BlogHer - The Matter of Kathy Sierra - Comments

Sorry, one last

shelleyp — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 10:54:30 -0500

Someone in Kathy Sierra's post wrote the following:

"I'm all for human rights and freedom, but with responsibility should be required to exercise those rights. Freedom of speech means being allowed to say what you want when you want. However, that freedom should only be granted when that person is responsible enough not to abuse it which is what has clearly happened here. Laws are required that enable the location of each internet user when required so that that person can be made to take responsibility for their words and actions no matter who or where they are (of course precautions would also be needed to prevent abuse of such a system)."

People who are so quick to give away rights for illusory safety almost move me to expressions of violence. Oh of course we need a system where this won't be abused. Ah huh. Sure.

Such two-dimensional thinking. You know, I find that offensive. It's wasted my time. Wasting my time, is offensive to me.

As for that interview, one thing people forget

shelleyp — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:56:42 -0500

When people talk about why a person would get such responses when they write such innocuous things in their weblogs is that this is an interactive environment--not all things a person writes are in their weblogs. Not all things they publish stay in their weblog.

Dave Winer had a pretty horrid habit of writing the most outrageous things about people, and then deleting such an hour later. He stopped doing that when feeds started getting persisted.

"In her interview with

shelleyp — Sat, 31 Mar 2007 08:45:53 -0500

"In her interview with KGO-TV, Kathy Sierra implied there are more facts to this case than we know."

Well, perhaps they'll come out with her interview with CNN. We cannot comment upon facts not evident. But, people should be careful of taking such to a court of public opinion, especially when others are accused. I am again reminded of Joe McCarthy, and his grocery shopping list and telling the press, "I have names..."

Threats are not legal, period. But that's credible threats. A person saying, "You make me so mad sometimes I want to slap you", is not in the same league as, "I am going to find your home. I am going to come there at night and kill you and your children." But both are threats of violence -- which is more credible.

The former should, of course not, be turned over to the police. Shouldn't be used to shame a person either. The latter, though, run don't walk to your police regardless of who and where the person is. And don't talk about it either until the police have resolved the issue.

But there's two parts to this story: you can't accuse people without facts. You can't talk about death threats in one breath and then mention four people's names in the next and say how they inspired such. That is just as wrong, because both are meant to silence; both are meant to intimidate; both are meant to cause harm.

As for 'worst' threats, that does matter: one is credible, another may not be; one the police may pursue, the other not. Makes all the difference in the world.

Malicious words causing harm? I can say the most heinous things about you, but if they're my opinion and expressed as such, there is no law broken. I may lose credibility for doing such; I may disappoint people or even disgust people for doing such, but there is no law against it.

It's important to separate out the legal aspects of these situations from those that are social. And then in a multi-cultural, international environment, you tell me how to define, "Giving offense". Nordette, you show your face -- to a Saudi Arabian, that's giving offense. That Saudi Arabian feeling offense, in turn, would most likely be offensive to you.

"I don't think strong bloggers will be left deciding whether or not they want to publish in the public arena. What they'll be left with is deciding which battles to fight, who's truly threatening them in a way that makes filing charges prudent. A powerful deterrent to those who harass others is the knowledge that anyone they harass may decide to meet them in court. Harassment culprits hide behind supposed anonymity, but in reality the Net does not automatically give the anonymity some people assume it does, ace hackers excluded. (We just had an arrest here of someone who thought she was being clever making malicious posts from a local library.)"

Now in that we agree--anonymity is virtually useless on the web. That's one we should shout from the rooftops.

After all, there's a Chinese reporter in prison for ten years who can attest to that.

Can't forget what you don't know

Nordette — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 14:26:51 -0500

In her interview with KGO-TV, Kathy Sierra implied there are more facts to this case than we know.

I don't think I said anything to suggest Ronni doesn't have valid points or that Kathy Sierra is absolutely right in her handling of the "death threats." I cited some situations that may apply to this case, but made it clear that Sierra's not in my state of NJ.

One thing that no one's discussing is that the most culpable perpetrator may not even be in this country, which is a major obstacle to law enforcement when addressing possible Internet crimes.

I haven't taken a side on the Kathy Sierra incident, and I loathe lining up soldiers. I speak only from the perspective of someone who's had to study freedom of speech, libel and slander, and who's had to consult an attorney in the past about Internet harassment.

As someone who's been on the web for a long time, I've had more time than just this case to think about things like what it means to be a public figure and that bloggers, both male and female, may have to take a lot of crap for speaking their minds. Personally, I think Kathy Sierra is a public figure, but I don't think all bloggers are automatically public figures.

