Hating Hate Speech: Safety for Kathy Sierra and all women online

I think some people should take a long look in the mirror, others should ignore them.

Haters on the internet are cowardly people who hide behind their computers to pass judgement with typed words that they would never say to someone's face.

It's easy to ignore the haters, they're just frustrated and ignorant.  Death threats and threats of violence generated by what someone wrote in their blog should be  illegal.

Why do people take such offense to WORDS?  Whether internet haters, religious zealots, or political hard-cores, they want to KILL you over what you SAID?

We're quickly going backward from a place where we all love and cherish each other.

Thank you for posting this, it's scary, and can happen to any of us bloggers.  We need to stay united.

Chef Todd Mohr

Learn to Cook Like a Chef at Home

http://www.WebCookingClasses.com

I'm appauled by the behavioir of these people that attack others! I have had some experinces some rude comments but never like what you are talking about it. it's crazy cyber bullying can go way too far. It shouldn't happen to begin with. I truly belive something needs to be done about this. It is not ok.

I just posted  a BlogHer Blog ( http://www.blogher.com/rape-and-death-and-batman-o... )about my current death and rape threats on my blog, and just found the Kathy Sierra story.  Personally, I'm horrified, but feel the need to "go in." So I am. 

But I'm going through this right now, ( http://blog.seattlepi.nwsource.com/startherup/arch... ) nearly 200 angry bloggers calling for my death and rape.  Why? I didn't like the new batman movie. :) 

____________

Alyssa Royse

Just Cause It: ( http://www.justcauseit.com )A Web Site To Save The World

Start Her Up: ( http://www.startherup.com )A Blog for Women Entrepreneurs

I will say this until my head explodes: there is criticism and there is simply behaving like an ass. Big difference. Those who cannot distinguish between the two should do everyone a favor and STAY OFFLINE.

I am amazed that there are people with the time to sit around and create forums where all they do is personally attack others. That's not a blogger/writer/or artist in my opinion. It's cheap. It's a knock-off. Real artists create and contribute, not descontruct.

Dana
Mamalogues.com ( http://www.mamalogues.com )
In the St. Louis Post-Dispatch ( http://www.stltoday.com/mamalogues )
Pop Mama ( http://www.stltoday.com/popmama )
Since Eve ( http://sinceeve.clubmom.com/ )

Bullies operate best when they are anonymous. To me, this means the "solution" to cyberbullying is to identify the individual who is doing the bullying. Obviously much easier said than done, but the other truth about bullies is that they are not unusually bright and can be identified by a variety of social engineering means that have nothing to do with IP tracking.

I was bullied as a girl, and feel the effects of it in my life today. I'm sensitive to criticism, sometimes feel its difficult to "belong" with people. The cruel words and actions of bullies are truly damaging.

So here's how I respond to people online who act in any one of many of a spectrum of ways I don't like or appreciate, on boards, email lists, etc.:

-- Ignore. Always the first line of defense, usually sufficient in most cases.
-- Innoculate. Make sure I understand the difference between what is being said and what is true about me.
-- Insulate. Recruit help for my point of view if it's a flame war, make sure others know I'm feeling uncomfortable if that's what is happening. Withdraw from the frey for a while if necessary.
-- Illuminate. Make sure attacker is known, if at all possible. Identify him/her, publish that information. Don't hide. Bullies and bullshit both thrive in the dark.

Kristine, who hasn't had to go farther than the above.
http://mysillyvalley.typepad.com

I'm totally flabbergasted by this issue.

I've seen it in the realm of message boards, playing on a feminist board is ground zero for misogynistic folk who hide behind internet anonymity and lash out. I've long wondered the danger they pose away from cyber space, and the very thought sends chills up my back.

My blog is nowhere near as active as most, it's not really why I blog... but I've had one poster recently follow me off that feminist board. So far he has behaved, but I'm uncomfortable, because that is his usual pattern (he was banned multiple times by the iVillage, including for attacking me there with comments, though nothing was of a threat.)

