"Hostile environment" is a very vague term. A lot of cons have created dangerously broad speech restrictions. I've followed filk cons more closely than Worldcons, so I hope it's OK if I cite a couple of examples from them.
FilKONtario at one time defined harassment to mean "any objectionable act, comment, or display that demeans, belittles, or causes personal humiliation or embarrassment." That could cover just about any negative statement about anything. The link I had is broken, and I can't find a policy in a quick glance, so that may no longer be applicable. If so, it could indicate improvement in the works.
The policy for Con2bil8 had this: "If anyone makes you feel uncomfortable, discriminates against you, or exhibits behaviour and/or language which you find offensive towards either yourself or anyone else, we, as a committee, would like you to understand that we will not find it acceptable, and will take immediate action, up to, and including, expulsion from Convention areas."
That defines objectionable behavior purely by personal reaction to it. Effectively, it gives everyone a veto on everything. The accused has no possible defense, since it's the listener's reaction that defines the offense.
Of course, such policies can't be strictly enforced without destroying the convention. They have to be applied selectively. With such broad wording, they create a hostile environment to the extent that people want to express views that differ from the fannish mainstream.
Distinguishing between "intent to upset people" and "intent to socialize and engage in fanac" is impossible to do in any fair way. Some views are upsetting to some people. Does expressing those views, knowing that others will complain, make them unacceptable as such? If so, some viewpoints are banned.
I'm very unhappy with the recent tendency in fandom to turn cons into "safe spaces" where people don't have to hear anything they don't like. It's contrary to the spirit of open discussion that was just recently characteristic of fandom.
no subject
FilKONtario at one time defined harassment to mean "any objectionable act, comment, or display that demeans, belittles, or causes personal humiliation or embarrassment." That could cover just about any negative statement about anything. The link I had is broken, and I can't find a policy in a quick glance, so that may no longer be applicable. If so, it could indicate improvement in the works.
The policy for Con2bil8 had this: "If anyone makes you feel uncomfortable, discriminates against you, or exhibits behaviour and/or language which you find offensive towards either yourself or anyone else, we, as a committee, would like you to understand that we will not find it acceptable, and will take immediate action, up to, and including, expulsion from Convention areas."
That defines objectionable behavior purely by personal reaction to it. Effectively, it gives everyone a veto on everything. The accused has no possible defense, since it's the listener's reaction that defines the offense.
Of course, such policies can't be strictly enforced without destroying the convention. They have to be applied selectively. With such broad wording, they create a hostile environment to the extent that people want to express views that differ from the fannish mainstream.
Distinguishing between "intent to upset people" and "intent to socialize and engage in fanac" is impossible to do in any fair way. Some views are upsetting to some people. Does expressing those views, knowing that others will complain, make them unacceptable as such? If so, some viewpoints are banned.
I'm very unhappy with the recent tendency in fandom to turn cons into "safe spaces" where people don't have to hear anything they don't like. It's contrary to the spirit of open discussion that was just recently characteristic of fandom.