I also know that being a public figure does not make it legal for people to threaten you. For me this debate goes well beyond the Kathy Sierra situation, and this is not the first time I've addressed online harassment. It matters not whether we personally think Kathy Sierra received a credible threat. What matters is that she believes she received one, and if the courts agree with her, then someone's in serious trouble.

That you can point to someone who's received "worse threats" means nothing. If she chose not to pursue legal action, then we can't know the court's opinion about threats against. It bugs me when people compare the emotions of one person to the emotions of another as though all people are the same. You know, some people get punched in the face, get up and say nothing. Does that mean it's okay to punch people in the face? Some people say malicious words don't harm anyone; do human psychologists support that notion?

I don't think strong bloggers will be left deciding whether or not they want to publish in the public arena. What they'll be left with is deciding which battles to fight, who's truly threatening them in a way that makes filing charges prudent. A powerful deterrent to those who harass others is the knowledge that anyone they harass may decide to meet them in court. Harassment culprits hide behind supposed anonymity, but in reality the Net does not automatically give the anonymity some people assume it does, ace hackers excluded. (We just had an arrest here of someone who thought she was being clever making malicious posts from a local library.)

As for political bloggers and the hostilities they face, politics is a rare bird as are those who pursue its wings with vigor. They post most days looking for a fight.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

Patterns

shelleyp — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 08:15:50 -0500

What people are forgetting, and you too Nordette, is that there was one post about Kathy at meankids and one from the second site. Considering how many posts were written (and you get all of that at Bloglines for meankids.org) that's not a pattern of harassment.

Frankly I have seen worst directed at Michelle Malkin from liberal webloggers.

I agree that people are going to have to be careful but that's not news, and this isn't necessarily the best case to use as a demonstration.

Webloggers are public figures. We write in the public arena; we publish for others to read; we provide syndication feeds for subscribers; we have readers.

We can't seek after the positive effects of a public life, and then throw up our hands in despair when we're faced wih the negative consequences. We can't do these things and not expect that this isn't going to cause problems at times.

As Malkin wrote (I never thought I would agree so strongly with Michelle Malkin, boggles my mind), we have a couple of options: if a credible threat of violence (or an assertion that's false and meant to cause harm) is made, we can go to the police (or a lawyer for a defamation suit); otherwise, we have to decide if we want to publish in the public arena.

If we can't deal with it, no matter how many webloggers huffing and puffing, we can't change the nature of the internet. We shouldn't even try. We should quit.

Or we're going to have to learn not to give attention to the a**holes--we're going to have to learn to hit the delete key.

Women cannot be silenced if we don't allow ourselves to be silenced. We can't fall apart when people throw sex into a parody. We can either ignore such, or respond in such a way as to make those who would do such seem small and petty and pathetic. In the case of actual threats of violence, we can go to the police.

I don't see that there was any threats of violence against Kathy at either site. If she does, then she'll have to go to the police. But saying that these sites inspired the comments she received at her site, when there was no direct connection--well, she has to be responsible, too, for her own actions.

I admire what Ronni wrote. It took a lot of guts to write such here, in Blogher. I think once we can separate this from this specific incident, this is a good conversation to have. Not just webloggers writing about webloggers, but the whole concept of how we women deal with threats with some sexual connotation.

Not an attorney

Nordette — Fri, 30 Mar 2007 03:13:15 -0500

Like you, Ronni, I'm not an attorney; however, I did have to study libel and slander in journalism courses and I have been stalked online. All speech is not protected. To lie about someone with malicious intent can land you in court of law. Furthermore, some cyberstalking legislation makes it clear that repeated contact with threats is illegal.

People have been prosecuted for cyberstalking:

An honors graduate from the University of San Diego terrorized five female university students over the Internet for more than a year. The victims received hundreds of violent and threatening e-mails, sometimes receiving four or five messages a day. The graduate student, who has entered a guilty plea and faces up to six years in prison, told police he committed the crimes because he thought the women were laughing at him and causing others to ridicule him. In fact, the victims had never met him. (Source: U.S . Department of Justice)

The people who've attacked Kathy, whoever you think did it, have thrown themselves into pretty nasty territory that resembles stalking because of the sexual connotations of the harassment.

Where Kathy may have trouble is whether the courts view her attackers as producing satire or see them as publishing information with malice and this may hinge on whether a court decides she's considered a public figure due to her visibility. The more public you become, the more the law allows for others to ridicule you.

