I noticed that this foul-mouthed creep @supersteve2dope who seems to be some kind of bag man for #JusticeSec seems to be pretty chatty with the account @TheRealRoseanne.
I asked @TheRealRoseanne if she supported the harassment of bloggers that this awful account was going, along with others asssociated with Anonymous in Steubenville because I just couldn't believe it.
And that's the answer I got -- a threat with a lawsuit from this celebrity for asking a question of why this account is participating in the suppression of free speech. What a shock!
The real Roseanne wouldn't use her considerable power and prestige and resources to sue a blogger who wrote posts critical of the tactics Anonymous is using in Steubenville, and asked why she was friendly and seemingly supporting them, would she? Would she?
Surely she's not aware of what is going on in and around this account. Is it possibly that an intern or staff member runs it who is rather free with her name? I'm not getting this.
I used to love the Roseanne show, and in fact, it was the main reason (that and E.R.) that I even kept a TV.
I haven't had a TV in 10 years so I haven't kept up, but I occasionally watch her shows, i.e. the other day on Youtube I found a great interview she did with K.D. Lang on her talk show.
I know Roseanne can be controversial, but I've always admired that she took gutsy stands, like on behalf of gay marriage. I don't agree with her on all the issues, but it doesn't matter, free speech is vital, and it's important that celebrities not adopt this conformist, white-bread sort of persona for fear they won't get jobs or movie ticket sales, and Roseanne paves the way there.
I recall that Roseanne spoke out about the Stuebenville rape victim, but I didn't realize she was making common cause with the Anonymous vigilantism there. I'll have to research this more.
Meanwhile, I cannot believe that Roseanne could stand behind any effort to silence critical journalists or bloggers, or that she would condone some obscene low-life like @supersteve2dope and his lovely wife @sam7cook to be heckling and harassing and threatening a blogger like me *just because I question the methods of vigilantism*.
I don't have any problem supporting the victim and questioning the football team here; as I've said, I admire what Andrea Dworkin used to say: "the punishment for getting drunk and taking a frat boy in your dorm room should be a hangover, not rape".
But I do think that the mainstream media like The New York Times is doing a more reliable job of covering this than ethics-free hackers on Twitter. If you don't like how they're doing it, start a blog. Oh, I guess some people did. Now why were some of them shut down? Is it because they needlessly expose privacy and harass people who aren't guilty? That's putting a chill on free speech.
Art. 30 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights says that you cannot use one right to undo another. That's a clause few ever pay attention to as they cherry-pick their favourite rights. What that means is that you can't use freedom of religion to undo women's rights; you can't use women's rights to undo free speech, and so on. Rights are in a balance.
In any event, I will be saddened if I find out that Roseanne is really backing these low-lifes and I'm going to continue to assume it's an intern at the Twitter switchboard or her account is hacked.
P.S. I now see that the tweet I took a screenshot of (above) has been deleted within about 20 minutes. Interesting. Maybe the account is misused/hacked? Or maybe they are snapchatting under the radar?
That tweet has a unique UUID so it can be abuse reported.#TeamEpicFuckery @supersteve2dope