Some thoughts on Paris

I've been trying to formulate some thoughts on the recent events in Paris and the following media tidal wave of articles, commentary, and editorials that have filled my social media news stream.  I've been encouraged by the fact that many people have been reaching beyond the mainstream news wire articles and have been pointing to the fact that the tragic events in Paris a few days ago were not the only tragic events in recent days.  What troubles me is that much of the discussion is centered on othering the people who have chosen to commit such violent acts as it does each time humans commit such large scale acts of violence against each other.

What I would like to say in the aftermath of all of these recent tragedies, specifically about the events involving human choices, is that the source of this violence is nothing we haven't seen before.  Recognizing that these people who have carried out these attacks as being people who do not represent any kind of majority is important but we have to be careful not to put them into a category that hints at them being unique, one-off extremists.  What must be in place for someone to commit an act of violence against another is a firm belief that what they're about to do is justified and okay.  To get there one must find a way to dehumanize the person or group of people they're preparing to commit the act of violence against.

Make no mistake, the ingredients of dehumanization and justification that motivated the decision making process for those who carried out the attacks in Paris, Beirut, and Baghdad (as well as for the many other violent acts committed that did not make the news) are also present in our own communities.  Those same ingredients are a factor when our government openly declares that an official inquiry into the missing and murdered indigenous women and girls is "not on their radar."  Those same ingredients are a factor when our media tries to place the blame on people of color who have been the victims of police brutality.  Those same ingredients are a factor when a judge openly blames a person who experienced a sexual assault that they're the one at fault.  Those same ingredients are a factor when our society as a whole believes that violence against women is "just the way things are."  Those same ingredients are a factor when People of Stature (professional athletes, actors, etc) are not held to the same level of accountability the rest of us would be.

Those same ingredients are a factor in every instance where one person is deciding to commit an act of violence against another.

The repetition is intentional because too often the link is not clear and putting theses kinds of violent acts into their own containers only contributes to a society that is tolerant of violence.  It is also important to be clear that this kind of dehumanization and justification does not just manifest out of thin air, it is the product of attitudes and beliefs that inform a persons world view as they come up and into their own sense of who they are.  These attitudes and beliefs are informed by a multitude of factors that include, but are not limited to, our peer groups, media, educational systems, the communities we're born into, our own degrees of privilege, our own willingness to self-educate, and so on.

My only ask here is that we all put energy into not only sending our positive thoughts to those who have recently experienced violence but into continuing that push to challenge and change the harmful attitudes and beliefs that contribute to the dehumanization of others.

How mainstream media erases social justice progress

I can't really put into words how much the attitude of "this world is too politically correct these days" or "people really can't take a joke any more" bothers me; it's like trying to explain a colour or emotion to someone.  The closest I can really think of, and it's more of an explanation through example, comes from Byron Clark who ran a little experiment, replacing the term "political correctness" with the phrase "treating people with respect" and showed how off-base political correctness critics are with their comments (a link to an article about this is here).

What I want to write about today, however, is more on how this sort of dialog players out in mainstream media and how I see it ultimately harming any progress that has been made in any social justice movement.  I have seen it play out the same way regardless of what the context is although my primary exposure to this whole thing is around trigger warnings and sexual violence since that's what was my entry point to the social justice movement.

Recently, Amy Poehler's TV show made a very tasteless and harmful joke about child sexual abuse (a link to the article is here) and many people, rightly, turned to social media to voice their frustration.  Now comedy is, and has been, a very touchy topic because apparently there are people out there who think that because we're supposed to laugh at this stuff that it should fall outside the realm of critical analysis.  Part of this, I would imagine, has to do with the fact that comedy is very closely tied to a very normal human need for laughter; there are a fair amount of examples out there of laughter being tied to positive overall mental health.  Moreover, who we find funny and what we laugh at tends to be unique to an individual so critical analysis of whatever it is we're laughing at can feel like a critical analysis of us as individuals.  With that said I'd like to bring in what Anita Sarkeesian has said, repeatedly: it is possible to enjoy a piece of media while still being critical of that same piece of media.  Also, if you find yourself getting defensive because a comedian, show, or piece of media is receiving criticism I'd ask that you check in with yourself and do a little self-exploration into where that is coming from.  After all, you're not the one receiving the criticism, the piece of media you consume is, so there's something else that's really bothering you and I would suggest it has something to do with your own privilege being challenged.

