Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 19, 2022Liked by David Farrier
I'm really glad you have chosen to weigh in on this. I've followed this page religiously since it started as a) I have been on the receiving end of this behaviour through the media industry and b) I am a lawyer who experienced severe harassment before the #MeToo era (which inadvertently resulted in me being put off practising within the profession at age 20). I applaud the bravery of those who have come forward. Especially the survivors who have been named and had to deal with keyboard warriors questioning their story, truth and been accused of "being on a witch hunt".
One thing I have been grappling with (and would love to hear some thoughts on) is about accountability for the actions of others. Some of the posts on BTGC have centred on the business partners/ associates of perpetrators- and I am constantly debating with myself the level of responsibility and accountability third parties should have in these circumstances. Are we responsible for the actions of others? In what cases should we be? Where's the line? I think it's subjective/ case by case basis. Thoughts? I mull this over, as when I look back at my experiences in media, I feel like I was wilfully blind to some of the going ons'- particularly involving young, vulnerable members of staff. Everything was written off as being "part of the culture", and I wish I did more in protecting others and trusted my gut. Honestly, even 5 years ago- the ego fuelled, power tripping, party culture was, just normalised. Almost part of the job description if you wanted success. It makes me feel ill.
Sorry that this is so long- but final point. From reading that "legal letter" a few times, I am utterly dumbfounded at what exactly they thought the letter would achieve from this. My theory is that the Party (X) is currently involved in ongoing legal proceedings, and perhaps has interim name suppression. It might explain why they believe that defences of truth or honest opinion wouldn't stand (unless they are just idiots that are bluffing).
Seeing how the Harmful Digital Communications Act works in this context would be incredibly interesting. This legislation has so far been clogged up by disgruntled influencers that don't seem to have a shred of accountability for their online presence- rather than protecting the vulnerable from very real digital crimes and harm. Technology is so far ahead of our legal system, and I hope with every fibre of my being that perpetrators with deep pockets aren't prioritised over victims- many of which, at the time, didn't feel they could speak up or get help.
Shit that was long. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk haha. It feels slightly freeing to talk about issues that grapple at my heart strings every day. Em xx
Never too long. And everything you said made a lot of sense and valid things to consider.
Heck - I look back at my time in a newsroom in the 00's and shudder to think about what was going on. No HR department - and things that have come to light since show it was a pretty bad place for many to work. My newsroom was pretty solid - I think radio and the culture there allowed a lot of bad stuff to go down. But I have no doubt females doing the job I was doing would have had a very different experience to me.
I am glad we are all thinking differently about this now... but the process is *slow*. I reported last year on how a young woman felt around a broadcaster who has since lost his job (nothing to do with me) - and his reaction was as you'd expect. Nothing in his brain has changed - he'll always be a martyr.
Sorry you had shitty experiences in the legal sphere. Another example of a space where MeToo seems to have barely made an impact. Ugh.
As for the HDCA - it seems utterly ridiculous to enforce in cases where its needed. More on that at some other time!
Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 18, 2022Liked by David Farrier
Thanks for sharing this, Emma. I had just finished adding a comment about DARVO and it’s effects on discourse which shames and silences whistleblowers when I saw your comment.
Perpetrators do it because it works and often prevents them being held accountable and they also often foster a culture of normalising conditions which facilitate harassment like you describe.
I think the demand letter is pulling out all the stops and likely bluffing. If they had a case, they’d file it and seek an injunction which they could try and get instagram to take action on. But you can’t do that anonymously.
You know the old legal saying: “When you have the facts in your favour, you pound on the facts. When you have the law in your favour, you pound on the law. When you have neither in your favour, you pound on the table.”
Thanks Paul- I read your comment on DARVO and went to the links- blows my mind. I do have some additional reasons for thinking that there may be concurrent legal proceedings and an injunction might not be easy to obtain (especially if name suppression is in place to protect the victim(s)). But- alas- it was just a theory. It does reek of bullshit- and that old legal saying is gold. If it is just 100 percent bullshit, it BLOWS my mind that one of the key assumptions is that the person behind BTGC is terrified of being named as it would impact their career in the industry.
BTGC is much bigger than that and the person(s) behind it are brave as hell. Not "Yes, I'll create a safe space for victims of abuse within the industry..but only as long as it doesn't affect my career in said industry". As if.
Hoping someone has some thoughts on the accountability for the actions of others point that I have been rabbit holing on for months.
Jan 19, 2022·edited Jan 19, 2022Liked by David Farrier
You’re right - the issues of the accountability of others is not a simple one. I’ll try and touch on just a few points since I could probably fill a webworm on the subject. Denial or ‘not wanting to know’ is a pretty common defence against anxiety in human beings and there are a many factors that can feed into it - it’s what psychotherapists call “multiply determined”.
In this case, one of the things is the misconception that the capacity for human evil is somehow obvious - that perpetrators have a ‘look’ or a ‘tell’. Often, they don’t and can be quite charming and disarming until they act outside the bounds and often only their victim sees them ‘unmasked’. Those around them don’t want to believe that someone they feel they know and even like is ‘bad’.
