Every single goddamned organization with any kind of social presence at all seems to be afflicted with the problem of sexual harassment — including, now, library conferences. Librarians! I love librarians, they always seem to be the most sensible people, and here it comes, a familiar story. Two people, Lisa Rabey and Nina de Jesus called out a guy named Joe Murphy for his predatory behavior at library conferences, in a post titled Time to Talk About Community Accountability. Tell me if you’ve heard this one before.
So after @pnkrcklibrarian made a very clear public statement that Joe Murphy, a fairly ubiquitous presence in the library conference circuit, has been continuously sexually harassing women at these conferences (and one imagines pretty much anywhere he goes). This information, apparently, is widely known amongst women (this is the whisper network) and in spaces beyond, yet very little has been done to hold him accountable. He still gets speaking engagements. Keynote invites. Still considered a ‘leader’ or whatever in the field.
…
Can I point out the fact that Joe Murphy’s behaviour is so well known that women attending lib conferences literally have instituted a buddy-type safety system to protect themselves? That — quite literally — they are afraid to be alone with him? Add this to the fact that librarians are mostly women and one begins to truly understand that this is what institutional sexism looks like. This is why issues of sexism and misogyny need to be present even in fields with a numerical majority of women. Because, despite these numbers, we still have a man known to be a predator being supported by the same institutions that employ, fund, etc. many of the women in the field. One last thought: if you think he is the only one… well, you’d be wrong.
But wait! We’re not done! There’s more deja vu to come.
Joe Murphy is now suing de Jesus and Rabey for 1.25 million (pdf). Rabey and de Jesus have put together a fundraiser for their legal costs. They are going to fight this lawsuit.
Mr. Murphy claims that Ms. Rabey “posted the following false, libelous and highly damaging tweet accusing the plaintiff of being a ‘sexual predator’”. He further claims that Ms. de jesus wrote a blog post that “makes additional false, libelous, highly damaging, outrageous, malicious statements against the plaintiff alleging the commission of sexual harassment and sexual abuse of women and other forms of criminal and unlawful behaviour”.
Both Ms. Rabey and Ms. de jesus maintain that our comments are fair and are truthful, which we intend to establish in our defense. Neither of us made the claims maliciously nor with any intent to damage Mr. Murphy’s reputation.
We both also believe that women calling out harmful the behaviour of men is an act of free speech and of resistance to a culture that regularly reduces our bodies to sexual objects existing only to serve men. We have decided to fight this lawsuit, at great financial and emotional cost to ourselves, because we believe that all victims of sexual harassment should be supported and believed. We believe that by speaking up and speaking out we are contributing to a change in culture whereby victims and survivors no longer have to be silent about our experiences. A culture where we can speak out and not be punished more severely than the men who engage in harassing behaviour.
Battle on!
What a reprehensible slimeball. If the ladies lose this, my faith in humanity will be officially gone.
Sheesh, and I thought some of our library’s patrons were creeps!
I suspect if the two get enough funds for discovery to happen, the lawsuit will go the way of the great auk. It’s one thing to try intimidation, it’s another to battle the truth and show it is lies, with plenty of witnesses saying you are sexual predator. Good enough for lawsuits, where the preponderance of evidence, not beyond a shadow of doubt, supposedly wins…..
I hope the women get enough funding.
And this:
is the sign of an asshole trying to silence women. Fuck you Joe Murphy.
Fuck you, Joe Mrphy. Money sent.
Very happily donated. Thanks for amplifying this.
The blogpost comments include a remark that he bragged on youtube, creating his own evidence.
More stuff from the Satifice blog that sounds familiar:
And you just know there will be pushback against these very sensible ideas.
Holy Rodents, almost word for word there.
Sing it! They have my full support, and as soon as I have money, they’ll have some of that, too.
Oh, so seriously quoted for fucking truth.
Well, shit.
This sounds painfully familiar.
I suspect that this is not, strictly speaking, true, although stating it may well be a legal requirement for defence against the lawsuit (IANAL). This should damage his reputation, because predators work best in the shadows, and trade heavily on any good reputation they can claim or establish.
Donated $10. It’s all this little student can afford. Hope they raise a stupid amount of money.
Well, you know what they say. The easiest defense against a libel/slander allegation is the truth. In a just world, all they should need to do is bring forward multiple women who have been harassed by this fucker and/or emails and other correspondence between women instituting the buddy system and other measures they’ve taken to protect themselves from this assclown, and he would be laughed out of court.
Then again, it’s hardly a just world for women. :(
Oh, for a certain orangutan to pay Mr. Murphy a visit…
Hmmm…. This looks like grist for Ken White’s mill over at Popehat. He might even be able to find them legal help that they can afford.
@15:
“What’s up with this monkey…AAAAAHHHHHHH!!!!”