Getting back on track.

Amy Poehler has taken some heat for what happened on the show and I believe that criticism to be completely justified.  "Jokes" about child sexual abuse, sexual assault, or any sexual violence should not be something mainstream media employs as a tool to build character, create suspense, or raise the proverbial stakes in their stories.  Sexual violence, in general, is something that many people have experienced and seeing it trivialized in popular media can being triggering, traumatizing, and provoke victim blaming.  Sexual violence can be shown but a great deal of care and thought must be involved to ensure that what is being depicted is being done for clear and honest reasons, while also ensuring that what's depicted does not sensationalize or eroticize sexual violence.  From what I understand, the child sexual abuse comment in Poehler's show was meant as a way to communicate to the audience that the comic in the show is a particularly inept comic.

If the only way you can communicate that a fictional comic is "inept" is by having them make a "joke" about child sexual abuse then I don't believe you're a very good writer.  This goes for any depiction of sexual violence in the media as well, if you can't make a joke, develop a character, or move a story forward without employing instances of sexual violence I would suggest picking a different career.

Unfortunately, mainstream media loves this sort of thing because it can take legitimate criticism of a very harmful mistake by producers and use it to dismiss and belittle the criticism and it's source.  Amy Poehler has been anointed by mainstream media as a feminist icon, which is something they like to do, and like every other "leader" mainstream media has picked out for feminism they tend to evaluate the merits of feminism by this person and this person alone.  So long as their successful the narrative tends to ignore the feminist support or involvement and does so until this "leader" makes a mistake in some form or another.  Then one of two things tends to happen: they dismiss the leader entirely or they dismiss the criticism as being a sign of a movement being "too sensitive" and prone to "toxic infighting."

With the articles cited above, we're seeing the latter of the two in this case.

Mainstream media is happy to tow the social justice movement's line so long as it's not making anyone uncomfortable (like Emma Watson's UN address, for instance) but the moment some critical dialogue is needed mainstream media cuts bait and, ironically, overreacts.  A large aspect of the feminist movement, as well as any social justice movement (although it's hard to honestly separate them if we consider intersectionality), is accountability.  Accountability is key because it means that at any given time care is being taken to acknowledge privilege and take steps that are being motivated by an intention to dismantle systemic oppression.  Accountability isn't, however, a fun or comfortable thing; in fact, if comfort and fun is a factor then I'd argue that accountability isn't precisely being consciously involved.

Unfortunately for social justice movements, the nuances of accountability are not sexy and are hard to fit into short, punchy, "click-baity" headlines or quick buzzfeed-esque, pseudo-social consciousness raising articles that mainstream media rely on so heavily.  If they can't summarize it in two minutes they're not interested.  Moreover, if they can paint it as in-fighting then they can dismiss the movement and maintain the status quo in one fell swoop.  So, once again, we are seeing critics of Amy Poehler's show being written off as "over-sensitive" and the movements they represent being dismissed as childishly unfocused.

I've often wondered how certain things like how the feminist movement has carried this stigma of being entirely about "man hating" through the decades, well I would have to say that situations like this seem to offer, at least, a partial explanation.

I would encourage anyone who's seen articles on this situation to look a little deeper and read a little more about the criticism.  Mainstream media is lying to you and they are attempting to manipulate you, there's a much more important discussion we need to be having.

You're not edgy for being deliberately offensive and you're not oppressed for being called out either

Two things have sort of sparked this post:

1) An article on the Escapist extolling the virtues of the latest Doom trailer ended with an overly self-righteous cavalcade of word-smithery worthy of any soap-box: "Make exceptions. Make statements. Make what you dream about making, and do it unapologetically. Bring it on, DOOM."