Recently I resigned as co-host of the political debate board there, one poster was starting thread after thread attacking Islam and all Muslims. I pleaded with iV to do something to end this persecution, and they responded by pulling my requests for him to stop. Sorry, I cannot in good conscience be a part of that, and stepped down.

Returning to the feminist board, it is a magnet for every guy who perceives he was slighted in divorce, by someone he might have dated, in child support and custody arrangements, etc. The level of bitternes they carry astounds, and refuse to consider an alternate view, or that courts are most often fair and try to get it right, or as right as they can legally make it.

None of this will shut me up, nor stop me from writing what is on my mind. It won't stop me from participating in discussions away from cyberspace, or from attending anything that interests me. It just stinks that some choose to expend energy attacking others, a sure sign of insecurity and a corresponding need for control over others. A very bad combination.

*hugs* to all who have been threatened or attacked.

nelle ( http://nelle2nelle.net/ )

"...by creating the forum, they've become responsible."

I know Jeneane and Frank as well, and, while I know that they would never condone the attacks on Kathy, they nevertheless go along with and support many of Chris Locke's zany ideas -- some of which, and meankids is a good example, get hateful and nasty because of the tone they set at the beginning.

I've blogged about my own experience several years ago dealing with an attack by Chri Locke. You can read it here:
http://www.kalilily.net/weblog/07/03/30/233658.htm...

Chris is looked up to by many bloggers, and there are some who consider him a friend. It seems to me that, since he is so well-known in the blogging community for his innovation and creativity, he has a responsibility to blog ethically and responsibly, and his friends might want to consider urging him to clean up his long-standing act of targetting females for his own brand of fun and games.

And the rest of us need to call him on any of his future offensive projects. Maybe eventually he'll get the message that we don't think personal attacks are funny.

I neither personally attacked you nor bullied you. I pointed out specific things you've said which point out personal attacks you have made.

Please explain how that is cyberbullying. Perhaps I'm unclear. I thought attacking someone personally was the problem, I mean, based on your definition.

Cyberbullying right here on our stage. What a great example. Thanks, Melissa. You have proven my point.

You'll forgive me for finding this post amusing. I have mainly ignored you Margalit since you took to using my comments section to call other bloggers names and I blocked you because of it.

But this, this is rich.

"You can disagree with issues all you want, but when you start focussing on the person themselves, that's going over the line."

Please see this for explanation:
http://clickmom.typepad.com/weblog/2007/01/drinkin... ( http://clickmom.typepad.com/weblog/2007/01/drinkin... )

"She constantly posts about her weight and her looks, and man, after seeing her on TV, all I can say is, focus more on getting dental work and less on how cute (not) her hair was. The boots looked like they came straight from Payless and her clothes were too tight. She looked like a midwestern matron, one that probably DOES drink too much."

Uh, were my teeth part of the issue? And my tight clothes? And here I thought the issue was drinking at playgroup.

"Disagreeing with content does not equal a personal attack, and unfortunately, there are plenty of people on the 'net that don't get that distinction."

Unfortunately, there are plenty of people like yourself who don't even realize when their disagreement or criticism is venturing into a personal attack.

Thankfully people like you are easily ignored.

I think it's important to note that cyberbullying goes on all over the 'net and not just in the blogosphere. It's very easy to post anonymously to a forum and skewer other forum participants as 'entertainment'. Trolls are everywhere, and as long as we allow free commenting (I don't on my blog), they'll be waiting for you. Trolls think this is fun, but the deeper reason for this trollish behavior is that they don't like themselves and feel powerful picking on someone else.

Which brings me to the cyberbullying that is done by 'popular' bloggers, who urge their friends to attack psople they don't agree with. This 'circle the wagons' type of behavior is dangerous and damaging, and if you think it isn't done by Blogher members, then you're wrong. It does.

We all need to learn how to determine the difference between content and personality. Disagreeing with content does not equal a personal attack, and unfortunately, there are plenty of people on the 'net that don't get that distinction. Until it is more widely understood, cyberbullying will continue unabated.

