community-based, non-corporate, participatory media
Update: Rich Mackin @ Project 1877
by Branden Dudek
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 2:34 AM
info@1877.org 412-363-1877 4805 Penn Ave
We will be having another emergency consensus meeting at Project 1877. The meeting is at 2pm, Tuesday, April 1st.
The following email was sent to me by a friend urging an emergency meeting about the Rich Mackin show on Wednesday, April 2nd at 2pm. Because so many people are rising up to show support against this show we have decided to call a meeting to decide whether or not to continue with the show. We will also be planning alternative events for that evening if the consensus is to ban him from our space. Please come so that we can peacefully resolve this issue.
Thank you,
Branden Dudek
===========================
I feel that some things have changed drastically in the Rich Mackin situation over the weekend and I want to call another meeting to rediscuss our decision to let him speak.
At least five women have come out publicly to accuse Rich of sexual assault, including rape. More women are coming forward every day. Several of these women have created a 'zine about their experiences with Rich and have drafted a letter adressed to spaces hosting his tour asking communities to not allow him to speak as an act of solidarity with the survivors of his attacks. These women have confronted Rich and asked him to cancel his tour and to take immediate action to deal with his serious problem. Rich has not honored this.
It seems clear to me that Rich is a real threat to women. The women that he has abused have not only been strong enough to speak out about it, but are now planning to follow his tour and to block him from entering spaces where he is sceduled to speak. I am in full support of these survivors, and if our space does not officially cancel Rich's talk, I will support and help them in physically keeping him out of 1877. I hope that neither I nor they have to resort to this, and I hope that our community can join as a whole to support these women. I feel that this is no longer an issue of free speach and censorship, but an issue of safety for every community that Rich effects. As much as I don't want to shun him, I feel that supporting the survivors of his attacks is much more important.
-elina
Too Awful To Be Directly Written About?
by Prodigal Yunzer
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 11:18 AM
Sounds like this guy broke up with someone who has it in for him. Probably he took advantage of all the "free love" you hippies talk about, then turned some down from the wrong sister. Otherwise, why not write the actual charges? Lets see the sordid truth in print, so RICH can defend himself. Maybe even sue for libel.
Support Rich Mackin's Civil and COnstitutional RIghts
by Libertarian Avenger
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 11:23 AM
Even more dangerous are your actions in accusing this guy without any evidence. THat's right, I said WITHOUT ANY EVIDENCE. If he is a rapist then he should be brought to trial for his actions. And he should not be allowed to flee the jurisdiction of his crimes. HOWEVER, as I read his LJ blog it seems that the only accusations that are made against him are that he "makes women feel uncomfortable". GET OVER IT GIRLIES !!! Hell having to watch tampon commercials in a crowded bar makes me uncomfortable, but do I get to sue the makers of Light Days. No. And you know why? Because making me uncomfortable is not a crime. You idiots make the mildest cases of bad manners into a federal crime and you end up emasculating (or should I say efemanating) the law and draw attention away from the real crimes. So maybe the guy wrote some off-color poetry, but hey Jesse Jackson once called New York CIty "Hymietown". Now that is racist, but where were you all? Are you boycotting Jesse's speeches? I would guess not. But you have someone saying that he told racist and transphobic (whatever the hell that is) jokes or stories. Since when is that kind of speech a crime. Hell, since when is any speech short of yelling fire in a crowded theater when there ain't no fire a crime? I say let the guy come to Pittsburgh, let him say whatever he wants (since I want everyone to have that right), and if he raped anybody then let them file a complaint with the Beantown authorities and prosecute the guy. Until then, I think the guy might want to think about suing you and indymedia for distributing slanderous material about him. I have to believe that if there really are 25 women (excuse me, wimmin) with even more coming out of the shadows daily to accuse this guy of the despicable acts that you say he committed, then the Boston police should have him in a cage pretty quickly.
Otherwise, I think you all should stop with these remarks unless you want him suing you. Until I see an indictment against this guy, or anyone else accused of a crime, then leave him alone. You haven't been able to produce anything that actually supports these allegations you are making. HELL, there was more credible evidence against Bill CLinton for being a sexual predator than you have offered against RIch Mackin. It is you people that offend me, conjuring up some sort of neo-modern post-feminist Salem witch hunt.
