether or not Hulk Hogan should be receiving this much criticism given that he was caught making a private conversation, and not a public one. On one hand, there is a group of people thinking that he deserves all of the criticisms regardless of whether or not the conversation was private/public whereas there is a group of people who feel like this should be factored in on judging him. My question was geared towards the former group. That is, if you criticize Hogan for making the comments in a private setting, would you also criticize him for thinking the thoughts if somehow we can get a glimpse inside his brain?

 

[panamaican]

Do you believe in the so-called Heckler's Veto?

The legal version is predicated on government intervention to prevent something. It's not a strictly public measure.

Now, if you're referring to it in the layman's sense. Of course I believe in it. There's a reason comedians develop a repertoire for hecklers. It's that hecklers are inevitable and you must deal with them. In a public or private venue, if the crowd is sufficiently incensed or the owners feel the heckler is interfering with the product it paid for then the heckler is removed by the influence of social pressure.

But the right of the heckler to shout down a speaker? Why wouldn't I believe in it if I believe in actual free speech?

 

[Sabin]

Interesting point about privacy in small villages. I've read that in such villages most crimes prosecuted were moral crimes like adultery because for the most part they were relatively safe so its a good point.

However, I will say that with technology our transgressions are recorded for much longer in much more detail. I think its less likely for something from a decade past to pop up in a small village the way it can now. Of course its still possible if it was kept a secret by someone who eventually spilled the beans but that's a world of difference from video/audio evidence and computers complicate the matter a lot. Its been well documented that people feel safer revealing the details of their personal lives with computers. In some sense many have a more intimate relationship with Google than they do with most people in their own life because most people are willing to search things there that they wouldn't admit even to close friends and families for fear of judgement. However, now its becoming increasingly clear that this intimate relationship is being recording and stored meticulously and monetized.

Given that this intimate information is collected and sold I don't find it hard to imagine that it might be sold eventually for more sinister purposes than advertising. Politicians are in the public sphere so is it a stretch to think that this information might be sold to smear political opponents? How about political opposition in general, regardless of whether or not they're running for office? Perhaps I'm getting into conspiracy territory here but after the NSA scandal I don't think its too crazy to fear the potential for abuse all this information can lead to.

Yes, and that could in theory lead to a weaker pool of leaders. David Petraeus gone due to adultery scandal, Stanley McChrystal gone due to criticism of the President. I personally find it a shame that a man of Petraeus' caliber is gone for his offense. McChrystal, I read it one time and forgot it, so can't remember what he said specifically, but since leaders are held to a ridiculously high standard and everything is being preserved and recorded... yeah seems like it could very well weaken leadership positions. Human nature cuts across classes - the enforcers, politicians, CEO's, everyone does stupid things.

The first indication of the new high tech interface with this that I can think of, being the SONY CEO losing her job... over private emails... from years ago. The implication of just what happened then is a potentially bad omen for another thread probably. But, you had a foreign government, in this case a regime that is the epitome of the evil of unchecked power, imposing censorship on the US from across the globe and getting one of our CEO's fired. National fucking sovereignty, threatened by the new power and scope of high technology. This is new stuff here and a scope that is typically huge and that can oftentimes impact millions of people at a time. Some serious food for thought about the state of the future and high technology.

 

[ncordless]

Yeah. Really.

Especially with blatant double standards that reward a racist black professor who is public and quite serious with her abhorrent view compared to a white wrestler who is being pilloried for words said in private.

. <--------- Know what that is?



That's the world's smallest violin playing "my heart bleeds. . . " for the poor, persecuted white man.


As a white male heterosexual, I find this kind of whiney BS so dumb. I am a white guy in the USA. There is no better position to be in. Quit whining. You do us a disservice with your feminine victim mentality.

 

[panamaican]

Well, maybe then you are not the right person to have this conversation. I think there is a big debate on whether or not Hulk Hogan should be receiving this much criticism given that he was caught making a private conversation, and not a public one. On one hand, there is a group of people thinking that he deserves all of the criticisms regardless of whether or not the conversation was private/public whereas there is a group of people who feel like this should be factored in on judging him. My question was geared towards the former group. That is, if you criticize Hogan for making the comments in a private setting, would you also criticize him for thinking the thoughts if somehow we can get a glimpse inside his brain?

I think the underlying difference of private conversation vs. thoughts vs. diary vs. anything other than a manifesto published in a major newspaper is beside the point.