2) An article on the Escapist by a video game reviewer that gleefully exclaims that it's fun to deliberately offend people because the people being offended aren't saying anything worthwhile anyways.

The fact that both of these are coming out of The Escapist, a video game site that I've generally appreciated and respected up until now, is particularly alarming but not all that damning, after all these people only write for them and their views don't necessarily represent the views of the entire organization.  I hope.

Anyway, while both authors have undoubtedly patted themselves on the back for their righteous defense of privileged creators and developers for their right to offend people-righteously defended the already defended against those evil, sensitive, emotional people who would have the audacity to not agree with material that was deliberately meant to offend-I want to address this frustratingly annoying stance that by publicly stating that a piece of media has problems people are being oversensitive and missing the point.

First, though, can we appreciate the irony of getting defensive when people are offended by something that was deliberately meant to offend.

Doom, the game and developers, were not trying to be subversive.  As the author of the article details, and I agree with him on this, Doom was never meant to be a sunshine and rainbows game; it was violent then, it's violent now, that's Doom.  But to hold it up as some righteous crusader for all that's good in video games, as some kind of subversive piece of art, is an embarrassing exaggeration of what Doom is.  I played Doom, hell I grew up on it, and there is a great deal of nostalgia I have for the franchise even though I'm not particularly inclined to play the latest iteration.  I'm not particularly inclined not because the violence has turned me off, but rather my tastes have changed and it, simply, doesn't interest me any more.  It's not my cup of tea, but it's not like I think they should stop making it the way they want to make it.  Want a game to be exceptionally violent? Go for it, but you must realize that not everyone is going to like it and you must realize that some of those people are going to, guess what, *through cupped hands* say that they don't like it.

Seriously, for all the claims being directed at social justice/PC people being "too sensitive" it sure seems like we have a case of the pot calling the kettle black here.

Doom's gameplay trailer was excessively violent, it was intended to be that way because that's what the game is and it's okay that people have pointed that out.  It's also okay to ask the question as to whether or not a game needs to be that violent.  I can assure you that if it were the case that excessive violence wasn't commonplace for video games, and that there were a plethora of other types of games out there, there would be less of an impulse to ask why there needs to be yet another extremely violent game like Doom.  The criticism is a product of the greater discussion in the gaming industry, not an attempt to censor the creators of that specific game.

Doom is not a subversive work of art, defiantly resisting an oppressive regime, because the majority of games are violent, but I seriously don't think the developers of the game had this in mind when they chose to show that trailer or create the game.  Doom can be Doom, but don't try and put it on this righteous pedestal because you don't like people asking for the industry to do better in terms of the variety of games it offers

Which brings me to my second point in this rant.

Being deliberately offensive is also not something that falls into the category of righteousness either.  Again, if you set out to be deliberately offensive then you can't seriously be surprised when people have some negative things to say about the thing you created to be deliberately offensive.  I can't believe we have to walk through this but people are not being over-sensitive when you deliberately set out to offend them, they're just reacting the way people do when someone has deliberately offended them.

In the wake of Charelston (since drafting this there's been another, Lafayette Louisiana) and a devastatingly long list of mass shootings we do not need a game that sensationalizes those types of events and turns them into entertainment; mainstream news outlets do enough of that as they give us wall-to-wall coverage with intermittent advertisements.  We do not need media that deliberately picks at open and healing wounds (real and societal) whose creators misuse "Freedom of Speech" rhetoric to defend their actions.  There are ways to create media that poignantly addresses violence, hatred, and oppression in our world and I would state that we need media like that if we're going to make any kind of change.