If 1877 breaches their contract with Rich then they better be prepared to pay him anyway, and they better be prepared to answer the question as to why they breached the agreement. And if it is because of the unsupported slanderous statements on this site, then indymedia better be prepared to answer for their participation in this violation of Mr. Mackin's rights.
you seem to be forgetting
by jwg
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 11:40 AM
that he has admitted to a lot of his actions, and said himself that he realises that his actions toward women are unhealthy and incorrect
.
by .
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 11:44 AM
that he has admitted to a lot of his actions
Where has he admitted anything specific? In his LJ he said he's made mistakes, but nothing even close to the rape/sexual assault accusations this nameless/faceless mob is persecuting him with.
Please, could someone bring a modicum of logic and reason to this? Who are these women? What are they accusing him of? When did this things happen? What does Rich have to say about these women? Judging from his LJ entries not even he knows what exactly these accusations are about, only that someone who has a longstanding hatred for him seems to be fueling this lynch mob. If you really want to seem credible bring some accountability to this and state the facts. Who, what, when, etc. Right now it's just a large group of people in one scene coming to another scene to spread the drama.
caution
by etta
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 11:55 AM
hey women and awesome people in pittsburgh,
just a reminder not to let these anonymous
posters piss you off too bad. cuz that's what they
are trying to do. if they are really concerned
they will find us and talk to us in person
love
ettar
clarification
by jwg
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 11:56 AM
I was not trying to jump on the accusatory bandwagon. I was stating what I know. I would like more facts from both sides in this discussion.
JWG - So What
by Libertarian Avenger
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 11:59 AM
SO what if he admitted that his actions are "unhealthy" that does not equate to an admission of a heinous crime. Last time I heard, engaging in "unhealthy" actions is not actionable, especially when the "unhealthy" activity is only speech. I seem to hear a lot of people out there saying that engaging in the type of speech that indymedia promotes with respect to the war is itself also "unhealthy." So does that make it criminal. We had all better hope not.
So kiddies, come on out of your little shells and accept the fact that there is a big world out there and not everyone thinks like you do and not everyone's alternative thoughts or statements are or should be illegal. However, your statements and your mob mentality towards this guy could very well be actionable (not illegal, but actionable. There is a difference. Ask you ACLU pals who can clarify.).
Does a statemetn to the effect that women are the property of their male family members and husbands offend you or make you uncomfortable? It should. But it isn't illegal. Does it offend you that that statemetn may find its way into religious dogma? It shoudl. But it does not make that religion any less valid or protected as a religion. For if it did, then we shoudl arrrest everyone that subscribes to that philosophy and bar them from speaking in any public forum.
Rich Mackin Too Damn Sexy?
by Prodigal Yunzer
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 12:05 PM
I think Rich Mackin broke some poor wymn's heart, and probably caused her to abandon her veganism, commit crimes against meat in her despondency, and seek ways to criminalize his caddish behavior. Or he could be Mao reincarnated. Mao liked the ladies after all, and who among us could criticize the Revered Leader for his tiny faults?
Rich Mackin Is TOOOOOO Sexy
by Ally Katz
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 12:14 PM
furryfriend@hotmail.com
Prodigal is way too funny. Hey, I would be all with you if I coudl see something more than everyone projecting their own experiences with sexual assualt (or caddish behavior) on this guy Rich Mackin. But I really think, etta, that you have to admit that no one is trying to piss anyone off. All peopel are saying is that you owe some fairness to all sides and you must show some restraint from this All Men Are Rapists nonsense that is flying around here. Sorry etta its is really not okay to ask ignorant questions presented as statements of fact while you try to work out your shit at the expense fo someone else's shit (or legal rights). So cool your heels and act reasopnably and not like you are possessed by some uncontrollable emotional imbalance. Give me the hard facts on this guy actually having done the shit you talk about and I will be the first one down there to kick him in the balls.
libertarian avenger
by jwg
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 12:16 PM
yes, those statements bother me, and If I was organising a new community space and you were set to preform, I would seriouly look into what you have said to decide wether I would want my space associated with your views.