I criticize people for thinking plenty of things they might never come right out and say. Let's use racism since it's germane to the topic. I criticize people with racist thoughts. I don't know who is thinking racist thoughts right now but I know that I criticize them as people. Does it matter that I don't know exactly who they are? Can I not criticize the thought process itself?

And if I learn who they are - why would my criticism of people who think racist thoughts be any different just because I heard about it from an unexpected source?

 

[Sabin]

But the key to understanding what is so wrong about the Hogan situation involves realizing that if he'd been critical of his daughter dating Italians on the tape and been referring to them as "dago's" the WWE would have felt no financial pressure to erase his name from the fake wrasslin' history books.

Yeah, the ideal of justice, equal application. Racism is bad, then villify all racists and reverse racists to a similar extent.

 

[mtron929]

I think the underlying difference of private conversation vs. thoughts vs. diary vs. anything other than a manifesto published in a major newspaper is beside the point.

I criticize people for thinking plenty of things they might never come right out and say. Let's use racism since it's germane to the topic. I criticize people with racist thoughts. I don't know who is thinking racist thoughts right now but I know that I criticize them as people. Does it matter that I don't know exactly who they are? Can I not criticize the thought process itself?

And if I learn who they are - why would my criticism of people who think racist thoughts be any different just because I heard about it from an unexpected source?

Well, I would say you are an exception then. I would think that for many people, they would not like answering my question (at least answer it truthfully) because for them, it matters on whether racist thoughts were thoughts only versus whether they were uttered. The reason why Donald Sterling incident caused such a stir was that there was audio recording available. For most people, the medium (e.g. audio, video, written words) in which they get the information factors in on how to judge the perpetrator. And perhaps you are being consistent in your viewpoint but my guess is that the majority of people would reluctantly admit that if Hogan merely had racist thoughts, they would think differently about this whole situation.

 

[panamaican]

Unfortunately I think I would have to agree with you in regards to why I dislike this new court. I would be on the wrong side of it if I were a celebrity or leader and certain things came to light (misdemeanors or less). Instead I'm protected by the legal precedents towards average people.

That being said I also know a few secrets of others, or just basic stats and observations. The people around me growing up were on average doing the same or worse. People like to rebel, experiment, do stupid things to impress a group. As long as certain lines are not crossed, I see it as a question of human nature. 80 years is a long time and on average we have a lot of weaknesses. Stressors, boiling points, pet peeves that trigger a bad side. Impulses, moments of weakness, ways to seek gratification to ease living... we can look bad at our worst moments. Was it recorded?, if not consider yourself lucky nowadays with 6.8 BILLION cellphone subscriptions and cameras and microphones potentially everywhere.

http://qz.com/179897/more-people-around-the-world-have-cell-phones-than-ever-had-land-lines/

And I call it new because I think the old one was more local and with people who actually knew or knew of the offender or his family and still treated him as a human being (depending on the offense of course). Whereas we have suicides from online bullying, which I would imagine suicides were less frequent in the past. It's ok until it starts happening to your friends and family, which it very well might as I think it's possible the scientific technological elite are creating some things that are hard to control, ie this online court.

The old court seemed more local but that's another example of where people want the benefits of the technology without the other side.

The old court was local because the old society was local. Without the radio, tv, cell phone, automobile,, train and plane, the society that you influenced, and thus the society that judged you, could only be local.

Now, we're sitting on a message board engaged in an international society. There should be no surprise that the scale of responses are also international.

The Hulkster took advantage of tv, ppv, movies, etc. to make his society international. He spent money trying to make his daughter have an influence on the entire nation. So, when the national or international society that he spent his entire life courting rejects something he's said or done - he's the last person who should be surprised.

The 2nd to last should be the people engaged in international discussions about Hulk Hogan. People who watched his matches anywhere but live. People who watched his movies from the comfort of their homes and not live on stage. People who helped him become an international brand. Those people can't complain that the court of public opinion is suddenly an inappropriate venue for someone like the Hulkster. It was appropriate when it made him famous.

I'm curious how people view what they're doing on Sherdog and WR if not sitting as jurors in the court of public opinion?

 

[Shokushu Goukan]

Is it illegal to be racist in america? I don't think so. Funny how a child porn watcher can be in hollywood movies pre and post child porn arrest, but some dude goes off on some racists rant and is erased from WWF. But I guess someone having racist thoughts trumps child porn.