However, if you're going to incorporate a topic like mass shootings or sexual violence against women (Game of Thrones is referenced) you can't be careless in how you present it in your piece of media because there are people out there that have experienced what you're using.  That is the criticism that's routinely getting ignored in this discussion, that it's more about how the violence is being sensationalized and eroticized than the violence existing in the first place.  Game of Thrones deserves the criticism it's getting and the amount of fans choosing to opt out of the series because it carelessly used violence against women as a sensationalized plot point as well as choosing to be dismissive of critics.  "Hatred," the game (I use the 'game' term loosely), deserves to be called out because it sensationalizes a horrifying act that is happening in regular intervals in today's society.


Oh and if you're one of those people who is upset that people get mad at you for playing "devil's advocate" on serious social issues like violence against women, systemic racism, heterosexism, cissexism, or any other area of society that we need to be better, then I'll just leave you with this:

So much for #safestampede

So I seem to be following rather decent people on facebook as I had to find out through someone else that apparently there's a video being shared around that depicts a woman and two men apparently having sex.  Since it's surfaced many people have been gleefully sharing the video and/or slut-shaming the woman in the video relentlessly.

If you're one of those people, congratulations, you're the worst.

There's many, many different things wrong with how this situation is playing out.

First off, we have no idea whether or not consent was given for any of the people in the video and I don't seriously believe anyone in the video agreed to be filmed or for it to be shared to facebook.  So, again congratulations, if you've shared or slut-shamed the woman in the video you've shared a video of a sexual assault or shamed someone for experiencing a sexual assault.

Of course it is entirely possible that everyone in the video consented to the experience, although I still don't get the sense they would've consented to being filmed or having the video shared on facebook.  If it is, in fact, true that there was consent and you're one of those people who have shared the video or slut-shamed the woman in it, congratulations: you're still the worst.  Thinking less of a women because she engages in sex with two partners is textbook slut-shaming and says more about you than it does about her.  Putting women's sexuality on a pedestal, creating some ridiculous notions of purity/virginity, and shaming them if they deviate in any way from our expectations is one of the ways our society tells women that their bodies are not their own and their sexuality is not their own.

How come you're not targeting the men in the video?  Why are they allowed to participate in something like this freely without criticism while you direct all your shame towards the woman?  If it's because you think it's okay for men to behave in this way and not okay for women to behave in this way, well then you're sending the message to men that they are not responsible for their sexual behaviors and that they have much more leniency when it comes to their sexuality.

If you've shared this video or slut-shamed the woman you're demonstrating why we needed something like #safestampede in the first place.  Sexual harassment and/or sexual assault have been stampede staples for a long time (well technically they've been staples of our society in general but that's for another time) and part of the reason we've come to this point is deeply connected to how society holds men and women to very different standards when it comes to sex.  From "boys will be boys" when people are growing up to slut-shaming women when they're older, we've routinely sent the message to male-identified people that there is a great deal they can get away with and that even if they do step out of line they're going to not experience the same level of scrutiny.

Those men people who chose to sexually harass or assault others during stampede that we have in mind when we tweet #safestampede are men people who have likely grown up with certain sexist views normalized and they've likely not been challenged on those views when they've expressed them.  Sexual harassment occurs because men people believe that women are dressing for them and, because of this, they feel they have a right to then comment on her body and dress.  Slut-shaming this woman validates the idea that women's bodies and sexuality are up for public scrutiny while their own bodies and sexuality are not.  We needed #safestampede because we didn't hold men accountable for their behavior and we needed #safestampede because of how women's bodies and sexuality are policed.

But now? After having engaged in some communal slut-shaming? Well, it'll be hard to take that hashtag seriously...yay us!

Male body image and male privilege

Two articles in as many days have addressed the issue of male body image and part of me is intrigued while another part of me remains dubious.  I remain dubious because of what I've learned about the extent to which women's bodies are policed (just consider all the talk that's been had lately around dress codes in schools) as well as the timing of another article that has made it's way into the mainstream media detailing how an 8 year old girl was told to cover up at a pool.