I really don’t get how it is compatible with any notion of justice that getting sued alone can bankrupt you, and fighting back is only possible if you’re rich even if you’re innocent. Why not directly write into the law that only rich people are worthy of a fair trial?
Are there any intentions to change this?
You know what’s funny? The .pdf includes both text and screenshots of the article. It, in actual fact, contains few references to Murphy, none of them including anything but allegations of sexual predation; “other forms of criminal and unlawful behaviour” do not appear.
The .pdf also complains about tweets by Rabey “reveling in the fact that she was ‘apparently ruining Joe Murphy’s career…'” Now the tweet to me looks like obvious sarcasm; Murphy’s career is likely intact just fine. But let’s accept that it isn’t sarcasm, but meant in earnest: That ain’t libel; that ain’t defamatory. It might be in poor taste, depending on the situation; it might demonstrate lack of remorse; but it ain’t libel.
Yeah, I don’t buy that one for a second. There aren’t many situations in which “…quite literally— [women] are afraid to be alone with him,” is not meant to harm someone’s reputation. I’ve no problems with attacks on another’s reputation (assuming its deserved, of course).
Though one thing I note is that half the evidence of Murphy’s misconduct is “a site dedicated to shitty exes”; a little problematic, I think. The other half is a video in which Murphy “brags about his conquests.” Neither piece of evidence is actually provided.
The rest of the blog entry is very interesting too. Everyone should read the rest of it. Seriously. Some pretty dramatic – not to mention draconian – actions suggested. No proof of anything untoward is ever going to be required, and the accused isn’t to be allowed any presumption of innocence – under ANY circumstances.
“Did a presenter just make a racist joke?” they ask. Evict him from the conference, is their solution. I wonder why they didn’t use the example of SEXIST joke. Surely that would have been more appropriate in the circumstances and given the topic under discussion? There really are presenters that make sexist jokes. I’ve heard one myself. It wouldn’t have been difficult for them to even provide an example. Imagine the headline: FEMINIST PZ MYERS EVICTED FROM CONFERENCE FOR SEXIST JOKE.
Though, of course, he wouldn’t even have recourse to “It was only a joke, Muslima”. Because you’re guilty by virtue have having been charged and, according to the text that PZ cherry picked for his post, no defense is allowed.
Seconding Alex in #18.
What the fuck? It’s absurd that Joe Murphy can do this.
What can I say?
I support these women, and I hope they are successful in their defence and also in their campaign to shed light on harassment and sexism among librarians.
Geez. And people point to women-dominated fields for women because hey, look, you won’t get harassed there, there’s a lot less of those pesky men around!
Tony @ #8:
…and that pushback starts with comment 21 by nmcc.
Fuck this sexist asshat. I made a small donation to the legal fund because the likes of Murphy need to be smacked down and publicly identified as widely as possible.
And cue Richard Dawkins supporting Murphy in 4…3…2….1….
Hm.
*scrolls up*
Nope, it’s actually, “call them out, and, if they get all defensive and make it into a derail, end the talk they’re giving.”
You’re not very competent, are you?
For the record, if PZ Myers does sexist shit, then he did sexist shit and should face the consequences.
You are, of course, referring to a video where PZ makes a joke out of shuffling cards and comparing them to genes and mating and makes some jokes about mating with a young female volunteer who’s helping him with the demonstration.
Let’s check: what the fuck do you think sexism is, anyway?
IIRC, PZ said he had prior approval from the volunteer for the jokes.
I think that’s accurate. They weren’t posting to “get to” him. They were posting to protect OTHER WOMEN from a danger.
That’s what I recall too, Nerd.
nmcc: I read the whole post and you should too. They are calling for community action, not legal action. Murphy is the one who is trying to make it a legal issue.
In all of these cases, the accusers and the supporters they quote are in the community and tell of similar situations. The defenders of the accused, in contrast, don’t seem to be part of the community. Where are the librarians defending Murphy?
IANAL, but I do recognize the wording from Media Ethics and Law courses.
“Malice” is the standard for a public figure, which Murphy definitely would qualify as in this situation. You pretty much have to be able to show that the author was not only casual with the truth, but also was deliberately seeking to harm the target (as opposed to them simply being harmed as kind of a by-product of the story being written).
The statement basically is saying, “We’re reporting this stuff, if it damages someone’s reputation, that’s secondary to our aims in writing the story.” Given that much of the thrust of their article is geared towards changing the convention culture, and Murphy is used simply as an example, that should be a slam-dunk.
nmcc:
Great job being an apologist for sexual harassment. You must be proud of yourself. Keep demanding evidence and refusing to believe women when they say they’ve been sexually harassed. Clearly it’s more important for you to stand in solidarity with sexist douchebag men.
IANAL as well – but i think it’s pretty obvious. In libel/slander cases here in the US, the accuser has to show that not only was defendant wrong in what they had published, but that the only intent of said publishing was to defame the accuser. So it’s 100% necessary to say that, as it is the base of pretty much any and every defamation/libel defense (that way you don’t even have to prove what you said was true).