Our sense of safety partly depends on the ‘Just-world hypothesis’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis - the idea that bad things don’t happen to good people. It’s anxiety-provoking to realise it’s not true. And many women know how seemingly ‘nice’ guys can get very angry and hostile when rejected and you often can’t tell which ones in advance.
Women are also partly socialised to protect other people’s feelings, especially male egos, and ignore their intuition and chalk things up to misunderstanding. Gavin de Becker writes about this conditioning to ignore threat signals in his book ‘The Gift of Fear’ https://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Survival-Signals-Violence/dp/0440226198
Women also witness how those women who do come forward are treated and labelled. Men get called ‘assertive’ and women get called ‘shrill’ for exactly the same behaviour. Risking being ostracised and labelled ‘difficult’ or ‘can’t take a joke’ or ‘not a team player’ is very anxiety provoking too. So some of this is a societal issue and not just a personal issue. As David said, #metoo is just a long overdue beginning of an adjustment needed in our culture.
Feeling guilty and complicit somehow is very silencing too. You’re feeling the shame and doubt and powerlessness that the perpetrators don’t feel so they can be shameless, certain and remain powerful. RESPECT to you for wrestling with this, Emma. That’s significant emotional labour on your part and speaks to your good character and intentions.
Also, I don’t mean to imply that only men are harassers and abusers and only women are victims since that’s not true, as the example of Ghislaine Maxwell shows, but in male dominated industries which is the context here, male perpetrators are overrepresented statistically.
Paul- you are such a goldmine of knowledge. Being a part of the Webworm community is the best money I have ever spent for safety, sanity, self reflection and learning. It's these types of moral conundrums and rabbit holes that puts my ADHD hyperfocus into hellfire mode. I get a lot of comfort from the resources you share Paul, as it helps me understand behaviours and the roots of them. Sometimes I feel like my brain is literally going to explode, so thank you for soothing it slightly.
I agree with what you have said 100% and it's interesting how gender roles play into this. After the incident at my law firm, I dealt with the situation head on by talking to my boss about how to navigate this going forward (me never going to work again and getting a boss ass reference- him going to alcohol counselling and abstaining from hiring young females). Even though this was pre #MeToo, I don't think I would ever be someone who could speak up or out, as reliving it just would have made it worse for me. And fucked up my mental health more. He also had a large and wonderful family, some of which were my age at the time and I couldn't get passed how speaking up would affect them. I don't know if the way I dealt with it was the best, but it was the best for me at the time. (Although I did blame myself because it was easier than believing what people are capable of). Interestingly enough I got A LOT of criticism from my law school peers that did know what happened for not speaking up nor putting a #MeToo on my FB when the movement started. I don't think a victim (shit I hate that word) should ever be told what to do or how to act. That's why it breaks my heart seeing the victim shaming/blaming that goes on when these cases go public- as they have to keep reliving that trauma in the public eye, that they did nothing to deserve.
Anyway- on a more positive note- I share all of this, without feeling defined by it. And thank you for weighing in on my post and your insights. Each day it makes me want to do a post grad in psychology more and more mwahaha. Hope you are having a wonderful day
Thanks, Em. I'm glad if I helped soothe your brain even a little and to not have it explode because you (and we) need it. I'm also horrified to realise that I've been calling you Emma when maybe it's just that your name starts with an 'M'. My apologies if that's the case.
I can very much relate on the moral conundrums and ADHD hyperfocus thing. I've seen that a LOT in our neuro-tribe - an intense concern with issues of fairness and injustice. It seems to be a trait common to the many ADHD people I know, both professionally and personally, and I recognise it in myself. I didn't end up writing a dissertation on the injustice of psychoanalytic homophobia by accident :-)
It can really haunt us. Anger is the emotion which alerts us to issues of fairness and especially to violations of fairness. Anger is also linked to dopamine function which people with ADHD have differential amounts of in relation to different stimuli. Things we find interesting drive our dopamine up, whereas it plunges with things that bore us. So you could say that anger and attention ride the same horse. So it makes sense.
I wasn't aware of any specific research on this injustice-hyperfocus connection with ADHD. As a sign of my hyperfocus, I had to go and check after I typed that. And you'll be happy (?) to know it has been noted.
So, Em, know that you're in good company on this one.
And I'm so sorry you've been through the whole victim and victim blaming cycle. You're damned if you speak up and you're damned if you don't. And that's not fair since it's not your fault that some perpetrator does bad stuff.
Sadly, sometimes people's propensity to offer advice seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of personal experience they have with an issue, especially ones that come with stigma attached. No-one can know what's best for YOU and your mental well-being except YOU.
This is similar to how the amount offered and level of certainty of parenting advice seems to be inversely co-related with how many children someone has. The more you have, the more you know that it all depends since they're all different, almost as if nature intended it that way.
Diversity is the Norm. And that goes double for neuro-diversity.
"My theory is that the Party (X) is currently involved in ongoing legal proceedings, and perhaps has interim name suppression. It might explain why they believe that defences of truth or honest opinion wouldn't stand (unless they are just idiots that are bluffing)."
This seems entirely likely, though the ongoing proceeding and idiots bluffing aren't mutually exclusive!