The headline for the two news bites on male body image are: "Stop ridiculing small penises, says winner of subversive pageant" and "Adam Scott on the naked truth about male body image."  As a male-identified person who has not really measured up to certain male body image standards, I am interested to have a more extensive discussion on how male-identified people feel about their own bodies.  There's certainly some discussion that hasn't been had around this topic and I can tell you, from personal experience, that not having had this discussion has been cause for some frustration and shame.  However, I can't help but notice a difference in how this topic is being approached in these two articles to how body image is approached when were talking about femininity and body image.

It's only in recent months that the discussion around dress codes has taken steps into a more positive direction by focusing on how sexist dress codes actually are because they only ever apply to female-identified people; a quick google search will show that almost all school dress code policies are much more restrictive when it comes to attire that it's traditionally seen as feminine than it is when it comes to attire that's traditionally seen as masculine.  Moreover, the rational for dress codes often cites reasons that generally revolve on "being distracting to male students," which fits into the "boys will be boys" standard that a patriarchal society holds. The assumption is made that the behaviors of male-identified people is not something that can, or should, be looked at, so the responsibility falls to female-identified people to control and manage the behavior of male-identified people.

It's a standard that is blindingly sexist but it has become so normalized that it's difficult to have a discussion around it without falling into patriarchal patterns that invoke rigid, traditional gender stereotypes.  Historically, before the efforts of Feminist activists in this discussion were recognized by mainstream media, the discussion around dress code tended to involve depressingly "balanced" discussion as media folks tried to dismiss the camp that questioned dress codes without looking like they were being dismissive.  It is common practice for the privileged to pit the oppressed group against a voice of the oppressive group and paint the issue as essentially subjective which allows the people of the status quo to dismiss the discussion entirely; when presented with a debate on an issue that has the potential to affect the status quo, people are more inclined to side with the voice maintaining the status quo if they are, or have been, beneficiaries of it.

What we have with these two articles discussing male body image issues, is we have a privileged group finding out, probably for the first time, that there's an issue with how male-identified people view their own bodies.  The winner of the small penis pageant hints at a positive train of thought, although it's not further explored, when he speculates that the reason a woman came up with the idea for the pageant was because women "probably" (his words) have had to think more about body image in their lives.  The narrative is the same in the other article that's an interview with Adam Scott who cites his own personal history with not feeling comfortable with his own body growing up.  There is an awareness that something is wrong and that men do feel insecure about their own bodies, but it doesn't go down the road of discussing why that is and only really stops at "stop making us feel insecure."  These two articles feel more like they're placating the male ego and expressing an element of "me-too-ism" when it comes to the ever growing discussion feminists have been having around how women's bodies are policed.

I should state outright that my issue isn't with the two articles themselves, more so in consideration with the greater context of how mainstream media approaches body image issues these days.  It's hard to be enthusiastic about a topic like male body image, that does need to be discussed in greater depth, when the medium that it's happening in is still running articles that suggest that, for instance, an 8 year old girl should cover up because her body has the potential to trigger arousal in someone else.  The only people to bring up the idea that maybe boys should wear tops as well was the parents of the girl when they suggested that the rule of having to wear tops be applied to children of all genders.

The thing that I'm seeing here is that there's a willingness to talk about the harms of shaming the bodies of male identified people, but an unwillingness to talk about the harm that comes from telling an 8 year old girl she has to cover her body up.  Again, the discussions on male body image didn't invoke a debate between dissenting and assenting voices, while the article discussing the sexualization of a young girl did invoke voices from each camp.  I don't want to suggest that there was any ill intent on behalf of the programmers or editors of the respective publications, I would imagine the best of intentions behind the decisions to run the segments the way they were run.  However, I can't ignore the presence and timing of each of these articles as mainstream media, like everything else, doesn't exist in a vacuum and these articles are evidence of the gendered way in which mainstream media talks about body image.

A further issue I see with how the articles on the Q were carried out revolves around, how to put this, the precedent or context that exists for cis-male body image policing versus cis-female body image policing.  While there would be a particular standard for cis-male people that one could point to, I would argue that there's a lot less active policing going on for cis-male bodies than there is for cis-female bodies.  A cis-male child may feel shame for his body because he has not been able to achieve a certain athletic standard or doesn't look like a cis-male character/celebrity he admires, but he is not being conditioned to monitor his body to the same degree cis-female children are taught to do.  It is not difficult to find examples of young cis-girls feeling pressure to look a certain way very early on in their lives.