You may remember the cases of both Jerry Falwell, who was lampooned in Hustler Magazine back in the 80s, and Bill Cosby, who was the target of nasty cartoons about him and chocolate Jello Pudding Pops. Neither man won his case against perpetrators because the commentary fell under parody and satire. Both men objected to cartoons or cartoon-like portrayals of themselves that could be classified as humorous. (Given the evidence Kathy Sierra's presented, I think a defense attorney would be hard-pressed to prove there's anything satirical or humorous about the posts and graphics. It's also unclear why they singled out Sierra. None of the attacks seemed related to anything she's said or done publicly.)

Carol Burnett, however, also a public figure, won her lawsuit against The National Enquirer in the 80s because the report that she'd been publicly drunk was untrue. I think she may have also made a good case for malicious intent because she'd been very open about alcoholism running in her family.

Bloggers are treading a dangerous road on such matters. Prominent bloggers may find they have little recourse against false accusations if the courts start to see them as celebrities or public figures. At the same time, everyone needs to be more careful because you never know who the courts will consider to be a private citizen vs. a public figure. I alluded to some of these issues on a recent post discussing shaming others on the Internet

. The "Don't Date Him, Girl" site currently faces a lawsuit.

You are right that Kathy herself should be careful about making accusations and suggesting specific people are culpable if she doesn't have all the facts. She could open herself up to a lawsuit if anyone can prove actual damage to his/her reputation due to allegations that prove false. If the courts see her as a journalist, however, and if the information she's reported came from the police, then she's protected under Freedom of the Press. Journalist are allowed to make errors in reporting when the information they receive comes from "authorities."

As for website owners being held accountable, I think in the future site owners will have to be more careful. I believe they can be held accountable, especially so after an injured party complains and challenges information but the site owner leaves the information up. Consider the "Don't Date Him, Girl" site allowing any woman to accuse any man of anything she felt like simply because she was pissed off. It's possible that the owners of meankids protected themselves by removing the site once Kathy protested. Charges of harassment don't fly so well in court if the accused party can prove he/she stopped any objectionable behavior once asked to do so. (I sat in on a harassment case once unrelated to the Net but that involved letters and phone calls and all the judge wanted to know was Did the accused stop when she was asked to stop and had there been at least three instances of harassment following the first request to stop? But that's NJ law; Sierra's on the west coast.)

When I think of websites I think of newspapers. If I wrote the newspaper to complain about my neighbor with what turned out to be lies an innuendo and named my neighbor or gave enough information for others to figure about whom I spoke and the newspaper published what I said about my neighbor, a private citizen, without verification, then that newspaper's probably looking at a lawsuit and so am I. Website owners may have to bear the burden of accountability when they let malicious content directed at individuals hang in cyberspace despite objections from the injured party. Free speech is not as free as people believe it to be.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette And here's a link to the blog.

Hi; Thanks for the objectivity!

Joey — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 20:06:02 -0500

Hi,

Your posting and many of the comments raise good questions and the quality far exceeds all of the angry mob and and near-tabloid sites I've bumped into lately. I wish to thank you for being objective, regardless of which side is "chosen", it isn't about winning or losing, it is about presenting the facts as best as possible.

I'm far from perfect and go overboard at times with hastily written comments. For general tone issues in that regard, I can apologize. The V2.0 me will be more considerate and closer to the real, very caring, very supportive person everyone on the physical side of my screen knows me as. I just need to increase my IQ a bit ;)

But seeing Kathy also visits here, might I ask if we can discuss things in the open, in this public location, if Kathy's willing? I can find no other suitable blogs and Email won't suffice because Truth is more truthful when it is public, ahh, well, usually, hopefully, ideally...

I'll gladly field other questions and do my best not to be inflammatory, especially here. Though, I can't promise I won't occasionally be blunt. At my core, I'm a diplomatic person most of the time. My wife, sitting next to me at this moment, is smiling but I can't tell why ;)

At Your Command,
Best Regards,

Joey

Spinning....

Thorne — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 18:39:28 -0500

There are alot of valid points made in this thread by many of the commentors. I myself, have had strong and varying feelings and thoughts on this topic since first catching wind of it.

Here are a few:

"OMG!! That's taking it too far. This is NOT satire. Noone should be threatened this way."

"KS is so overreacting"

"How irresponsible to link to a hate site"

"Wait, was it a hate site or a juvenile satire site"

"What about free speech?"

"How can women be so hateful toward each other"?

"Who is crying wolf now"?