Article one (a), part 1, verse i: herewith and hereafter it's well known that none (0) people are as impressive as they think whence pretending to write like a lawyer
Firstly, there's no such thing as too much Webworm. Thought I should clear that up for you ;) Secondly, does the fact that someone read their behaviour on the account, recognised themselves and then freaked out and went to such lengths to have it removed not sort of prove their guilt? I realise this wouldn't mean anything in a legal sense, but i love that they are sort of creating / compiling more evidence against themselves of what a bullyish arse they are. I feel terrible for Shelley, what a horrible experience and stress to have to deal with. She needs to take legal action against X for placing her under unreasonable amounts of stress with threats based on poor investigative work.
I love and hate how they threaten massive media attention in court as a deterrent if she doesn’t back down but attention to this is what they’re trying to stop. I look forward to when the “anonymous Mr X” becomes the “known Mr ex musician” but for now I’m going to google pictures of Barbara streisand‘s super cool house.
It seems outrageous to me that “Mr X” would be prepared to take this matter to court and open himself up to widespread media attention and publicity - only further drawing attention to his shitty behaviour AND which specific situations he was responsible for as shared on BTGC - when he won’t even disclose his name and identity in the letter from him lawyer?????? What an own goal. Sounds like total bullshit and that if he had his bluff called, he’d chicken out because he’s a fucking coward and knows he’s a disgrace and will be forced to face the consequences of being a disgusting sex pest.
Threats are cheap. If he had an actual case, he’d file it and seek an injunction. Gavin de Becker explores this in his book ‘The Gift of Fear’ https://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Survival-Signals-Violence/dp/0440226198/ref=nodl_ But that is not something you can do anonymously. Someone is likely very worried and possibly a bit of a shameless narcissistic or psychopathic bully. Statistically, this is also the kind of character who is more likely to commit these kind of sexual harassment offences c.f. Weinstein, Epstein, (Trump), etc.
I’ve followed both those accounts, which I hope was the exact opposite effect Mr X and his slimy PI/legal advice team wanted.
This whole attack feels dirty af and I wish the best for the awesome accounts that have been targeted - may they continue their brave fight and expose these a***holes!!
I think lots of people are aware of the hell that Colin Craig put Rachel MacGregor through, so the intimidation factor is heightened by that. Thank you for two new Insta accounts to follow though.
Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 18, 2022Liked by David Farrier
Certainly, that original document doesn't part the sniff test and can be safely ignored from a legal challenge perspective.
The alleged defamation has no standing for the obvious reason that honest opinion and truth *are* protected and demonstrating personal injury to someone who has not been named is, de facto, not legally possible.
Unfortunately, as you state it's purpose is intimidation, and the implicit threat of legal timewasting which can be costly to defend against. The best defensive tactic is probably what has been undertaken - sunlight.
A point on identifying the 'owners' of a social media account though, either implicitly or by supposition - this is absolutely do-able.
It would require some OSINT nouse (followed up with some malware emplaced via social engineering) but there are certainly people who will do that for a reasonable fee.
A PI dropping malware on a target would be an incredible thing to see detailed in a report presented as evidence in court :-)
There are sometimes ways to identity the person behind an account, but it's far from assured, and without access to system records (which might be available once a legal proceeding is actually underway) any conclusion would usually be, at best, speculative.
It's possible - but again, that is not your typical PI move. Registered PIs are - in my experience - law abiding. And far more about stakeouts and working the phones than throwing malware around.
Installing malware on a computer, whether directly or via coercion/social engineering is illegal. Paying someone to do it is illegal. I can't see a legal firm engaging in illegal acts to gather information they wouldn't be able to use in court.
s249 of the Crimes Act doesn't protect against people downloading malware voluntarily - it only protects against misuse once access is gained.
And, given that the property in question within a social media account tends to be owned by the social media entity (under terms of service), they would have to bring the case.
As to whether a firm might engage in questionable activity, that's by-the-by.
My point is that is is entirely possible, especially when the purpose is intimidation.
Section 249 of the Crimes Act (1961) specifically covers against accessing a computer, directly or indirectly, without authorization. The use of malware to access or retrieve information from a computer falls under that provision. So technically you're right, causing malware to be installed voluntarily isn't specifically illegal under the act, but using the malware is. Further, the act only requires unauthorized access with intent to take information.
Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 18, 2022Liked by David Farrier
"but using the malware is. Further, the act only requires unauthorized access with intent to take information."
100% - which is why you pay an offshore 3rd party (not under NZ legal jurisdiction) in crypto to undertake the activity, then anonymously receive the information from a "concerned citizen", which you might then pass on to the tame jouro or a muckraker to commence a character assassination / exposé where sources can legitimately be protected even if the material was obtained questionably.
To Dylan's point though, probably not something you'd want to present in open Court.
Again though, not the point given that intimidation / silencing is the desired outcome.
A lawyer couldn't present the information as being from "a concerned citizen" unless they believed that to be true. I do get that a PI could be used to create plausible deniability, but my point is it's not a grey area, it's illegal.
The idea that an individual was targeted with a successful malware attack, on behalf on a PI, working for a law firm on a defamation case is pretty farfetched. Technically possible, but very unlikely.
Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 18, 2022Liked by David Farrier
It has to be *proven* to be illegal. That takes time and resources.
Again, my point isn't that its not questionable or farfetched (particularly given the trivial tablestakes in this case), but that it is absolutely possible.