Adam Scott is actually proof that cis-males have more than just one type of body to look to as an ideal; there are actually a long list of other cis-male celebrities you could look at (Jack Black, Kevin James, Seth Rogan, Nick Offerman, or Aziz Ansari) who aren't known for having athletic bodies.  Moreover, while there is certainly a celebration of a certain type of athletic cis-male body, cis-men do not need to fit some narrow definition of physical attractiveness to be celebrated.  The story is much different for cis-women.  From politicians, to athletes, to celebrities cis-women's perceived attractiveness is always up for discussion and its regularly used to shame or dismiss accomplishments.

I am all for expanding the discussion on male body image, but any discussion that happens must occur with an awareness of the male privilege that exists around body image

Self-defense, sexual assault, and victim blaming

I've only been working in the sexual violence sector for a short time and even I'm a bit frustrated with how easy it is for traditional sexual assault prevention techniques to gain traction and acceptance in our society, so I can only imagine how frustrating it is for feminists who have been having this discussion for decades might feel.

I don't know how many times I've said this but I'll say it again: there is absolutely nothing wrong with doing things that give a person a sense of safety and give them enough peace of mind to move through the world comfortably. This is not about criticizing those techniques that do give someone a sense of safety nor is this about dismissing the people, themselves, who engage in these techniques.

Having said that, working in the sexual violence sector as an educator has allowed me to learn and understand the pitfalls of traditional sexual assault prevention techniques, as feminists working in this sector have been thinking about them and talking about them in great detail for decades.  There is the greater philosophical, societal issue of the unfairness of putting the onus on female-identified people to prevent experiencing assault because society has deemed male-identified people as not responsible for their actions under the "boys will be boys" clause.  There is the in-practice issue of victim blaming that comes up when someone does experience an assault and begins to think it was their own fault because they didn't do one thing on the impractically long list of things female-identified people have been told they need to do to keep themselves safe.  And there is the issue of practicality in that most "prevention" techniques only apply to very specific situations that mostly involve strangers in dark alleys, whereas the more common sexual assault happens where the person choosing to assault knows the person they're assaulting to some degree (friend, coworker, partner, etc).

For the record, when I say "victim blaming" I am referring to the more subtle ways in which society makes a person who experienced abuse feel like they were partly, or totally, responsible for the assault they experienced.  This is done not in overt "this was your fault" finger wagging kinds of ways, but by unthinkingly questioning the behavior of the person who experienced the assault: "are you sure it was assault?" "what were you wearing?" "did you lead him on?" "you're a guy though, don't all guys want sex?" Questions imply judgement and sexual assault is one of the only crimes where society feels justified in questioning the person who experienced the crime and determining to which degree they participated in the crime they experienced.  This is something we don't do for people who are victims of drunk driving, murder, theft, physical assault, identity fraud, or whatever other crime you can think of.

We engage in victim blaming subconsciously because it is a way of distancing ourselves from the assault in that if we can point to what the person who experienced the assault did wrong, then we can make sure we don't experience assault by not making the same mistake they did.  It's understandable because the alternative means accepting that sexual assault is something that we might experience, and that's certainly a scary thought, but this practice ultimately makes it a more hostile and difficult environment for people who have already experienced sexual assault.  Moreover, it creates an environment where the people who actually have control over whether or not an assault takes place, the people who chose to commit it, are not held accountable for their actions.

These are not new insights.  Feminists identified these a long while ago and have been campaigning for years to try to get this points across to society at large in order to push sexual assault into the same category as drunk driving; a category where there is a social consensus that regardless of how sympathetic we might be with the person who committed the crime, we still hold them fully accountable for the decision they made and the harm they caused.