More at What was I THINING? ( http://outtamymindwithworry.blogspot.com )

I never thought I'd be agreeing with Michelle Malkin! But I do, in this case. And with Elise also.

Being Asian, and female, seems to be a red flag for some people to go to town with their uh, opinions. It's one reason I've turned on moderation on both my main blogs. I'd rather not make it an issue or a fuss. Deleting messages is easy, and once deleted I don't even remember what they say. My real readers don't deserve to be subjected to crap either, even temporarily.

And, not to be a web blanket, but I doubt that a day against cyberbullying or whatever is not going to have much effect on the little weasels who like to anonymously attack people from the safety of their homes, regardless. They have been around before (my first brush with harassment online came on the Compuserve forums in the mid-'80s), and I'm sure they'll be around when the next form of online exchange is invented.

Makiko Itoh
Just Hungry ( http://www.justhungry.com )
Personal ( http://www.makikoitoh.com ).

People commonly use the internet to hide - whether it's a blogger posting anonymously or someone threatening someone else. Too often, people forget that while you cannot see them, there are still real people involved. If it's not something I would say to someone standing in front of me, then it's not something I would say in a comment, e-mail, etc. That said, everyone needs to protect themselves when things get out of control, and hopefully the field of policing activities on the internet has gotten considerably tighter to put a stop to things like this.

(Via Doc Searls ( http://doc.weblogs.com/2007/03/28#whatItIsnt )) Just read conservative political blogger Michelle Malkin's post on cyber death threats ( http://michellemalkin.com/archives/007191.htm ). Apparently she's been getting them for quite some time. Just as nasty as the one that Kathy reported. Michelle's response?

1) Report the serious threats to law enforcement.

2) Keep blogging.

For the record, I receive threatening comments, similar to Kathy's. Not often. Maybe only twice in the few months. I delete them as soon as I read the words, "fuck off" or "cum down your..." I never give them another thought.

Elise Bauer
Simply Recipes ( http://www.elise.com/recipes )
Learning Movable Type ( http://www.learningmovabletype.com )

Liz Ditz
I Speak of Dreams ( http://lizditz.typepad.com )
lizditz@gmail.com

Kathy Sierra used images and words purporting to be Allan Harrell's 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 ( http://doc.weblogs.com/2007/03/28#whatItIsnt )

"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.

I see this a lot IRL in NYC, because owners of stores will allow their signs to have letters that don't light up anymore, or even fall off of the front of the store completely. Apparently, as long as they're making a profit, they don't actually care what happens to the store.

Without personal investment in a site, it will become whatever people choose to make it. If no one's willing (or interested) to say "come on... that's too much" or "that's not our style, here", what's been created is a barren wasteland where anything goes.

I've always loved analogies that compare online space with material space. This, I think, is why I fell in love with the late (great) Michael Dertouzas' "The Unfinished Revolution." When Dertouzas opens by comparing the Internet to a Greek marketplace, he's got me.

I agree -- I behave differently in someone's living room, cocktail party or even garage sale than I do on an empty lot, a no (wo)man's land... this is great food for thought.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder ( http://www.blogher.com/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

Women, of all people, cannot react emotionally to a situation. Is that sexist? Of course. But the response this situation has caused online is mostly fake empathy, and only people reacting to a 'scared woman.'

And you know that these feelings are fake how? You've gone through the careful and time-consuming process of polling all the people who have posted so that you can make such a statement in an informed and verifiable way? You've got some secret blog-o-matic that tells you people's true intentions despite what they say in their own blogs? You know the personal history, tramas, fears, and desires of each person who has posted on this subject?

Somehow I doubt that any of those options are true. I also suspect (and correct me if I'm wrong) that you were trying to make a point that some people are piling on to one side or another without any actual depth of feeling. While that may be true, making assertions about the real motivations, thoughts, or feelings of people you do not know is dangerous ground. As far as I can tell, that mistake is part of the mess at the heart of this whole matter.

