Re: [sudo-discuss] Fwd: [Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus on Barring Shawn Landden from the Noisebridge space and community (Was Re: On Asking People To Leave (Was Re: Shawn L. ))

23 Mar 2013

Yeah... I'm going to chime in here to perhaps add some perspective as
to why it did take so long.

Shawn seemed like a pretty decent guy.  I thought he was a little
skeezy (he was always heaping more attention on the ladies at
Noisebridge than was warranted by normal dictates of conversation /
situation) ...

...but I just figured "slut", not
multiple-misdemeanors-warrant-for-his-arrest-etc.

And I'm (probably) a lot more socially aware than most hackers. I'm
also pretty fearless for someone of my gender.

What that means is that someone like Shawn instinctively goes after
women full of fear and self-doubt, who don't see his manipulation
coming.

So while people like me, who interacted with Shawn on a very regular
basis (he was there almost every afternoon I happened to be there),
figured, "hm okay, nice enough guy, here a lot, whatever..."  he was
able to throw down some major bullshit in other social territories.

When you've got victims being fearful and unconfident people in the
first place, it's extremely unlikely they will come forward about
whatever happened to them.

And in this case, the victims all (reportedly) said, when they were
approached about his actions, "I thought I was the only one!"  The
subtext of a declaration like that is, "I thought there was something
wrong with me, so I didn't want to tell anyone."

...

I hope that helps.

The huge question Noisebridge is presently dancing around right now
is, how many of our current cultural disturbances are based on
Noisebridge being broken, and how many are basically inevitable
outgrowths of NB having grown to 10 x Dunbar's Number in community
size?

My money's on situations like Shawn L. coming up again, and not
because NB is broken, but because these are the problems of our time.

The positive side of that is, maybe, despite these being hard problems
that nobody has yet been able to solve, hackerspaces can figure this
out. And then we'd win Civilization!

--Naomi

On Sat, Mar 23, 2013 at 7:18 PM, rachel lyra hospodar
&lt;rachelyra(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
...
  Feel free to follow through on the ideas you have
posted here and report
 back to the group.

 If you believe that people acting on their own agency haven't gone far
 enough it would be more productive (and considerate of mitigating factors,
 such as the social shitstorms heaped on women who pursue harassment
 remediation within the tech community) to go for what you see as the next
 step, rather than criticizing the tactics chosen.

 I disagree with some of what you have stated (re permanent demonization of
 bad actors) but you are welcome to that opinion.

 R.

 On Mar 23, 2013 6:51 PM, "Anon195714" &lt;anon195714(a)sbcglobal.net&gt; wrote:

 Yo's-

 Stalkers are major danger, as in, rape and murder.  Years ago I dealt with
 a violent stalker and helped put him in prison, and along the way, learned a
 lot about stalkers.  If anyone's interested I could write a few pages about
 stalkers.

 The main thing is, stalkers are permanently dangerous in a manner similar
 to pedophiles: there is no cure, they are experts at weaseling out of
 trouble, and if the opportunity arises, they will do it again and again
 until they are stopped.  Very often the only way to stop them is to lock
 them up before they rape or kill someone.

 So on one hand it's good that NoiseBridge finally ejected the guy from the
 community.

 But on the other hand it's a damn shame that it took so long.

 And lastly, if he has an arrest warrant in Washington state for felony
 stalking and violating a restraining order, it's a bigger shame that he was
 merely ejected from NoiseBridge.

 As long as he is running around loose, it's a 100% certainty that he will
 be looking for another community to invade, and more victims to stalk.
 There is a high risk that, sooner than later, he will end up raping or
 otherwise brutalizing, or murdering, a woman he has been stalking.  He
 should have been turned over to the police to be extradited to Washington to
 face charges.

 Anyone who hasn't read about this guy's criminal record really should:
 http://pastebin.com/EWBJ4WmN   He isn't merely obnoxious, he has a history
 of stalking and violence against women.  He's an overt danger to others.

 If you ever wonder how it was that Catholic Church officials shuffled
 pedophile priests around rather than turning them over to the police,
 there's your answer.  YES it CAN happen here.  It just DID.

 And do not doubt for one minute that stalkers prey on our community's
 reluctance to involve law enforcement.  I saw that first-hand in the case I
 dealt with.  That makes us a "soft target," like stealing a laptop from a
 car with a window left open.

 It would be a good thing if we could compile a list of resources, and hold
 one or more workshops, on how to deal with stalkers.  Not only about how the
 community should deal with them, but also about how individuals can protect
 themselves if they become targets.

 Imagine living your life knowing that there is someone in the community
 who is obsessed with controlling your life to the point where they are
 willing to track you down and harm you, and you have to look over your
 shoulder everywhere you go, even when you go home.  It's a world of
 difference from dealing with people who are merely rude or unpleasant in
 some way.  And it's a world of difference from worrying about random crime,
 because the stalker is specifically obsessed with _you_ and with doing it to
 _you_.  We need to deal with this proactively before it happens again.

 -G.