I could go on, but I suppose what I'm trying in my fumbling way to express is that I am constantly surprised by my own naivetee. I'm repeatedly getting caught up in "Spin". It's difficult to keep the facts straight, especially when we don't really know what the facts are.

If there was a death threat made it should be appropriately investigated and adjucated.

If it's a matter of character assasination it's Civil. (whether against or by KS)

Intimidation is a tool of the ignorant and Trolling and Baiting and Flaming have practically become an internet institution unto themselves.

I have a delete key and am willing to use it.

Kathy's "attacks"

Bert Bates — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 15:36:24 -0500

I just pulled the "attacks", listed below, out of Kathy's post.

Ronni, you said: "Kathy's attacks on Chris, Frank, Jeneane and Allen were unwarranted and just as vicious."

I'm confused as to which of the statments below are in question, and in what way are these statements vicious?

- Bert

What Kathy said:

Frank, Jeneane and Allen began participating on a (recently pulled) blog called meankids.org

somebody crossed a line. They posted a photo of a noose next to my head, and one of their members (posting as "Joey")...

The guy who wrote this is anonymous to me

The "Bob's Yer Uncle" site was supposedly started by Cluetrain co-author Chris Locke (who, along with Jeaneane Sessum, also authors the Kat Herding Media site) and included most of the same members as meankids.

I don't know which particiant actually made the picture. It may have been Joey, or Chris Locke, or perhaps Allen Herrel... the same Herrel (or someone pretending to be Herrel) who added these frighteningly misogynistic comments on a different Unclebobism post

(screen shot follows)

I do not want to be part of a culture of such hypocrisy where Jeneane Sessum can be a prominent member of blogher, a speaker at industry conferences, an outspoken advocate for women's rights, and at the same time celebrate and encourage a site like meankids

[UPDATE: In comments, Frank Paynter -- owner of the meankids.org site -- expressed that he was both ashamed and sorry for his participation in both sites. Kathy believes Frank when he says that he was not the one responsible for the specific posts and comments in question.]

Allen Harrel (The Head Lemur) a victim too

lizditz — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 14:20:08 -0500

Liz Ditz
I Speak of Dreams
lizditz@gmail.com

Kathy Sierra used images and words purporting to be Allan Harrell as part of her post illustrating the heinousness of what was posted at MeanKids/UncleBobism. She did not question that the posts were Harrell's.

According to an email Harrel sent Doc Searles, Allen Harrel is also a victim:
Email from Allen Harrell to Doc Searles

"I am writing this to you as the guy who can forward it to everybody that matters.

I am writing this from a new computer, using an email address that will be deleted at the end of this.

I am no longer me. My main machine despite my best efforts has been hacked, my accounts compromised including my email. and has been disconnected from the internet.

How did this happen? When did this happen? ..... I thought i was pretty sharp. I guess not.

just about every online account that i have has been compromised. Most importantly my digital identity and user/password for typepad and wordpress. I have been doing damage control, for my clients. How the fuck i got to be part of this mess is revolting.

The Kathy Sierra mess is horrific. I am not who ever used my identity and my picture!!

I am sick beyond words over this whole episode. Kathy Sierra may not be on my top 10 list , but nobody deserves this filthy character assaination.

[snip]

For Kathy and Maryam and anybody else I am deeply sorry. Nobody deserves this."

I think it is important to close the loop. Harrell's reputation has been ruined by a cyberthief, and Sierra's actions contributed to the damage done to Harrell.

To Dan...

Ronni Bennett — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 13:05:55 -0500

Ronni Bennett
Time Goes By

I may have mis-spoken when I said the attacks were in the comments of the site, but that doesn't affect my point: that Kathy's attacks on Chris, Frank, Jeneane and Allen were unwarranted and just as vicious.

You really do need to keep up before you leave such comments as this one:

It is becoming apparent none of the people Kathy named are responsible, and as a matter of fact, Chris Locke did delete the entire site himself one post at a time.

Please, next time, get the facts straight and let's take it down a notch, okay?

Interesting take...

Dan G — Thu, 29 Mar 2007 12:42:06 -0500

You miss the point.

This is what happened. Paynter created meankids and, as admin, knows who posted the Maryam post. When Paynter deleted meankids after that post, Locke created unclebobsim. Within a couple of days, someone there posted the noose image - it *was* *not* in the comments. It was someone who was approved to post to the blog by Locke.

Locke didn't even delete the site himself - wordress.com did.

If you think such posts as those attacking Maryam Scoble and Sierra are acceptable, you have an unusual set of values.

