The Other McCain

"One should either write ruthlessly what one believes to be the truth, or else shut up." — Arthur Koestler

‘Doxxing’ and Secondary Boycotts

Posted on | June 5, 2018 | 1 Comment

One of the favorite harassment tactics of the Left is a variation on an illegal labor-union tactic known as a secondary boycott — “a boycott of an employer with which a union does not have a dispute that is intended to induce the employer to cease doing business with another employer with which the union does have a dispute.” This tactic is outlawed under the National Labor Relations Act, but the Left uses it habitually in its efforts to silence opposition. An obvious contemporary example is the so-called “BDS” (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement against Israel, which promotes protests against any person or organization that is associated with support for Israel, however indirectly. Tales of BDS harassment against Jewish students on American university campuses are an alarming testimony to how the “secondary boycott” principle makes targets of innocent people. A protest movement against the policies of the Israeli government ends up promoting hatred of American Jews who bear no responsibility for those policies. Hate must have a focus, a demonized human face as a symbol of the scapegoated enemy, and the soi-disant “progressive” Left is always seeking such targets.

If you’ve ever seen an enraged anarchist mob at close range — as I did when the “Occupy” scum tried to storm the 2011 Tea Party Summit — you realize how dangerously destructive these people can be. “Occupy” organizers had targeted that event because the hated Koch brothers were believed to be in attendance. A handful of innocent people, including journalists who were just there to cover the event, found ourselves trapped in the middle of a chanting mob trying to break down the doors while police inside held them back. What had we done (or what had the cops done) to deserve being caught up in this madness? The safety of the Koch brothers was not seriously imperiled, but the relentless demonization of them by left-wing propagandists had incited these protesters to a frenzy of hatred that was frightful to witness.

Bethany Mandel reports:

There’s a disturbing new beat of journalism emerging: technology reporters using their time and resources to expose the identities of those who choose to use the Internet anonymously. . . .
Huffington Post published an article [May 31] naming a prolific Twitter user who goes by the handle @AmyMek. They couldn’t hide the glee they took in exposing her, which smells more like score-settling than journalism, with the subheadline reading: “@AmyMek anonymously spread hate online for years. She can’t hide anymore.” . . .
There is any number of reasons why someone may choose to write anonymously, and while one could argue @AmyMek chose to turn herself into a public figure, it’s a frightening precedent.
Where Huffington Post absolutely crossed the line, however, was publishing the names of her family members who had no involvement in her online life or activism. This doxxing of her family led to their being forced to repudiate her or risk their businesses to the online mob . . .
It’s not just Huffington Post doxxing the family members of those they don’t like. Before she failed up, er, moved on to The Atlantic, Taylor Lorenz decided to expose the identities of conservative Pamela Geller’s daughters, who had (past tense) a successful Instagram-based career.

You see the purpose here is like the “secondary boycott.” It is no longer enough for the biased media to smear conservatives by labeling them “racists,” “homophobes,” etc. Now the Left wants to identify their family members, to subject their relatives to terroristic intimidation, thus to socially isolate the targeted enemy. Remember that this is being done by professional journalists employed at publications like Huffington Post and The Atlantic, and keep this in mind the next time you see a liberal complain about “harassment” from their critics. Three years ago, Kurt Schlichter warned, “Liberals May Regret Their New Rules,” and those who don’t regret the new rules yet perhaps soon will.

(Hat-tip: Ed Driscoll at Instapundit.)