And I have a problem with someone telling me that I can't react emotionally when I feel emotional. Who died and made other people the Reaction Police, to dictate to someone else how they ought to react, be, think, or feel? Whether or not we're women has nothing to do with it, people react in the way they feel/think is best at the time and then they have to deal with the consequences. Last I checked that fact was just as true for men as it is for women.

The Caffeinated Librarian [Blogger] ( http://caffeinatedlibrarian.blogspot.com/ )

Excellent post, Lisa.

I believe a site should have guidelines and some degree of personal investment in its atmosphere by it's creators, owners, moderators and editors. I say _investment_ rather than responsibility because one can be responsible for something without _caring_ about it. Your super is responsible for your apartment being in the agreed-upon condition but your super doesn't have to CARE about the condition of your apartment.

I see this a lot IRL in NYC, because owners of stores will allow their signs to have letters that don't light up anymore, or even fall off of the front of the store completely. Apparently, as long as they're making a profit, they don't actually care what happens to the store.

Without personal investment in a site, it will become whatever people choose to make it. If no one's willing (or interested) to say "come on... that's too much" or "that's not our style, here", what's been created is a barren wasteland where anything goes.

I don't know anything about the site in question, because I had never heard of it before this situation occurred and according to what I've read, the owner took it down. What I find most interesting about this is that none of the information I've been able to find through searching on various names and website addresses involved has mentioned the origin of this beef. The trail seems to end (begin) with the announcement of what happened. A reason would not excuse the violators from their egregious behavior. It just seems like they chose someone out of the blue to pick on, insult and threaten. From what I've been able to google about her, all I've seen is that she's had a successful career and people have enjoyed her work and her ideas.

Anyway... I think the best thing to do is take what I consider to be "the high road" and have a personal investment in one's site. Even if you're going to let people argue and try to upset each other, let 'em know this is still YOUR house, and there are "house rules".

If they don't like it, they can go post somewhere else.

--
Bill Cammack
Video Editor ( http://alum.mit.edu/www/billcammack )
ReelSolid.TV ( http://reelsolid.tv/category/blogherbiz/ )

I'm glad to some cooler heads finally prevailing in this whole matter. I was amazed to see how quickly people dogpiled everyone Kathy implicated in her post. By naming names and making insinuations of approval, involving the police and then disappearing from her blog (only to throw more fuel on the fire in comments in other sites, like this one), Kathy chose the nuclear option and made straightening things out civilly impossible.

Linking to a site or being a member of a group blog doesn't imply ownership or even knowledge of all content therein. Surely EVERYONE on blogher isn't reading every post? To claim otherwise is ridiculous.

It now appears that the threatening posts were trolls by an identity thief:
http://doc.weblogs.com/2007/03/28#whatItIsnt

If you want to argue that karma is a bitch and the meankids got a double-dose, I'd concur. But the WORST Jeneane is guilty of is having some friends with a twisted sense of humour.

There are 1,200 comments on Kathy's final post, largely excoriating my friend Jeneane, who has been a tireless champion and trailblazer for women in the blogosphere and who Kathy has painted as co-conspirator to a murder and kidnapping plot.

Jeneane deserves better, especially from a community she helped create.

Her comments are open and I think some of you owe her an apology.
http://allied.blogspot.com/2007/03/for-record.html

I am glad that people are talking about this, and the fact that this seems to have been an organized attempt to harass someone is dispicable. Kathy was right to bring this whole situation to light.

If canceling the conference appearance was what was necessary to get people to take her seriously and look at what was happening...then she did the right thing. But I really can't take seriously the belief that her life was in jeopardy if she appeared at the conference, and THAT's where I think things got out of control.

Women, of all people, cannot react emotionally to a situation. Is that sexist? Of course. But the response this situation has caused online is mostly fake empathy, and only people reacting to a 'scared woman.'

People (mostly men) are bending over backwards to support her. Everyone wants to jump on the "poor kathy" bandwagon. If she was a man, this wouldn't be the response...even if he had reacted in EXACTLY the same way.

