[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. ))

Sat Mar 23 19:18:21 PDT 2013

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" <anon195714 at sbcglobal.net> 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" <snailtsunami at gmail.com>
> 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" <Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net>
>
> 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 <danny at spesh.com> 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 <shawnlandden at gmail.com> 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 <%2B1%20360%20389%203001> (SMS preferred)
>
> --
> ............. _ at y
>
> _______________________________________________
> Noisebridge-discuss mailing list
> Noisebridge-discuss at lists.noisebridge.net
> https://www.noisebridge.net/mailman/listinfo/noisebridge-discuss
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> sudo-discuss mailing listsudo-discuss at lists.sudoroom.orghttp://lists.sudoroom.org/listinfo/sudo-discuss
>
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://sudoroom.org/pipermail/sudo-discuss/attachments/20130323/88b47adc/attachment.html>