I would not want you arrested for saying those things, but I'm not going to pay you to come to my space and alienate a lot of people.
again, I'm not accusing him of anything, we are not discussiong his guilt or innocence, we are discussing wether Project 1877 want to be associated with him. It's down to the organisers of the space and what they believe public perception of their new space will be for hosting him.
Truth needs to be told, and no one is telling it.
JWG Get a Spine
by Libertarian Avenger
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 12:42 PM
JWG it is nto a matter of deciding not to allow Rich into this space. He ahs already been allowed. It is a matter of an ignorant mob denying him his rights under a valid agreement to perform. Please keep in mind that much of what you say at the peace rallies and on this site could be excluded a public soap box under your standards. You guys are on VERY DANGEROUS GROUND here.
not true
by jwg
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 12:49 PM
actually the 1877 organisers are meeting in about anhour to discuss wether or not to let mr. mackin perform. so he has not been allowed.
he has been cancelled on another occasion because of this, and he supported the centre's right to do so. He said he understands that if his presence makes so many people uncomfortable, it would be detremental to the rest of the performance and he should be disallowed from appearing.
free association
by alexander berkman
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 1:19 PM
judging by the use of consensus decision making, i think it's fair to say that the venue is run as an anarchist collective. one of the primary principles is free association, and the collective is merely taking its option of not associating.
negative posts
by deadrockstar
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 1:47 PM
What's the point of posting all this negative name-calling nonsense? In the future, "Libertarian Avenger", please read some of the stories on this site (and others) to get some background on the issue before jumping in with both guns blazing. Thanks, jwg and others for your helpful responses. Keep it positive, y'all. Peace,
Rich Macklin & Misogyny
by Mimi Yahn
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 2:31 PM
I've just learned about this issue after logging onto this website for the first time so I could check out the program for tonight's grand opening.
I'm not surprised about this controversy or its outcome. As a long-time political activist AND feminist, one of the first things I noticed about Pittsburgh when I moved here was how misogynist this town is. In fact, after having lived in and traveled to many, many cities in the U.S., I'd have to say this is, hands down, the most misogynist city I've ever experienced--and that includes cities of the Deep South!
Women are ALWAYS placed in a position of having to prove their worth, their cause, their dignity, their right to the same dignity & rights as men, and their right NOT to be physically assaulted, and they usually lose because ALL other freedoms are considered more sacred than women's rights, including "freedom" from censorship, freedom of speech and, of course, the individual liberties of the men who assault women.
The final decision to invite a violent misogynist to perform at a space purporting to support justice and equal rights refers to a lack of "evidence," while many of the posts question the intent and/or experiences of the women he assaulted.
Get real. That's like the Pittsburgh cops claiming the people they pepper-gassed or slammed into the wall are just a bunch of cop haters looking for an excuse to make the cops get tough with them. Or claiming that their bruises were self-inflicted. Like any of those women are doing this just for the hell of it.
Would you have the same attitude and the same contemptuous scepticism if a half-dozen Asians or African-Americans came forward to say he'd assaulted them? Would censorship even be an issue then?
Freedom of speech should never be confused with the freedom to oppress.
The real fact is, these women are heroines who are turning their lives upside down to come forward, and in so doing, have inspired other women to come forward and lift the veil of silence that's been imposed on us by all the men who jeer at us every time we DO try to talk about being raped or beaten. And the decision by Project 1877 is a slap in the face to women who stand up for their rights; it's just another version of being told to shut up or quit whining or of being simply disappeared from the political and social landscape.
But the sad fact is, the "progressive" movement in Pittsburgh still dismisses women and considers them to be lesser than men, still thinks that our equal rights are separate and secondary to "everyone else" (i.e., men), and still treats women with contempt.
Do you seriously think this misogynist would be allowed anywhere near the Project 1877 House if he'd been accused of calling blacks by the "n" word?
Misogyny is the last refuge for cowards, half-wits and hate-mongers.
.
by .