I won't be discussing this in either of my public blogs - I dont think anything I say would be taken seriously in this situation either. I'm a woman feeling empathy for another woman.

A calmer, more subdued response on Kathy's part could have resulted in a different reaction, and maybe a better way to handle sites like this in the future. But I don't think anything will, or can come of this, and that's a shame.

Interesting that you say this Elisa! I needed Link Text ( http://dontgelyet.typepad.com/dontgeltoosoon )to write about this, of course, so I downloaded the photo, edited it a bit to be less awful, and then couldn't do it. Instead, I just placed a sketch of a weeping woman - which is how I feel. I so fear that incidents like this will harm the entire space, and encourage everyone to tag every post about this with stopcyberbullying. SeeLink Text ( http://www.pbs.org/teachers/learning.now/2007/03/m... ) Andy Carvin's blog for more information.

Cynthia Samuels, Partner
Cobblestone Associates, LLP
Media and Blog Strategies and Content Development

To all the women who have been stalked and had nothing happen, do you imagine that your experience is the ONLY experience? Are you willing to guarantee with your own life that the threats Ms Sierra (or anyone else online) has gotten are bogus? Willing to bet the life of your child? Because y'all are asking Ms Sierra to bet her life. Why criticize her if she is unwilling to do so?

Secondly, even IF the threats are bogus - they are also sick. Further, tolerating them is condoning that kind of perverse behavior toward women.

I cannot imagine my disagreement being any more profound with people who tell Ms Sierra and others like her to just "suck it up" -- to "be a sport". What kind of planet are we living on when such shameful behavior TO a woman gets sanctioned BY women? Is this just another variation on the "boys will be boys" theme?

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

What do you do? You ignore the comments.

I got my first death threat about 10 years ago. My company's reaction was to give me a personal security guard, and find the person who was threatening me. It turned out to be a 14 year old boy in Australia.

THIS IS THE INTERNET. PEOPLE SAY MEAN THINGS. DON'T TAKE IT SERIOUSLY.

Yes, the hate speech is unacceptable, and for that, I am glad people are talking. But are these serious threats on Kathy's life? I highly doubt it, and I really do think she's overreacted.

I'm sure my view on this isn't popular, but since I've been where Kathy is now, I think I'm in a somewhat unique position here. I've had my life threatened more times than I could count, and hey...I'm still here.

Blogging is a spotlight, whether or not anyone realizes it or not...you're making yourself a celebrity. Celebrities get good feedback, and bad. Learn to live with both (and ignore both) or get offline.

Lisa,

Thank you for taking the time to clarify the involvement of BlogHer. When I first read Kathy's statements, I thought perhaps somehow this was taken out of context and your explanation certainly shows that it was. Not to diminish Kathy's situation, but this does put the BlogHer involvement into better perspective.

Because of all of this, I just finished up an article called "Should Women Be Afraid to Blog? ( http://www.searchmarketinggurus.com/search_marketi... )" since this situation intrigued me so much. I hope Kathy's situation doesn't have a negative affect on women and blogging!

Again, thanks for the clarification!
Regards,
Li Evans
______________________________
Liana "Li" Evans
SearchMarketingGurus ( http://www.searchmarketinggurus.com )

Here's what I mean: I'm seeing people post about this and using the disturbing images Kathy pointed to to illustrate exactly how serious her problem was. I can understand blogging about this...even though it breaks the "don't feed the trolls" guideline.

I was reluctant to comment too soon, Elisa, because I had the same concern. I hope in this case the trolls dig a hole and disappear, but I know that may not be the case. The attention may make the person escalate if he/she's really dangerous. However, the attention is drawing discussion to the subject of online harassment, that we shouldn't take it lightly, and that's a positive.

Sometimes in order to unveil and eliminate horror we have to show the horror. When I say that I'm thinking in particular of documentation on actual lynchings and the Jewish holocaust. But your point is well taken. We need to be very careful in how we go about informing the public.

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette ( http://nexus.writingjunkie.net ) And here's a link to the blog ( http://jerseygoddess.blogspot.com/ ).