Principal from Ferris Bueller
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeffrey_Jones
"In 2003, Jones was arrested for possession of child pornography and accused of soliciting a 14-year-old boy to pose for pornographic photographs. "

2007 Who's Your Caddy? Cummings
2014 10.0 Earthquake Gladstone

 

[ncordless]

Yes, and that could in theory lead to a weaker pool of leaders. David Petraeus gone due to adultery scandal, Stanley McChrystal gone due to criticism of the President. I personally find it a shame that a man of Petraeus' caliber is gone for his offense. McChrystal, I read it one time and forgot it, so can't remember what he said specifically, but since leaders are held to a ridiculously high standard and everything is being preserved and recorded... yeah seems like it could very well weaken leadership positions. Human nature cuts across classes - the enforcers, politicians, CEO's, everyone does stupid things.

The first indication of the new high tech interface with this that I can think of, being the SONY CEO losing her job... over private emails... from years ago. The implication of just what happened then is a potentially bad omen for another thread probably. But, you had a foreign government, in this case a regime that is the epitome of the evil of unchecked power, imposing censorship on the US from across the globe and getting one of our CEO's fired. National fucking sovereignty, threatened by the new power and scope of high technology. This is new stuff here and a scope that is typically huge and that can oftentimes impact millions of people at a time. Some serious food for thought about the state of the future and high technology.

Yeah. Cut the poor powers that be some slack. We shouldn't hold them to a higher standard just because they are in a higher place.

After all, MacArthur spoke ill of his commander in chief and didn't lose his command, didn't he?

And everyone remembers Grant for talking shit on Lincoln. Because America.

And while we are talking about ole' US Grant, nobody ever put his good name through the mud for his private indiscretions and moments of weakness, right?

 

[ncordless]

Is it illegal to be racist in america? I don't think so. Funny how a child porn watcher can be in hollywood movies pre and post child porn arrest, but some dude goes off on some racists rant and is erased from WWF. But I guess someone having racist thoughts trumps child porn.

It's not illegal. And the government has taken no action against him. Of course, there is no law which requires me to not judge someone a racist for the things they say in public or private.

 

[Shokushu Goukan]

The court of public opinion has always acted this way. Hell, it used to be much worse.

So, you would say that if you were around before the civil rights movement, you would have told the blacks sitting on the back of the bus and having separate water fountains is not so bad, there used to be slavery?

When within the last 100 years were you getting lynched?
By the KKK?
By Hoover if you had communist friends (not lynching just being black balled from hollywood)?

So you are cool to going back to this era? An era of being persecuted for certain beliefs because a bunch of losers on social media yell and harass until they get their way?

To people like that I say
"Round and round, what comes around goes around, I'll tell you why" - Ratt.

 

[panamaican]

Well, I would say you are an exception then. I would think that for many people, they would not like answering my question (at least answer it truthfully) because for them, it matters on whether racist thoughts were thoughts only versus whether they were uttered. The reason why Donald Sterling incident caused such a stir was that there was audio recording available. For most people, the medium (e.g. audio, video, written words) in which they get the information factors in on how to judge the perpetrator. And perhaps you are being consistent in your viewpoint but my guess is that the majority of people would reluctantly admit that if Hogan merely had racist thoughts, they would think differently about this whole situation.

I agree with you that many people might not like answering your question.

The reason isn't that complicated so I'm going to be a bit brusque, I apologize if it's offensive. Again, using racism as the foil.

The simple truth is that there are many people who say publicly that racism isn't real or that it doesn't matter or some other minimizing comment. However, in private, they express opinions or think thoughts that the general public would construe as racist.

For those people, they have to create a wall where they can justify privately racist opinions yet not feel hypocritical when they minimize racism or it's impact at the public level. The only way they do this is by claiming that their private thoughts and opinions are not reflective of who they are. Psychologically, that's unlikely. Our private thoughts are a better reflection of our personalities that our public persona. But acknowledging that while holding socially undesirable opinions, means that a person might have to view themselves as a problematic part of society.

No one wants to see themselves as part of the problem so they attempt to dissociate their private opinions from public society. We used racism but it's applicable to pretty much any position - from women's role in society to how we feel about fat people. No one wants to see themselves as the "bad guy". So they parrot socially acceptable responses to maintain social approval while pretending that their privately socially unacceptable responses don't matter. It's basic cognitive dissonance.

 

[TusculumPioneer]

Everybody says something that's bad in private. Why is ok to call someone other bad names but if it's the n word the world stops?