It appears that Mr X read something on the site that helped him to recognise himself. The mere fact of threatening defamation when he hasn't been named is pretty much an admission of guilt. He and his PI and lawyer are shit bags and are worth suing back just for a bit of fun, but they are also not worth the freaking energy.
I did think the request to remove all the info makes sense from Mr X's point of view. If only one item is removed, everyone knows who has taken the standover tactics inviting further scrutiny. Sunlight is definitely required to stop this kind of behaviour from continuing.
You definitely do not do too many webworms! I love them and eagerly await the death follow up! Thank you for speaking out on this. As sad as it is, I think some men hear what’s being said better if another man is saying it. We need more men to do this. Thank you thank you x
I think because this is an email, I always worry that one day I will over extend my stay in your inbox. But - thank you. And the whole reason I write this is because I want to write and I want to write about things that matter (and, well, Joseph Gordon Levitt).
So - thanks. And yeah, I think the more voices behind something like Glass Ceiling the better. Even just to spread the word. Because - fuck that shit!
What I find strange about many of the statements is that they are summarised by a statement along the lines of "The court will find you guilty". If a lawyer wrote this tripe, "it" must be a sandwich short of a picnic as no lawyer I know would ever try to predict what the court verdict will be. Certainly to do this in writing would be to invite public and professional ridicule and censure, maybe even sacking and striking off!
Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 18, 2022Liked by David Farrier
No, it’s called ‘zealous representation of the client’. Lawyers are seldom if ever sanctioned for this kind of stuff. The lawyer may have advised their client it was legally dubious to discharge their ethical duty of care to their client but if the client wants the threatening letter sent anyway… $$$
Is the lawyer here literally Lionel Hutz? God what a crock. I hope this blows up massively in the sex pest’s face without any of the victims being implicated.
Lol! If so I look forward to a very professional and legally sound letter demanding I personally shut down webworm for its defamatory treatment of ‘mr hutz’
Bullying scum - I can’t believe they think that using tactics like that would work. But probably for a lot of good, honest people (unlike themselves) it does. I hope these amazing women all stay strong.
Tactics like this do work, often. Unfortunately you're legal rights to free expression only extend as far as your willingness to defend them from challenge.
There are no mechanisms to automatically shut down legal challenges that might be improper. So no matter how reasonable a threat like this is, is the other person has the resources and is willing to take it to court, you have to respond in kind. It's expensive and stressful, even to prevail.
Basically people with resources make a bet that they can intimidate those without. It's like a game of chicken.
Jan 18, 2022·edited Jan 18, 2022Liked by David Farrier
Yes, New Zealand doesn’t have anti-SLAPP legislation unlike other countries, including Australia, which is intended to prevent this kind of intimidatory legal abuse. SLAPP is short for ‘strategic lawsuit against public participation’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation basically bullying and intimidation aimed at dissuading public criticism of someone or some corporation by making it too expensive.
True, anti-SLAPP is no panacea. Maybe it stops the worst abuses but I don’t know if the fact they can’t follow through as easily is any kind of deterrent to this lower level crap. Sadly, I think you’re right and I imagine it doesn’t since this legal thuggery is cheap and the exposure of the actual wrongdoing is expensive so the incentives are all in favour of being an asshole and lawyers go for the ‘zealous representation of the client’ justification when defending their involvement in this kind of shit. So specious legal-sounding (but baseless) threats work.
The interesting thing is that threateners usually don’t follow through since their case is so weak. If they actually had one, then would file it rather spoiling their powder by posturing that wouldn’t look good in court. *cough* Trump *cough*
It’s so unfair…which is such a whiney childlike response I know, and I have to keep reminding myself that life isn’t fair, but it still sucks. I can’t even begin to imagine how stressful it is, which makes me even more impressed and amazed at the strength of your convictions and drive to speak up (and David!). Thank you for all that you both do and the value you add!
Love it! Although let’s not be like a 4 or 8chan whine space 🤣 I don’t want to be that kind of whiner 😂 I’ve been listening to the BBC The Coming Storm podcast. Building on your QAnon episode you did with Dax. That sh*t is fascinating but scary.
I'm really glad you have chosen to weigh in on this. I've followed this page religiously since it started as a) I have been on the receiving end of this behaviour through the media industry and b) I am a lawyer who experienced severe harassment before the #MeToo era (which inadvertently resulted in me being put off practising within the profession at age 20). I applaud the bravery of those who have come forward. Especially the survivors who have been named and had to deal with keyboard warriors questioning their story, truth and been accused of "being on a witch hunt".
One thing I have been grappling with (and would love to hear some thoughts on) is about accountability for the actions of others. Some of the posts on BTGC have centred on the business partners/ associates of perpetrators- and I am constantly debating with myself the level of responsibility and accountability third parties should have in these circumstances. Are we responsible for the actions of others? In what cases should we be? Where's the line? I think it's subjective/ case by case basis. Thoughts? I mull this over, as when I look back at my experiences in media, I feel like I was wilfully blind to some of the going ons'- particularly involving young, vulnerable members of staff. Everything was written off as being "part of the culture", and I wish I did more in protecting others and trusted my gut. Honestly, even 5 years ago- the ego fuelled, power tripping, party culture was, just normalised. Almost part of the job description if you wanted success. It makes me feel ill.