Lisa, thanks again!

I would like to clarify a key point here. We're not only talking about a site that allows such horrible comments. In both of these cases we're talking about posts, including pictures, that were made by someone in the circle of the site owners. A small circle indeed.

Again, not just anonymous, drive-by "comments", but "posts" made by some subset of the site's authors.

Thanks,

Bert

Great post, Lisa. I don't think enough bloggers consider what it means to link to hate speech or ugliness. Just last night I wrote a post on the Ms. Dewey search engine ( http://jerseygoddess.blogspot.com/2007/03/ms-dewey... ) and while looking up that information came across a post with pornographic photos of Janina Gavankar, the actress who portrays Ms. Dewey. The blogger wanted to inform the public of Microsoft's Ms. Dewey's past.

Right then I had to make a decision. I asked myself "Do you know if these accusations are true? Pictures can be faked, and even if it is true, what does that say about you if you link to a disparaging post about this actress, a post that has little to do with her ability to be a search engine avatar. It's gossip. What good reason can you give for contributing to others tearing her down?"

I know sometimes people link to sites to prove that the ugliness exists, but if we choose this path, we should ask ourselves is our intent to promote the ugliness or to inform of the ugliness? If a reader's that interested in the nastiness we've referenced, he/she can search for the site. We need not make it easier to find hate speech, and we should remember that the more links a site has, the higher it goes up in rankings on some search engines.

I don't know all the details or any of the women involved, but based on what I do know I also sympathize with Jeneane in this. You wrote the following:
She told me, as she has written on her personal blog Allied, that she did not author any of the posts about Kathy Sierra that appeared on these blogs.
Impersonating others on the Net, posting items under another person's name or claiming you do so on their behalf is another form of harassment.

I know of a site that was almost destroyed by this type of nonsense. One major drawback of the Net is that it provides a cloak of anonymity for some very sick people. I suppose we'll be spending a lot more time educating people about the difference between hate speech and free speech. It's a tricky situation because knowing the difference between hate speech and free speech usually lies in perceptions of tone and motivation. Knowing the difference requires that people have not only more wisdom but also higher emotional IQs.

Sometimes, what we think is hate speech is not. It's simply someone having a strong opinion that differs from ours. Also, sometimes readers (and writers) don't seem to know the difference between well-done satire and vicious ridicule.

Nevertheless, more often if it walks like a duck and talks like a duck, it's a duck. And when people veer away from discussing issues to making personal attacks, they're in dark waters. As I said in this post on Ann Coulter, Second Life, and John Edwards, ( http://jerseygoddess.blogspot.com/2007/03/john-edw... )" ... nastiness thrives first in flesh and blood; virtual worlds manifest our ugliness."

Unlike the advice I had for Edwards about promoting Coulter's comments on his own website, I think Kathy Sierra had to put her situation under the glare of bright light. When someone's threatening your life online, bring out the flood lights. Like the Edwards/Coulter/Second Life situation, this Sierra case is another form of bullying. Do some humans ever grow up?

BTW, ZD.net is also discussing this (link ( http://blogs.zdnet.com/social/?p=121 )).

"Love is liquid. Brew and be drunkards!" ~~Nordette ( http://nexus.writingjunkie.net ) And here's a link to the blog ( http://jerseygoddess.blogspot.com/ ).

Thanks for the excellent post and I'm happy to see you were able to address the situation. I have never had to deal with this kind of situation and it's hard to believe that anyone would be mean-spirited enough to do something like this. It was very shocking to read Kathy's article and I do hope her attacker is caught and faces the consequences for the damage done.

For parents with school aged kids, here's a site that provides some useful tools– schoolparent.net. They have useful online school directory and sign-up sheet features. You can request an invitation from their site if you want to
join. Its FREE.

With regard to BlogHer's editors and the guidelines under which we all write, I don't believe that linking to and associating with sites we don't like is currently in and of itself a breach of our community guidelines and editor agreements: http://www.blogher.com/community-guidelines.