The suit looks like an intimidation tactic to me.
I recognize that it’s an effective defense (I noted above that the references to Murphy are somewhat sparse), I just don’t believe that, in the strict sense, “we didn’t intend harm” is a true statement.
Interestingly, there’s a new available defense under Canadian law: “responsible communication on a matter of public interest.” I’m not sure how such things are weighed, but the gist is that if a) the communication was of public interest, and b) the defendant was responsible in attempting to verify information, then there’s an absolute defense, even if the information was false and disseminated maliciously.
FYI for the legal speculators in the thread: this suit was filed in Canada, not the US. Canada has significantly different libel standards, so analyses based in US law are not applicable. (And along those lines, Popehat has already been asked, on Twitter, to blog about it, and declined on the grounds that a Canadian law blogger would be better qualified.)
In re the accused and the presumption of innocence, it’s also important to note (as nina has eloquently pointed out on her blog) that, first, this is a civil suit, not a criminal suit; and, second, *she and Lisa are the defendants*, and any presumptions of innocence ought therefore to apply to them.
#librarian #teamharpy
@ Alex 18
Unfortunately I think that this is a feature of the system for too many. If only the rich can afford justice than only the rich will have justice.
As for changing it, I see a lot of people complaining but every election cycle it’s not much of a subject. I fear the justice system is far too broken for anyone to fix. I’m more inclined to believe that it’s getting worse with respect to the division in justice for many different groups. Change and reform seems too similar to admitting flaws and weakness for many in government.
@nmcc
1. It’s better than the status quo. Right now we have a situation where predatory abusers have all the social power. That sort of thing requires a strong counterbalance until a new social dynamic is established. Note that this does not preclude investigations after the conference.
2. You are equating being ejected from a conference with being harassed or raped. Seriously WTF? People being wrongfully ejected from a conference is preferable to people being harasses or raped at a conference. As a wrongful rejection pattern emerges that can be dealt with. I’ll take a big improvement now and more incremental improvement as it’s needed.
That is a problem to you? I’m fine with the assumption that they are inclusive with respect to harassment and biased behavior of all types. I can’t see any reason why you would think they would have no problems with sexist jokes.
RE: Andromeda @ 36
OK. My comment at 35 was thinking about the US legal system. Hopefully the situation is better in Canada but I’m pretty cynical.
http://www.canadianlawsite.ca/libel-slander-defamation-of-%20character.htm
The librarians’ chances look pretty good under the Factual Statements doctrine and under the Fair Comments doctrine.
– Predators don’t typically have 1 victim, they have many, so predation can be common even when there are few predators.
– A predator might choose an occupation that provides a wealth of targets.
I wish I could say I was surprised by all this . . .
Are Murphy and his lawyer so hopelessly incompetent that they don’t understand how filing this lawsuit will bring MANY more women out who will testify against him? Do they truly not understand what they’re provoking in discovery?
@Josh #40
Especially as, according to The Big Wiki, a scorched earth policy (in this situation, a concerted attack on every detail of the plaintiff’s life) is a pretty common defence tactic in Canadian defamation suits. Not that that’s necessarily a good thing, but it’s apparently a thing.
somewhat OT – In comics, too: Fear As A Way Of Life: Why Women In Comics Don’t ‘Just Report’ Sexual Harassment (Comics Alliance, h/t cicely in the Lounge)
somewhat OT – In comics, too: Fear As A Way Of Life: Why Women In Comics Don’t ‘Just Report’ Sexual Harassment (Comics Alliance, h/t cicely in the Lounge)
@ Josh #40
Unfortunately, I don’t think the library profession is at the point where being known as a serial harasser means never getting invited to speak at conferences or being required to fix one’s behavior as a harasser. I hope that will happen, but the profession has plenty of work to do on that score.
How often do such lawsuits get filed, or threatened, and work as a means of shutting down folks who call out harassment? I don’t know, but I would not be surprised if it actually has been an effective strategy for harassers — and one that perhaps is only recently becoming less effective. And if such a lawsuit is filed with the primary aim of punishing those who speak out — any further reputational damage arising from discovery may well not be of great concern of the harasser.
Pteryxx @42 & cicely: thanks for that – bookmarked.
This is why I stick with digital libraries now…
The YouTube video of Murphy talking about a conquest is pretty easy to find, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=82HLJcyzXQ8.
I hope that Team Harpy will be able to collect plenty of evidence that their statements are truthful.
A change.org petition is now up asking Joe Murphy to drop the lawsuit.
This guy filing the lawsuit in Canada, even though he and one of the two defendants live in the US, reeks of libel tourism. It might be possible to render the judgement unenforceable in the US and recover court costs using this law, passed specifically to prevent this kind of shit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPEECH_Act
(Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, and nobody should interpret anything I say as legal advice.)