Didn't call for censorship. I just find little benefit in singling out an individual with a very tiny platform for saying something dumb. The idea that her being singled out online to be inundated with death threats and vitriol for her and her family (her and her family were doxxed over this) seems to far outweigh the benefit of "stopping this woman going around the country"... seeing as how she's one woman with basically no following and little influence. I doubt she's done many of these talks at all or will do more. (Looked it up. This talk was the only one she'd given all year. Only one on a different subject the year before. Both locally in her area.)

Spreading videos like this after someone has already been doxxed and threatened only seem to help compound the injury. And it's not ideological to me. Justine Sacco said something stupid online and got a crazy amount of blowback and lost her job for it- I don't agree with that either.

If you want to call out what you view as racism, going after the little guys for saying something a little off isn't the way. Go after people with influence. Hell, a police chief in Oklahoma was just caught running a white supremacist website and record label. That guy has direct impact on the rest of people's lives and even if they get to keep their lives in some situations.

Ashleigh is an unemployed recent college grad. The most influence she has are the 15 or 20 people who were all adults that signed up for this particular seminar. I imagine they either agreed with or are old enough to make up their own mind on what was said.

@ChaosEngine

i have many:teachers,police,firefighters as facebook friends.

during the run up to the election i was posting a ton of my research,analysis and commentary in regards to the election.

this,on it's own,should not be surprising,what WAS surprising is all the support i received from these people and who were simply afraid to like,or comment.

they were literally sharing my work with other people via private messaging.

each and every one expressed to me a fairly robust paranoia that if they liked any of my posts,or commented,that they would receive disciplinary action and that their jobs would be in jeopardy.

i found this very troubling and what i could not,and STILL cannot reconcile,is how some people not only ignore this very subtle form of censorship,but find it a viable and understandable in the realms of social media.

when you restrict what a person can comment or speak on due to fear.this is censorship.

in the case of justine sacco,she was simply making a joke and when put in context..a really damn good one.but due to the self-righteous moralizing of total strangers,her life was destroyed.

now there will be some that may still find this justified,and that is fine,that is their right but what REALLY chills me is that nobody is addressing the much deeper and far more insidious nature of public shaming.basically:other people saw what happened to justine sacco and will modify their social media persona accordingly.

this,in my opinion,will only result in a vanilla goo like substance that offers no challenging ideas,no conflicting opinions that offer an opportunity to discuss and debate difficult subjects,because debate starts with disagreement,and if you impose a fear of retribution by simply posting any content that may be construed as controversial.then the conversation ends...
and we all pay a price for that kind of groupthink.

this will force the really bad and worst of us to go underground,and reside in an echo chamber where their fucked up ideas are parroted back to them,resulting in a confirmation that their worldviews are correct.

conversely...

those who may have good ideas,or wish to engage in controversial subjects,or in the case of justine sacco..make a fucking joke...will be relegated to the "good little worker bee" position.who never challenges power or authority and simply obeys...for fear of losing:financial security,public standing etc etc.

they become fucking stepford wives.

and in my sincere opinion,this is the real danger.

many here on the sift find my criticism of over-the-top social justice warriors as ill-thought and offensive,but it is situations that have actual real world consequences,due to mob mentality that can result in the case of justine sacco.which jon ronson retells the sad story with disturbing hilarity:
http://videosift.com/video/jon-ronson-hilarious-and-disturbing-story-on-public-shaming

Look @00Scud00, Lewinski's talk is about shame and cybermobbing. She experienced the latter because of her actions and as a result, when she talks about online -abuse, she views it through the prism of her own lifestory, one that is about shame. It is similar to Tyler Clementi, whom she talked about.
However, at the end of the day, her talk is about cyberbullying, online abuse and mob-behaviour.
What connects her and Sarkeesian is cyberbullying and misogyny. They both expierenced that without a doubt.
The big difference is, Lewinsky did something wrong, she enganged in adultery. It may be excusable because she was young and in a relationship with very uneven powerdynamics, it may be understandable because people do fall in love and cheat but it was wrong. The problem is that a matter that should concern only a handful of people became a media event because of the politics involved. That lead to slutshaming and embarrassing her not just online but by all media.
Her case is special because she was the first person to get such an response online and that is what she focuses on in her talk. It's not just about the media (be it print or TV), it's especially about the internet. That is why Clementi is in part so important to her.
Sarkeesian on the other side didn't do something wrong. She started to talk publically about the way the media, especially games, treat and view women from a (sane IMO) feministic point of view.
The end result is disastrous. She experienced a backlash that was not only the highest degree of misogyny, it was also a prime example of a group of people online lashing out at somebody. Cyberbullying and online abuse at its worst.
There is the connection between the two. Sarkeesian wasn't slutshamed, she just got called 'slut' and 'whore'. She didn't have private, sexual details of her life revealed online, it was just her adress and getting rape-threats.
The connection between the two women is online abuse.

Actually, Sarkeesian got it worse. She just did a job but Lewinsky sucked off a married man. Monica didn't deserve what she got, that level of humiliation and hatred. She made a stupid mistake, she made a human mistake. The price she paid was unbearably, unfairly high. I'm sorry for her.
Anita just talked about a topic she felt strongly about. People online threatened her with bodily harm. That's worse.

@dag mentioned Justine Sacco. Her case is completely different from those other two women. Somehow, Monica Lewinsky still talked about her. That's why her TED Talk is so good, she talks about a problem that exists mainly in the online world nowadays.
Cyberbullying. Mobmentality. Onlineabuse.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

This reminds me of Justine Sacco, http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?_r=0

And maybe even Cecil's murderer. :-o