[James Brancheau]

Hoo-ha is fine, unless it's said with a Spanish accent. They'd have to be 21 for that.

[Kevin Rainbow]

I think they should keep the authors anonymous in a situation like that. You can recognize artistic skill by such people without creating controversy and disturbing people - especially victims - by specifying their identities.

[Martin Elster]

That's a pretty good idea, Kevin.

[Julie Steiner]

Out of curiosity, I just plugged my suburban address into the California Megan's Law database and searched for the addresses of registered sex offenders within a two-mile radius of my house. 21 came up, even though more than half of the land within that circle is a nature preserve in which no one lives.

My point: registered sex offenders are pretty much everywhere. I bet every poetry magazine publishes at least a few of them every year, unawares. And pseudonyms are a thing. So a lifetime ban on literary activity for any English major on the registered sex offender list seems unenforceable to me, even if I could see much benefit to the victims or to society at large in such a ban (which I don't).

[John Riley]

The poetry world has always been full of sex offenders, particularly men who use their reputations and prestige to prey on young girls. Their acts may not meet the legal definition of a sex crime but that doesn't mean what they do and have done for decades isn't criminal.

[Allen Tice]

There’s always Hitler’s paintings. You must have wondered how long it would be until he was mentioned. There’s a “law” (perhaps logarithmic) that purports to describe the number of interchanges in a conversation before he comes up. This contribution of mine, regardless of its merits, is a classic example of “whataboutism”.

I don’t want to read that poetry, or listen to it.

[Martin Elster]

That's right. If someone doesn't want to read or listen to a poem by a known sex-offender, then they don't have to read or listen to it, just like if someone doesn't like a certain radio program or station, they can turn the dial or even turn off the radio. They don't even have to read that particular issue of Poetry or even the magazine itself. They have a choice.

That's way simpler, it seems to me, than to make a storm in a teacup or going into hysterics.

[Julie Steiner]

Originally Posted by John Riley

The poetry world has always been full of sex offenders, particularly men who use their reputations and prestige to prey on young girls. Their acts may not meet the legal definition of a sex crime but that doesn't mean what they do and have done for decades isn't criminal.

I wholeheartedly agree. And the various systems of justice (especially the internal ones that academic institutions have set up to keep things "in house," so they can continue to benefit from keeping their faculty members' reputations intact) have, unsurprisingly, not held them accountable. Such systems seem specifically designed to protect the powerful perps from negative consequences that might reflect poorly on the institution, rather than to protect victims. Calling people out through social media has definitely exerted far more leverage than going through proper channels.

But let's improve the various systems of justice, instead of saying, "The punitive consequences that sex offenders receive are inadequate, so we're going to resort to various forms of extra-legal vigilantism to settle the score, even after they serve their prison sentences."

The reason we have a justice system at all is that DIY retribution is bad for society. Bear in mind that vigilantism can swing both ways. It can be deployed to preserve the power of the powerful, too, which is exactly why so many victims would rather suffer in silence than speak up against someone's hero, and then have face the wrath of his or her faithful followers.

Mark's Scottish hounding thread is a good example of how self-appointed enforcers of justice can become sadists who won't stop until they have destroyed their chosen target's life, with or without giving the evidence a fair hearing. I'd rather see energy go into improving to the official channels of justice, systemically, instead of into harassing individuals on an ad hoc basis.

[Mark McDonnell]

Mark's Scottish hounding thread is a good example of how self-appointed enforcers of justice can become sadists who won't stop until they have destroyed their chosen target's life, with or without giving the evidence a fair hearing. I'd rather see energy go into improving to the official channels of justice, systemically, instead of into harassing individuals on an ad hoc basis.

Indeed Julie. Though the analogy doesn't quite work because Jenny Lindsey literally did nothing wrong. It isn't like there should have been 'proper channels' in place to deal with her.

(OK, so we're only talking about my thread in this thread are we? )

Edit: I don't know why that angry red face is at the top of my post! I didn't put him there!

[Jayne Osborn]

Originally Posted by Mark McDonnell

Edit: I don't know why that angry red face is at the top of my post! I didn't put him there!

He's a persistent little blighter, Mark. I tried to remove him for you... but I couldn't, sorry, even with my magic wand!

Jayne