Sorry that this is so long- but final point. From reading that "legal letter" a few times, I am utterly dumbfounded at what exactly they thought the letter would achieve from this. My theory is that the Party (X) is currently involved in ongoing legal proceedings, and perhaps has interim name suppression. It might explain why they believe that defences of truth or honest opinion wouldn't stand (unless they are just idiots that are bluffing).
Seeing how the Harmful Digital Communications Act works in this context would be incredibly interesting. This legislation has so far been clogged up by disgruntled influencers that don't seem to have a shred of accountability for their online presence- rather than protecting the vulnerable from very real digital crimes and harm. Technology is so far ahead of our legal system, and I hope with every fibre of my being that perpetrators with deep pockets aren't prioritised over victims- many of which, at the time, didn't feel they could speak up or get help.
Shit that was long. Thanks for coming to my Ted Talk haha. It feels slightly freeing to talk about issues that grapple at my heart strings every day. Em xx
Never too long. And everything you said made a lot of sense and valid things to consider.
Heck - I look back at my time in a newsroom in the 00's and shudder to think about what was going on. No HR department - and things that have come to light since show it was a pretty bad place for many to work. My newsroom was pretty solid - I think radio and the culture there allowed a lot of bad stuff to go down. But I have no doubt females doing the job I was doing would have had a very different experience to me.
I am glad we are all thinking differently about this now... but the process is *slow*. I reported last year on how a young woman felt around a broadcaster who has since lost his job (nothing to do with me) - and his reaction was as you'd expect. Nothing in his brain has changed - he'll always be a martyr.
Sorry you had shitty experiences in the legal sphere. Another example of a space where MeToo seems to have barely made an impact. Ugh.
As for the HDCA - it seems utterly ridiculous to enforce in cases where its needed. More on that at some other time!
Thanks for sharing this, Emma. I had just finished adding a comment about DARVO and it’s effects on discourse which shames and silences whistleblowers when I saw your comment.
Perpetrators do it because it works and often prevents them being held accountable and they also often foster a culture of normalising conditions which facilitate harassment like you describe.
I think the demand letter is pulling out all the stops and likely bluffing. If they had a case, they’d file it and seek an injunction which they could try and get instagram to take action on. But you can’t do that anonymously.
You know the old legal saying: “When you have the facts in your favour, you pound on the facts. When you have the law in your favour, you pound on the law. When you have neither in your favour, you pound on the table.”
Thanks Paul- I read your comment on DARVO and went to the links- blows my mind. I do have some additional reasons for thinking that there may be concurrent legal proceedings and an injunction might not be easy to obtain (especially if name suppression is in place to protect the victim(s)). But- alas- it was just a theory. It does reek of bullshit- and that old legal saying is gold. If it is just 100 percent bullshit, it BLOWS my mind that one of the key assumptions is that the person behind BTGC is terrified of being named as it would impact their career in the industry.
BTGC is much bigger than that and the person(s) behind it are brave as hell. Not "Yes, I'll create a safe space for victims of abuse within the industry..but only as long as it doesn't affect my career in said industry". As if.
Hoping someone has some thoughts on the accountability for the actions of others point that I have been rabbit holing on for months.
You’re right - the issues of the accountability of others is not a simple one. I’ll try and touch on just a few points since I could probably fill a webworm on the subject. Denial or ‘not wanting to know’ is a pretty common defence against anxiety in human beings and there are a many factors that can feed into it - it’s what psychotherapists call “multiply determined”.
In this case, one of the things is the misconception that the capacity for human evil is somehow obvious - that perpetrators have a ‘look’ or a ‘tell’. Often, they don’t and can be quite charming and disarming until they act outside the bounds and often only their victim sees them ‘unmasked’. Those around them don’t want to believe that someone they feel they know and even like is ‘bad’.
Our sense of safety partly depends on the ‘Just-world hypothesis’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Just-world_hypothesis - the idea that bad things don’t happen to good people. It’s anxiety-provoking to realise it’s not true. And many women know how seemingly ‘nice’ guys can get very angry and hostile when rejected and you often can’t tell which ones in advance.
Women are also partly socialised to protect other people’s feelings, especially male egos, and ignore their intuition and chalk things up to misunderstanding. Gavin de Becker writes about this conditioning to ignore threat signals in his book ‘The Gift of Fear’ https://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Survival-Signals-Violence/dp/0440226198
Women also witness how those women who do come forward are treated and labelled. Men get called ‘assertive’ and women get called ‘shrill’ for exactly the same behaviour. Risking being ostracised and labelled ‘difficult’ or ‘can’t take a joke’ or ‘not a team player’ is very anxiety provoking too. So some of this is a societal issue and not just a personal issue. As David said, #metoo is just a long overdue beginning of an adjustment needed in our culture.
Feeling guilty and complicit somehow is very silencing too. You’re feeling the shame and doubt and powerlessness that the perpetrators don’t feel so they can be shameless, certain and remain powerful. RESPECT to you for wrestling with this, Emma. That’s significant emotional labour on your part and speaks to your good character and intentions.
Also, I don’t mean to imply that only men are harassers and abusers and only women are victims since that’s not true, as the example of Ghislaine Maxwell shows, but in male dominated industries which is the context here, male perpetrators are overrepresented statistically.