Bert, suspicion, perhaps.

gcomnz — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 19:52:17 -0500

Bert, suspicion, perhaps. Vigilante justice, no. Accusations and suspicion are distinctly different things.

Kids get their first taste of injustice when an entire class is held back because someone wrote graffiti on the bathroom walls. Usually at least all that meant is missing a recess, not piecing your life back together after the puritan mob came at you with torches and pitchforks.

Well written

shelleyp — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 18:11:43 -0500

I wrote on this also.

Two weblogs, both of which have been taken down. Both of which had racists, sexist, mean posts. None of which, I really doubt, would be seen as illegal.

Read Michelle Malkins new take on this. I never thought I would agree with her, but wow.

Mainly commenting just to say, well written.

Doc Searls posted an email from Allan Herrell

Karoli — Wed, 28 Mar 2007 16:50:07 -0500

You can read the full text of it here. Herrell says he is the victim of a hack and identity theft, which wouldn't altogether surprise me. Kathy Sierra's post allowed for that possibility too. However, as I pointed out to Doc in my comment to his post, had he been hacked and posts made to his normal weblog I doubt anyone would have believed he wrote them. But because they were made to a weblog created as an anonymous, anarchical, negative voice, they were legitimized despite quite possibly being the words of a hacker troll.

We do know the intent of the original site owner. Frank Paynter posted it here:

MeanKids was purposeful anarchy. I thought the people at MeanKids would create art and criticism, pointed and insulting satire, but not foster a climate of fear. Misogynistic postings at MeanKids.org led me to try to moderate, but indeed the group there was of the Â³You Own Your Own WordsÂ² tradition, so moderating or central editorial control wouldnÂ¹t work. I tore the site down.

I guess the question that immediately came to my mind was this: What was he thinking when he handed over the keys to the house without keeping a master set for himself?

Karoli (who used to post anonymously as DrumsNWhistles) (odd time signatures)

The Matter of Kathy Sierra

Ronni Bennett — Tue, 27 Mar 2007 11:58:33 -0500

My issue, my main interest, my reason to be in the blogosphere is the topic of aging. If I canâ€™t relate a post to aging, I donâ€™t write it â€“ at least not for Time Goes By and BlogHer. But a second strong interest, as a member of fairly long standing, is blogging itself and I try to keep up.

It was on Monday that I first learned of the Kathy Sierra issue from a listserv at BlogHer. That evening there were few opinions, just links to Kathyâ€™s post wherein she explains her reasons for canceling a speaking engagement and dropping out of the blogosphere:

â€œI've been getting death threat comments on this blog. But that's not what pushed me over the edge. What finally did it was some disturbing threats of violence and sex posted on two other blogs...â€

There have since been what must be a millions of words from bloggers with, I have no doubt, at least an equal amount in the works (including this post). Most I have read are in support of Kathy, rightly deploring the atmosphere of fear, hate and misogyny the threats create. But before the commentary buries the original issue, Iâ€™d like to explain my initial reaction to Kathyâ€™s post.

Dotted throughout her post are these:

[continuing from the clip above] â€œâ€¦blogs authored and/or owned by a group that includes prominent bloggers. People you've probably heard of. People like respected Cluetrain Manifesto co-author Chris Locke aka Rageboy).â€

â€œPeople linked to by A-listers like Doc Searls, a co-author of Chris Locke.â€

â€œAt about the same time, a group of bloggers including Listicsâ€™ Frank Paynter, prominent marketing blogger Jeneane Sessum, and Raving Lunacy Allen Herrel (aka Head Lemur) began participating on a (recently pulled) blog called meankids.org.â€

At first, it was words, writes Kathy. Then it was images, one involving a photo of Kathy with a noose next to her head. I happened to have visited meankids.org in time to see the Photoshopped image Kathy describes. It was, I thought â€“ well, â€œmeanâ€. And if not done by a â€œkidâ€, then by someone whose development was arrested at about age 15. There are plenty of those in the world. I moved on without another thought.

â€œI don't know which participant actually made the picture,â€ Kathy continues. â€œIt may have been Joey, or Chris Locke, or perhaps Allen Herrel... the same Herrel (or someone pretending to be Herrel).â€ [Joey, says Kathy, left a comment below the image: "the only thing Kathy has to offer me is that noose in her neck size."]

Nasty stuff no one wants to read about themselves or anyone else.

But letâ€™s take a closer look at Kathyâ€™s post than many who support her apparently have: I canâ€™t remember when I have read, aside from ignorant political wingnuts, so many aspersions cast, acts implied and innuendo as in Kathyâ€™s post.