So when you see criticism being directed at the recent study that came out of the University of Windsor and made it's rounds of various mainstream media sites, know that all that I've discussed above is motivating that criticism.  Know that the criticism is coming from a place of this study being nothing new and know that it is an indication of a growing community of people, who want to take this discussion of reducing sexual assault into a more effective realm of holding those who choose to do it accountable.

What is further motivating the criticism of this study and it's quick, broad acceptance, is that there are way too many unanswered questions; there are any number of reasons one could cite to account for the alleged reduction in sexual assaults.  For my part I can't help but think that the more likely reason there is such difference between those who took the training and those who didn't, is that those who took the training and still experienced an assault would be far less likely to report their assault because there is a much higher likelihood that their behavior will be questioned because they took the training:

"Why didn't you use your training?"

"What was it about the training that wasn't effective?"

"Didn't you know what to look out for?"

Moreover, those who took the training and still experienced an assault are likely asking themselves those questions already having grown up in a society that has normalized "prevention" techniques for female-identified people.

Again, I get the appeal.  Those numbers are certainly attractive.  It would be easy to just accept the result of this study, implement the training, and continue on with our lives.  Unfortunately, this would be a lateral move in the efforts to reduce the number of sexual assaults in our society as this kind of thing gets us no closer to holding the people who choose to assault accountable, which is where we need to go in order to really see some change.

SCOTUS and Normalized Violence Against Women

"Because Eminem said it at a concert where people are going to be entertained..."

This reasoning just makes my skin crawl.

The Supreme Court decided to not to convict a man who posted threatening lyrics from singer Eminem on his facebook because they felt the standard to convict was too low, which gives us yet another example of how our society normalizes violence against women.  People have been critical of Eminem and his views about women for many years now and for good reason; the fact that he would write such violent songs about women and the fact that millions of fans would buy the albums already speaks volumes about how normalized violence against women is in our society.

But now, in this case, because some people find lyrics describing violence against women entertaining, the Supreme Court feels that they cannot considered threats and should be protected under Free Speech regulations.  While the man in question may not have said, explicitly, that the lyrics were in reference to his partner, the fact that he would post them publicly in the context of just having split up is troubling.

At least, it should be...

It's troubling because SCOTUS's invokes 'context' as a way to defend the decision not to convict when it's the context of where and when the man is using the lyric that they should be looking at.  The most dangerous time for women experiencing domestic violence is attempting to leave or immediately after having left the relationship, so for this man to be posting lyrics like this publicly has to, or should, be concerning.

Let me put it another way.

If a friend was posting lyrics that were about suicide, would we ignore them because songs are entertainment and there's no subtext to why someone would post lyrics like that publicly?

Music can be a powerful tool for emotional catharsis and there are a lot of feelings that people can have that can be addressed through listening to certain songs.  We all have songs in our music collection that are for very specific times in our lives when there's more negative thoughts going on than normal and we need a bit of extra help.  Internally identifying, validating, and naming those feelings through music can be a healthy way of addressing them.  But, if we start publicizing certain things it changes the context of the situation.  Again, if we consider the situation where someone is posting media that talks about suicide we'd start to get concerned about whomever was posting the material.

Whenever we make something public, part of our motivation is seeking validation for whatever it is that we're sharing; we're testing the waters to see how people feel or react to something that we think is important.  It can be normal things, like vacation photos, or it can be harmful things, like lyrics containing violence against women.  Now, not everyone who posts something alarming on facebook is guaranteed to act on them in every instance, but it should raise some red flags if we know that there's more to the story in terms of who is posting and it should tell us that there's something that needs to be addressed.

Sadly, though, this is a kind of chicken-and-egg example of normalized violence against women; if violence against women is so normalized that it can be considered entertainment, then it shouldn't surprise anyone that SCOTUS wouldn't identify it as threatening.

Linkage:

http://www.cnn.com/2015/06/01/politics/supreme-court-elonis-facebook-ruling/index.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/06/01/supreme-court-facebook-threat_n_7470634.html