Paul- you are such a goldmine of knowledge. Being a part of the Webworm community is the best money I have ever spent for safety, sanity, self reflection and learning. It's these types of moral conundrums and rabbit holes that puts my ADHD hyperfocus into hellfire mode. I get a lot of comfort from the resources you share Paul, as it helps me understand behaviours and the roots of them. Sometimes I feel like my brain is literally going to explode, so thank you for soothing it slightly.
I agree with what you have said 100% and it's interesting how gender roles play into this. After the incident at my law firm, I dealt with the situation head on by talking to my boss about how to navigate this going forward (me never going to work again and getting a boss ass reference- him going to alcohol counselling and abstaining from hiring young females). Even though this was pre #MeToo, I don't think I would ever be someone who could speak up or out, as reliving it just would have made it worse for me. And fucked up my mental health more. He also had a large and wonderful family, some of which were my age at the time and I couldn't get passed how speaking up would affect them. I don't know if the way I dealt with it was the best, but it was the best for me at the time. (Although I did blame myself because it was easier than believing what people are capable of). Interestingly enough I got A LOT of criticism from my law school peers that did know what happened for not speaking up nor putting a #MeToo on my FB when the movement started. I don't think a victim (shit I hate that word) should ever be told what to do or how to act. That's why it breaks my heart seeing the victim shaming/blaming that goes on when these cases go public- as they have to keep reliving that trauma in the public eye, that they did nothing to deserve.
Anyway- on a more positive note- I share all of this, without feeling defined by it. And thank you for weighing in on my post and your insights. Each day it makes me want to do a post grad in psychology more and more mwahaha. Hope you are having a wonderful day
Thanks, Em. I'm glad if I helped soothe your brain even a little and to not have it explode because you (and we) need it. I'm also horrified to realise that I've been calling you Emma when maybe it's just that your name starts with an 'M'. My apologies if that's the case.
I can very much relate on the moral conundrums and ADHD hyperfocus thing. I've seen that a LOT in our neuro-tribe - an intense concern with issues of fairness and injustice. It seems to be a trait common to the many ADHD people I know, both professionally and personally, and I recognise it in myself. I didn't end up writing a dissertation on the injustice of psychoanalytic homophobia by accident :-)
It can really haunt us. Anger is the emotion which alerts us to issues of fairness and especially to violations of fairness. Anger is also linked to dopamine function which people with ADHD have differential amounts of in relation to different stimuli. Things we find interesting drive our dopamine up, whereas it plunges with things that bore us. So you could say that anger and attention ride the same horse. So it makes sense.
I wasn't aware of any specific research on this injustice-hyperfocus connection with ADHD. As a sign of my hyperfocus, I had to go and check after I typed that. And you'll be happy (?) to know it has been noted.
For a very readable take: https://www.adhd.org.nz/adhd-and-an-unusual-sense-of-fairness.html
For a more academic take: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24878677/
So, Em, know that you're in good company on this one.
And I'm so sorry you've been through the whole victim and victim blaming cycle. You're damned if you speak up and you're damned if you don't. And that's not fair since it's not your fault that some perpetrator does bad stuff.
Sadly, sometimes people's propensity to offer advice seems to be inversely proportional to the amount of personal experience they have with an issue, especially ones that come with stigma attached. No-one can know what's best for YOU and your mental well-being except YOU.
This is similar to how the amount offered and level of certainty of parenting advice seems to be inversely co-related with how many children someone has. The more you have, the more you know that it all depends since they're all different, almost as if nature intended it that way.
Diversity is the Norm. And that goes double for neuro-diversity.
"My theory is that the Party (X) is currently involved in ongoing legal proceedings, and perhaps has interim name suppression. It might explain why they believe that defences of truth or honest opinion wouldn't stand (unless they are just idiots that are bluffing)."
This seems entirely likely, though the ongoing proceeding and idiots bluffing aren't mutually exclusive!
Thanks for adding this :)
Article one (a), part 1, verse i: herewith and hereafter it's well known that none (0) people are as impressive as they think whence pretending to write like a lawyer
The thing is, he *did* use a real lawyer to at least help. That's double stupid.
That bounced off my brain
Firstly, there's no such thing as too much Webworm. Thought I should clear that up for you ;) Secondly, does the fact that someone read their behaviour on the account, recognised themselves and then freaked out and went to such lengths to have it removed not sort of prove their guilt? I realise this wouldn't mean anything in a legal sense, but i love that they are sort of creating / compiling more evidence against themselves of what a bullyish arse they are. I feel terrible for Shelley, what a horrible experience and stress to have to deal with. She needs to take legal action against X for placing her under unreasonable amounts of stress with threats based on poor investigative work.
Whatever the reason - it is the Streisand effect in FULL swing.
I love and hate how they threaten massive media attention in court as a deterrent if she doesn’t back down but attention to this is what they’re trying to stop. I look forward to when the “anonymous Mr X” becomes the “known Mr ex musician” but for now I’m going to google pictures of Barbara streisand‘s super cool house.
It does seem like a nice house!
And yeah, everything about this is *so so dumb*.