As far as can be determined from the few facts she relates, the attacks on Kathy were made anonymously. However, she has tried and convicted Chris Locke, Jeneane Sessum, Allen Herrel, Frank Paynter and, to a lesser extent, Doc Searls without a shred of proof that they were involved. As Chris notes in his rebuttal post,

â€œI think her response, as it pertains to anything I personally wrote, was unjustified - but highly effective - character assassination. As a result, I'm sure I'll be explaining for years to come that I'm not really an ax murderer and child molester. Nice work.â€

Undoubtedly so of Doc, Jeneane, Allen and Frank too. Many people do not read as carefully as they should and will not catch Kathyâ€™s well-crafted, but false indictments especially when juxtaposed with the gross attacks she relates. In fact, it has been widely noted now that Jeneane was in the hospital during the postings Kathy refers to, but as of this moment, Kathy has not absolved her.

Although I have run across Kathy Sierraâ€™s name here and there, I had never read her blog before this post and have not ventured into her archives now. Perhaps she is an otherwise fair and accurate blogger who lost her sense of balance due to these vicious verbal and pictorial attacks. However, no less vicious are her insinuations against these five people.

[Full Disclosure: Although I do not know Allen Herrel or his blog, I consider Frank, with whom I spent a spectacularly interesting afternoon a couple of years ago, and Jeneane to be blog friends. I had been reading Doc and Chris for years before I started blogging and continue to read all four for their intelligence, wit and unique points of view.]

As it turns out, Frank owns the URL meankids.org and some of the others contributed to the site. It began as satire and was gradually taken over by heinous trolls. That does not make Frank or the others responsible and if you think so, consider the trash comments you have had to remove from your own blogs. It is why some people moderate comments. Others of us take our chances; the delete button is a marvelous invention.

As soon as Frank was made aware of the attacks on Kathy, he killed the site. He also issued an apology on his blog, listics, to the extent of his involvement as site owner. I donâ€™t believe that was necessary, but Frank is one of the all time good guys in the blogosphere.

In the ensuing commentary from many corners of the blogosphere, some have suggested that Kathy over-reacted to the attacks and although none of us can judge othersâ€™ levels of psychological trauma, I tend to agree.

Shocking as words and images can be, they are, after all, words. As Chris Pirillo noted in his post,

â€œThis isnâ€™t new, folks - far from it. Kathy is just one out of (certainly) millions of people who suffer at the minds of psychotics. And without trying to minimize this particular situation, Iâ€™ve gotta tell you - this sounds like high school to me. Literally. Granted, Iâ€™ve had just as many death threats ONLINE - but they didnâ€™t just start last weekâ€¦â€

Indeed, not last week. Personally, I save my panic for when gunshots are fired, repeatedly over a week or more, at the building where I was in the middle of producing a live, all-night radio talk show, as happened a long time ago. Then, the Hellâ€™s Angels lent support by escorting â€“ front and back â€“ my car when I traveled to and from home.

Or when, during the letter bomb scares of the 1970s, a viewer of the network television show on which I worked wrote to warn me that his next letter would be a bomb intended to kill me. (I had rejected him for an appearance on the program.)

Or, in the days when phone calls could not be easily traced, a man telephoned every day to tell me what I had been wearing on my way home a few minutes earlier, that my red bra had been peaking out of my blouse in the restaurant where Iâ€™d had lunch the day before, that Iâ€™d been ten minutes late to the work that day, etc.

In the second case, the police bomb squad checked the showâ€™s mail every morning for several weeks. In the third, I took sane precautions when I left home and hung up the phone, on the advice of the police, as soon as I realized it was the stalker. The calls stopped after about two weeks.

More recently, Iâ€™ve dispatched nasty blog trolls who have personally attacked me by deleting their comments and never responding. They get bored and leave fairly quickly.

Without dismissing Kathyâ€™s anxiety, this stuff happens every day. Should we stop it when we can? Of course. If laws are broken, as Kathy believes in this case, the police should be contacted as she says she has done.

But never, ever may fear and anger be used to attack innocent others. Kathy owes Chris, Jeneane, Allen, Frank and Doc a bold, ALL CAPS apology blasted to the entire web to counter the damage she has done with her reprehensible insinuations. Her tepid acceptance of Frankâ€™s apology is an not enough.

* Contributing Editor Ronni Bennett also blogs at Time Goes By - What itâ€™s really like to get older.,