 =====

 On 13-03-23-Sat 2:38 PM, rachel lyra hospodar wrote:

 In case folks are curious about what is going on at NB regarding this
 individual who repeatedly stalked people to their homes.

 Whatever your take on safe spaces and openness, this discussion may help
 to inform your conception of potential dangers to different members of the
 community. I hope we all work to be open to the experiences, and needs, of
 others.

 R.

 ---------- Forwarded message ----------
 From: "Snail" &lt;snailtsunami(a)gmail.com&gt;
 Date: Mar 21, 2013 12:18 PM
 Subject: [Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus on Barring Shawn Landden from the
 Noisebridge space and community (Was Re: On Asking People To Leave (Was Re:
 Shawn L. ))
 To: "Noisebridge-discuss" &lt;Noisebridge-discuss(a)lists.noisebridge.net&gt;

 Last night, we reached consensus on the decision to ban Shawn from
 Noisebridge and the community, which in full wording goes, "Shawn Landden is
 barred from Noisebridge. He is prohibited from entering the space or
 participating in the community."

 The statement is intentionally worded to so it can be interpreted to
 encompass DIGITAL as well as PHYSICAL space.

 You can see the meeting notes at
 https://www.noisebridge.net/wiki/Meeting_Notes_2013_03_19

 I am relieved to see the community band together on this decision, without
 hesitation, and hope that it encourages people hurt by this person to return
 and continue to be a part of our community. :) Because we do care. And I
 always look forward to discussions on what we can do to do better next time,
 because it will happen again, at Noisebridge, at every hackerspace, and it
 will happen with people we like and are very attached to and we need to be
 prepared, mentally, to make difficult decisions.

 I know members of other hackerspaces like to joke about Noisebridge drama,
 but this is not silly Internet drama. These are real problems that happen in
 every hackerspace, every place on the planet, and we're trying to solve a
 problem that is unsolved (how can you guarantee the safety of people in a
 space, when that space is in a society where violence and threats against
 people is accepted, even lauded, because the recipients are women?).

 We talk about it openly, and I'm glad talk is open. Information is our
 best tool here.

 On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 1:01 AM, Danny O'Brien &lt;danny(a)spesh.com&gt; wrote:
  Shawn,

 We are consensing on banning you from Noisebridge next week, which is
 a fairly serious step that we've only had to enact twice before.

 As in a previous case, there is a document containing ten Noisebridge
 community member's statements about your behaviour among the
 Noisebridge community. The document is being kept offline for privacy
 reasons, but can be read by anyone who wishes to contact the keepers,
 who are Alex Peake and Tom Lowenthal, both of whom are well known in
 the community.

 There was swift consensus on making the banning proposal, with no
 objections.

 We went onto discuss how, as a community, we would pass the collated
 information more widely to other hacker communities.

 I speak only for myself when I say that the best thing you might
 consider doing right now is returning back to Washington where you
 have an outstanding warrant for your arrest in the matter of violating
 probation, felony stalking, violating a restraining order, harassment,
 and stalking.

 I do speak for a large proportion of the Noisebridge community who
 have made it clear that they wish to communicate as widely as possible
 what we know about your current state, and to warn others who you
 might harass. We are already reaching out individually to hackerspaces
 in our area, and will be relaying the news to Portland.

 http://pastebin.com/EWBJ4WmN

 We also spoke about how we might better react more quickly, and listen
 more swiftly to those who were concerned about your behaviour earlier.

 Shawn, I don't think I can say this any more explicitly than this in
 public: we at Noisebridge are extremely concerned by your behavior,
 and worried for your mental health. Please return home and seek care.
 You have been banned from several houses in our city, you are about to
 be banned from Noisebridge, and we are about to make even more public
 our concerns. You have been told all of these things repeatedly by
 individuals, groups of housemates, and law enforcement, and have made
 no change in your behaviour. Please change it now.

 d.

 On Wed, Mar 13, 2013 at 12:20 AM, Shawn &lt;shawnlandden(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:
> To be terse here, I am currently not in San Francisco, but in Portland.
> Consequentially, I can neither be at Noisebridge while unwanted, (by
> some)
> nor attend meetings.
> ---
> Shawn Landden
> +1 360 389 3001 (SMS preferred) 
 --
 ............. _@y

 _______________________________________________
 Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
 Noisebridge-discuss(a)lists.noisebridge.net
 https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss

 _______________________________________________
 sudo-discuss mailing list
 sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
 http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

 _______________________________________________
 sudo-discuss mailing list
 sudo-discuss(a)lists.sudoroom.org
 http://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss

-- 
Naomi Theora Most
naomi(a)nthmost.com
+1-415-728-7490

skype: nthmost

http://twitter.com/nthmost

2024

2023

2022

2021

2020

2019

2018

2017

2016

2015

2014

2013

Re: [sudo-discuss] Fwd: [Noisebridge-discuss] Consensus on Barring Shawn Landden from the Noisebridge space and community (Was Re: On Asking People To Leave (Was Re: Shawn L. ))