It seems outrageous to me that “Mr X” would be prepared to take this matter to court and open himself up to widespread media attention and publicity - only further drawing attention to his shitty behaviour AND which specific situations he was responsible for as shared on BTGC - when he won’t even disclose his name and identity in the letter from him lawyer?????? What an own goal. Sounds like total bullshit and that if he had his bluff called, he’d chicken out because he’s a fucking coward and knows he’s a disgrace and will be forced to face the consequences of being a disgusting sex pest.
Threats are cheap. If he had an actual case, he’d file it and seek an injunction. Gavin de Becker explores this in his book ‘The Gift of Fear’ https://www.amazon.com/Gift-Fear-Survival-Signals-Violence/dp/0440226198/ref=nodl_ But that is not something you can do anonymously. Someone is likely very worried and possibly a bit of a shameless narcissistic or psychopathic bully. Statistically, this is also the kind of character who is more likely to commit these kind of sexual harassment offences c.f. Weinstein, Epstein, (Trump), etc.
Is Shelley OK? Does she need to lawyer up or can she just ignore these idiots?
From what I can tell she's a pretty tough cookie - and she won't need a lawyer. It's bullying and that sucks - but they're barking up the wrong tree.
That’s good - I DMed her on Instagram and she let me know she was OK but it was really annoying to deal with. This kind of thing would freak me out.
I’ve followed both those accounts, which I hope was the exact opposite effect Mr X and his slimy PI/legal advice team wanted.
This whole attack feels dirty af and I wish the best for the awesome accounts that have been targeted - may they continue their brave fight and expose these a***holes!!
Fucking amen to that.
Often what plays out when perpetrators resist being held accountable is a technique called DARVO which stands for ‘Deny, Attack, Reverse Victim and Offender’ https://dynamic.uoregon.edu/jjf/defineDARVO.html in which the accused tries to silence whistleblowers and victims and confuse and deceive onlookers and bystanders by playing the victim. Weinstein, R. Kelly, Epstein, Maxwell, Kavanaugh, and Trump all use it. And arguably, so is Mr. ‘X’. https://www.chicagotribune.com/lifestyles/sc-fam-kelly-interview-denial-response-0312-story.html
Oh wow.
Here's the Gayle King - R. Kelly interview they are talking about as an example of DARVO.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pafJHx-o21k
I think lots of people are aware of the hell that Colin Craig put Rachel MacGregor through, so the intimidation factor is heightened by that. Thank you for two new Insta accounts to follow though.
My pleasure. And yeah - Colin was the master of that game. And yes - others with the means will follow suite. Suit? Gosh, it's been a long day.
Certainly, that original document doesn't part the sniff test and can be safely ignored from a legal challenge perspective.
The alleged defamation has no standing for the obvious reason that honest opinion and truth *are* protected and demonstrating personal injury to someone who has not been named is, de facto, not legally possible.
Unfortunately, as you state it's purpose is intimidation, and the implicit threat of legal timewasting which can be costly to defend against. The best defensive tactic is probably what has been undertaken - sunlight.
A point on identifying the 'owners' of a social media account though, either implicitly or by supposition - this is absolutely do-able.
It would require some OSINT nouse (followed up with some malware emplaced via social engineering) but there are certainly people who will do that for a reasonable fee.
A PI dropping malware on a target would be an incredible thing to see detailed in a report presented as evidence in court :-)
There are sometimes ways to identity the person behind an account, but it's far from assured, and without access to system records (which might be available once a legal proceeding is actually underway) any conclusion would usually be, at best, speculative.
True, but for the purposes of intimidation, it only needs to be speculative.
And outside of criminal proceedings, I strongly doubt that any logs would be admissible / compellable anyway.
It's possible - but again, that is not your typical PI move. Registered PIs are - in my experience - law abiding. And far more about stakeouts and working the phones than throwing malware around.
"And far more about stakeouts and working the phones than throwing malware around."
I sense a business opportunity....
Installing malware on a computer, whether directly or via coercion/social engineering is illegal. Paying someone to do it is illegal. I can't see a legal firm engaging in illegal acts to gather information they wouldn't be able to use in court.
Actually, it's a grey area legally.
s249 of the Crimes Act doesn't protect against people downloading malware voluntarily - it only protects against misuse once access is gained.
And, given that the property in question within a social media account tends to be owned by the social media entity (under terms of service), they would have to bring the case.
As to whether a firm might engage in questionable activity, that's by-the-by.
My point is that is is entirely possible, especially when the purpose is intimidation.
Section 249 of the Crimes Act (1961) specifically covers against accessing a computer, directly or indirectly, without authorization. The use of malware to access or retrieve information from a computer falls under that provision. So technically you're right, causing malware to be installed voluntarily isn't specifically illegal under the act, but using the malware is. Further, the act only requires unauthorized access with intent to take information.
"but using the malware is. Further, the act only requires unauthorized access with intent to take information."
100% - which is why you pay an offshore 3rd party (not under NZ legal jurisdiction) in crypto to undertake the activity, then anonymously receive the information from a "concerned citizen", which you might then pass on to the tame jouro or a muckraker to commence a character assassination / exposé where sources can legitimately be protected even if the material was obtained questionably.
To Dylan's point though, probably not something you'd want to present in open Court.
Again though, not the point given that intimidation / silencing is the desired outcome.