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 3:10 PM
Freedom of speech should never be confused with the freedom to oppress.
Yes, I completely agree with you. Which is why this large group of people using their freedom of speech to oppress someone is funny.
As others have said I would like to see REAL NAMES or anything else that will back up these claims that Rich is a rapist. If we won't believe people were throwing batteries on M30 without demanding to see more proof why should we suddenly take the anonymous word of some random people from Boston?
Come on people, this guy has never been charged with anything and has a right not only to speak but to be free to engage in a "pursuit of hapiness." This raging mob of torchcarrying radicals has offerred NO PROOF! Not one of these women has ever come forward until now and still won't give their names! We don't even know when these events supposedly occurred! Yes, it is wrong to disbelieve a victim of sexual assault, but do you honestly think no one has ever "cried rape"? I know 3 girls who have, and I know 6 guys who had to deal with it. One of them killed himself just 2 weeks before the police found out the "victim" was over 2000 miles away when she claims she was raped by him. I'm not saying any of these women are lying, but when I know none of their names or even any of their claims I can see no reason why Rich Mackin should not be allowed to speak.
As for your attacks on Pittsburgh I can't really comment. Although I will say I've noticed a distinct trend of people coming here from very pretentious areas (Boston, DC) and pronouncing judgement on this town before even giving it a chance. I don't see any misogyny in pittsburgh, or at least no more than I've seen in NY, New Orleans, DC, Cleveland, Detroit, Boston, Philly, or Baltimore. I'm curious as to why you think Pittsburgh is so bad. My guess is it isn't, but you seem pretty militant and hateful so you lash out at whatever is easiest.
this is my home
by jwg
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 3:21 PM
and even I know that this towns tendency toward sexism, racism, classism, etc. is pretty bad. I'm not sure what to do about it either, but it breaks my heart to see this city continue down the path that it's on.
I for one, try everything I can to not contribute to any of it. I see it everyday, and in situations where appropriate, i talk to people about their racism, sexism, etc. I don't 'get preachy' but if it's someone I know and feel comfortable talking to, I will point out these occurances.
We're making minor steps, but mostly this town has lot's of problems that people choose to ignore.
that being said.
no one is tryng to oppress Mr. Mackin, most people want to have a discussion with him. The decision to not host someone that makes most of your group uncomfortable at your groups space is not oppression.
if you had invited someone to dinner and found out later that they might be a killer, and your kids were scared of him, you would probably cancel the invitation.
Again Mr. Mackin has not been cancelled as of yet, but it is the organisers right to uninvite someone that the organisers are uncomfortable hosting.
Miss Ogyny, We love Yunz
by Prodigal Yunzer
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 5:51 PM
Being a testosterone governed atrocity waiting to happen, it is difficult to clear my mind enough to operate on the elevated level of our dear sister, try as I might. Despite my urges to browse the dark sites of the internet, I will bear down in an attempt to clarify my thoughts.
The lack of male genitalia does not confer an accuser with automatic credibility. One's race also does not confer any credentials over and above those of another's race to credibly accuse someone of a crime, thought variety or other.
Imagine if the judges held every protester in jail without bond who had been previously ARRESTED? Would you stand for that? Hey, at least three different police accused this person of a crime, so this person must be somehow offensive. That would be untenable to you, of course. You would insist that a mere arrest would never rise to the level of a CONVICTION, right?
Well, same thing goes for this sort of thing. Our community, warts and all, is not run by a secret invisible covey of anti-power brokers, who can ruin a person's reputation with innuendo. Not yet anyway. I know this sort of thing is done all the time in more progressive burgs. Gaia help us if we follow suit.
Rich Mackin show is CANCELLED (1877's statement)
by emma
Tuesday, Apr. 01, 2003 at 6:47 PM
info@1877.org
http://indypgh.org/news/2003/04/4564.php
here's 1877's official statement on cancelling the performance and not allowing Rich Mackin to perform in 1877.
identity politics
by matt
Wednesday, Apr. 02, 2003 at 5:15 PM
no one's specifically saying that rape is only a male to female issue.
![[masthead]](/images/masthead_140.png)