Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
No bio...
User ID: 863
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2d ago
Technically the jury found her speech towards the camera man rose to the level of "fighting words" (a First Amendment exception). She was acquitted on the original count against the child and his father.
You can search here for the case (I can't find a way to get a link). Case number 55-CR-25-6656. From the Jury instructions (document #58) as regards the charge she was convicted of:
DEFINED
Under Minnesota law, whoever, knowing or having reasonable grounds to know that it will tend to alarm, anger, or disturb others, or provoke an assault or breach of the peace, engages in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct, or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others, is guilty of a crime.
ELEMENTS
The elements of this crime are:
First, the defendant engaged in offensive, obscene, abusive, boisterous, or noisy conduct, or in offensive, obscene, or abusive language tending reasonably to arouse alarm, anger, or resentment in others.
If you find that the defendant's conduct consisted only of offensive, obscene, or abusive language, you must also find that the words used were “fighting words.” Speech is not “fighting words” merely because it is racist. “Fighting words” are words that constitute personally offensive epithets that, when spoken to the ordinary person, under the particular circumstances of the case, are, as a matter of common knowledge, inherently likely to provoke a violent reaction or incite an immediate breach of the peace by those to whom such words are addressed. The offense may be based upon the utterance of fighting words alone, without resulting in actual violence. The focus is upon the nature of the words and the circumstances in which they were spoken, rather than upon the actual response.
Second, the defendant knew or believed or had reasonable grounds to know that the conduct would, or could, tend to alarm, anger, disturb, provoke an assault by, or provoke a breach of the peace by others.
Third, the defendant's act took place in a public or private place.
Fourth, the defendant's act took place on or about April 28, 2025, in Olmsted County. If you find that each of these elements has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is guilty. If you find that any element has not been proven beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant is not guilty.
The instructions are identical for the count on which she was acquitted.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
2d ago
I think it can be reasonable to hold X responsible for Y's actions in the case where X is in some kind of position of authority or responsibility over Y. I don't think sharing an ethnicity, or religion, or gender, and so on automatically puts you in that kind of position relative to others in the same demographic. Although even in your case it's not clear to me that petitioning the elder in the Amish community to use his authority to rectify the issue is coterminous with assigning some kind of blame to the elder for the issue. Something I've learned plenty of times in my own profession is that just because something is not your fault does not mean it is not your problem.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
3d ago
This is a post that's been floating around in my head for a while that I finally wanted to get out. Apologies if this is a little rambling.
There's a phenomenon I observe on both the left and right that is a little mysterious to me and I'm interested in hearing people's thoughts on it. There seems to be a tendency to take the actions of particular individuals and ascribe some kind of moral responsibility for those actions to demographic groups the perpetrator is a part of. Such and such man/woman/white/black/migrant/christian/etc did a bad thing and, actually, all men/women/whites/blacks/migrants/christians/etc are in some sense responsible for it. Such that it is reasonable to think less of or perhaps take retribution against all members of whatever the relevant demographic group is.
I don't think it's too hard to come up with examples. I'm confident a lot of innocent Jews or Palestinians have caught strays from people mad at the Israeli government or Hamas. There was that unrest in the UK after a Sikh Northern Ireland after an African man stabbed a guy to death. Go to probably any dating forum and you can find men and women generalizing about the evils of the other gender based on their dating experiences.
I think of myself as having an essentially liberal individualist view of moral responsibility. People are morally responsible for the things they actually do and not the things that other people who happen to share demographic characteristics with them do. This makes arguments or actions of the above kind feel alien to me. I don't see the logic, the reason, that connects "Person A of X demographic did a Bad Thing" to "Therefore it is justified for me to do a Bad Thing to Person B of demographic X." I also observe deployment of arguments of this type seem to have a whiff of hypocrisy. People who deploy these kinds of arguments about demographic X they are not a part of would ~never accept similar generalizations about demographic Y that they are a part of.
I should also mention that I sometimes see a reverse of this. People of a particular demographic want credit for the good things other members of their demographic have done, regardless of what they themselves have done. The examples that come to mind here are all right-coded to me ("men built society so I, as a man, should get credit for what those other men did regardless of what I personally have done". s/men/whites) but that is probably just my bubble.