A lawyer couldn't present the information as being from "a concerned citizen" unless they believed that to be true. I do get that a PI could be used to create plausible deniability, but my point is it's not a grey area, it's illegal.
The idea that an individual was targeted with a successful malware attack, on behalf on a PI, working for a law firm on a defamation case is pretty farfetched. Technically possible, but very unlikely.
It has to be *proven* to be illegal. That takes time and resources.
Again, my point isn't that its not questionable or farfetched (particularly given the trivial tablestakes in this case), but that it is absolutely possible.
It appears that Mr X read something on the site that helped him to recognise himself. The mere fact of threatening defamation when he hasn't been named is pretty much an admission of guilt. He and his PI and lawyer are shit bags and are worth suing back just for a bit of fun, but they are also not worth the freaking energy.
I did think the request to remove all the info makes sense from Mr X's point of view. If only one item is removed, everyone knows who has taken the standover tactics inviting further scrutiny. Sunlight is definitely required to stop this kind of behaviour from continuing.
Amen to that. And you're right - just his stuff removed, and we all know what post referred to him. Still idiotic. Streisand effect in full... effect.
You definitely do not do too many webworms! I love them and eagerly await the death follow up! Thank you for speaking out on this. As sad as it is, I think some men hear what’s being said better if another man is saying it. We need more men to do this. Thank you thank you x
I think because this is an email, I always worry that one day I will over extend my stay in your inbox. But - thank you. And the whole reason I write this is because I want to write and I want to write about things that matter (and, well, Joseph Gordon Levitt).
So - thanks. And yeah, I think the more voices behind something like Glass Ceiling the better. Even just to spread the word. Because - fuck that shit!
What I find strange about many of the statements is that they are summarised by a statement along the lines of "The court will find you guilty". If a lawyer wrote this tripe, "it" must be a sandwich short of a picnic as no lawyer I know would ever try to predict what the court verdict will be. Certainly to do this in writing would be to invite public and professional ridicule and censure, maybe even sacking and striking off!
What I will say is I believe this lawyer does not usually work in defamation. Out of their typical line of work - and quite possibly floundering.
No, it’s called ‘zealous representation of the client’. Lawyers are seldom if ever sanctioned for this kind of stuff. The lawyer may have advised their client it was legally dubious to discharge their ethical duty of care to their client but if the client wants the threatening letter sent anyway… $$$
This too!
Is the lawyer here literally Lionel Hutz? God what a crock. I hope this blows up massively in the sex pest’s face without any of the victims being implicated.
Hahahha! Part of me hopes they're reading this.
Lol! If so I look forward to a very professional and legally sound letter demanding I personally shut down webworm for its defamatory treatment of ‘mr hutz’
Or as his client said “I didn’t do it, nobody saw me do it, there’s no way you can prove anything” https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTbgsoHDc24
Bullying scum - I can’t believe they think that using tactics like that would work. But probably for a lot of good, honest people (unlike themselves) it does. I hope these amazing women all stay strong.
Tactics like this do work, often. Unfortunately you're legal rights to free expression only extend as far as your willingness to defend them from challenge.
There are no mechanisms to automatically shut down legal challenges that might be improper. So no matter how reasonable a threat like this is, is the other person has the resources and is willing to take it to court, you have to respond in kind. It's expensive and stressful, even to prevail.
Basically people with resources make a bet that they can intimidate those without. It's like a game of chicken.
Yes, New Zealand doesn’t have anti-SLAPP legislation unlike other countries, including Australia, which is intended to prevent this kind of intimidatory legal abuse. SLAPP is short for ‘strategic lawsuit against public participation’, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_lawsuit_against_public_participation basically bullying and intimidation aimed at dissuading public criticism of someone or some corporation by making it too expensive.
Even anti-SLAPP provisions usually require that the recipient spend a feature amount of money on a lawyer.
True, anti-SLAPP is no panacea. Maybe it stops the worst abuses but I don’t know if the fact they can’t follow through as easily is any kind of deterrent to this lower level crap. Sadly, I think you’re right and I imagine it doesn’t since this legal thuggery is cheap and the exposure of the actual wrongdoing is expensive so the incentives are all in favour of being an asshole and lawyers go for the ‘zealous representation of the client’ justification when defending their involvement in this kind of shit. So specious legal-sounding (but baseless) threats work.
The interesting thing is that threateners usually don’t follow through since their case is so weak. If they actually had one, then would file it rather spoiling their powder by posturing that wouldn’t look good in court. *cough* Trump *cough*
Thank you for sharing that - I’d not heard about such a thing so that was interesting.
It’s so unfair…which is such a whiney childlike response I know, and I have to keep reminding myself that life isn’t fair, but it still sucks. I can’t even begin to imagine how stressful it is, which makes me even more impressed and amazed at the strength of your convictions and drive to speak up (and David!). Thank you for all that you both do and the value you add!
It's super unfair and you can whine all you like. I certainly do! This is a safe whine-space.
Love it! Although let’s not be like a 4 or 8chan whine space 🤣 I don’t want to be that kind of whiner 😂 I’ve been listening to the BBC The Coming Storm podcast. Building on your QAnon episode you did with Dax. That sh*t is fascinating but scary.