I guess I'm trying to understand if there's some underlying logic, some theory of demographic-based moral responsibility I'm missing? Or is this all a kind of pre-rational responsibility assignment?
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4d ago
Well, the author in question (in an actual article) did make some comments structured similarly about black women. From page 25/26 of the arbitration PDF:
Ms. Attiah herself routinely wrote about the way in which race influences the discourse around politics and violence. Indeed, the Post published her column in 2024 under a headline chosen by her editors: “Harris and Black women are face of Biden administration’s ugly Gaza policy.” The piece was highly critical of “Black women,” stating, among other things, “Black women are both enforcing U.S. complicity in this atrocity and attempting to soften its appearance.”
Is it racist against black women to describe them as "enforcing U.S. complicity in [an] atrocity?"
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4d ago
Do you think this is a just outcome for this incident?
I think the arbitrator makes a compelling case.
If you think this is a just outcome, are you comfortable with people generalizing the logic behind this outcome into a set of rules you will then accept living under?
I am not even sure what this means. I expect we disagree about what the rules are here that you are suggesting generalizing.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4d ago
As best I can tell from reading the decision the incorrect quote of Kirk didn't come up in the firing context at all. There were two posts cited to, allegedly because they disparaged white men on the basis of gender or race, but the arbitrator ruled that was not supportable by reference to the post themselves (Page 30, Section C The Record Does Not Establish That the Grievant Disparaged White Men). The posts themselves are:
Refusing to tear my clothes and smear ashes on my face in performative mourning for a white man that espoused violence is … not the same as violence
Part of what keeps America so violent is the insistence that people perform care, empty goodness and absolution for white men who espouse hatred and violence.
As a white man myself, I don't feel disparaged by either post.
The only other basis given for the firing was the alleged security threat due to other people threatening Attiah for her posts on the topic. I generally think it would be a bad precedent to set that you can get fired because other people communicate threats against you. If people had sent threats to Google over Damore, would they have been more justified in firing him?
More generally, I think this illustrates the advantage of having a union! If there wasn't a CBA I'm skeptical Attiah would have won a more general employment discrimination lawsuit from this set of facts.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4d ago
The survey doesn't have a break out for "ethnically British", whatever that means. But it does break the survey down by people who do/don't consider themselves British and by White/Other Ethnicity. In both cases the numbers are pretty close to the population numbers. Among Whites, 59% think it is important to have been born in Britain (vs the population 55%) and 41% think it is important to have British Ancestry (vs the population 39%). Among those who identify as British the numbers are 59% (the same) and 40% (1 percentage point lower) respectively.
Gillitrut
Reading from the golden book under bright red stars
4d ago
I suppose I am with @Crowstep. Phillips just has a difference conception of what it means to be British than people like Tomlinson. It seems like she's hardly alone in this. According to the British Social Attitudes survey:
Over the last ten years, there has been a decline in the proportion who regard birth or ancestry as important for being ‘truly British’.
The proportion who think that to be ‘truly British’ it is important for someone to have been born in Britain has fallen from 74% in 2013 to 55% now.
Similarly, the proportion who believe it is important for someone to have British ancestry has dropped from 51% to 39%.
In contrast, 86% say it is important that someone respects British political institutions and laws.
It appears that quite a lot of British people agree with Phillips that being British is more rooted in adapting to British institutions and laws than having a particular ancestry. To the extent the British people are the authors of what it means to be British they seem to be moving more towards a Phillips definition than a Tomlinson one.
I'm still not sure I follow. I don't deny that individuals can come to have aligned interests due to their membership in a group. Legal or socially permissible discrimination against members of a demographic is one way this has happened historically. How does that get you to a demographic theory of responsibility though?
If a woman suffragette commits a bombing is a woman anti-suffragette also partly responsible because she is a woman? Is a man suffragette responsible because he's aligned with the woman, even if he otherwise had no part in or knowledge of it? How abstract can a group be such that we can judge members by the actions of other members?
More options
Context Copy link