If, however, we learned that an editor created hate speech of any kind (on or off of BlogHer) it would be a different story. The case of meankids.org introduces a new issue -- that of community host. We'll certainly be thinking about that as a result of this scenario; we do and will continue to weigh each editor's work and associations on a case-by-case basis.

I am very glad that Frank Paynter removed the site and apologized for the effect the site had on the community. I think he made the right decision and showed a strong sense of responsibility for creating safe spaces for women online. I think I've been crystal clear that, as I wrote above, I deeply disagree with the premise of sites like meankids.org and others, and am surprised by the women and men who recommended and linked them from the beginning. To me, these sites are the FuckedCompany.com of the blogosphere, a place where bitter cowards who don't have the courage to own their snark hide and spit.

Lisa Stone
BlogHer Co-founder ( http://www.blogher.com/member/lisa-stone )
Surfette ( http://surfette.typepad.com )

I am one of the ordinary women who attended Blogher in San Jose last year. I drove 1500 kms to attend a conference that was a wonderful experience in meeting and supporting all kinds of women across the spectrum. I met technology bloggers, mommy bloggers, other educators like myself - all kinds of women who were blogging about their everyday lives, telling their stories and sharing their experiences. Most importantly, I felt safe and welcome as a newbie to blogging.

I am not part of the "blogosphere" and I don't know any of the people involved in this. I read Kathy Sierra's blog as she often talks about learning and I am a teacher. When I read her post I immediately came to the Blogher site looking for a response. Nothing yesterday, but Elisa's post on her Workerbees blog was reassuring. So then I followed the rabbit hole to the cached meankids pages. What I saw was completely demeaning to women - attacking their weight, their blog posts about being pregnant, their comments on their everyday life. It made me feel sick. This kind of personal blogging is the bulk of women's blogging - it is how we connect. To see it ridiculed in this way and to know that the person responsible for the site was at Blogher when I was there...and to further know that prominent Blogher member Jeneane Sessum was at the *least* observing these attacks and saying nothing (I checked the dates - she was *not* in the hospital when posts were being made comparing overweight women to whales and talking about them being harpooned)or perhaps she was even laughing along with them.

This post and another by contributing editor Ronni Bennet have made me realize that this community is not what I thought. When the leadership seems more interested in protecting their own then considering the larger impact of this behaviour -it is no longer a place where I feel safe or welcome.

Hi Lisa,

While I do appreciate the level-headedness that you bring to this situation I wonder if you have all of the known facts straight...

You said:

"Since Kathy invoked Jeneane's involvement in BlogHer, I called Jeneane and spoke with her tonight via telephone. She told me, as she has written on her personal blog Allied, that she did not author any of the posts about Kathy Sierra that appeared on these blogs. She also told me that she was in the hospital when these threatening posts were made about Kathy."

It may well be that Jeneane did not author the posts in question, but it seems to me that she helped create the space for them and encouraged them:

http://allied.blogspot.com/search?q=meankids

(Note: A lot of pages have been disappearing lately, if this one is gone I can send an image of it.)

So, where do you draw the line? If you create the environment, encourage the environment, and generally feed the flames, but stop short of making the actual posts, does that let you off the hook?

Lisa, nice job alerting people to the seriousness of the situation here without throwing gasoline on the fire. This type of behavior is apalling, but I also feel we shouldn't give these kind of creeps more attention than they deserve.

Kalyn Denny
Kalyn's Kitchen ( http://kalynskitchen.blogspot.com )

Lisa, it would have been so easy to just throw another log on the blogfire here, but you took the high road with a reasoned and researched reply. Thanks for calling it as it is. THIS is why I love the team at BlogHer. Can I be you when I grow up?

--Mata

~~ Contributing Editor, Mata H. also blogs relentlessly at Time's Fool ( http://timesfool.blogspot.com )

Thanks for posting this, Lisa. I'm working with some of the folks at PBS Teachers to organize a "Stop Cyberbullying Day" this Friday. Beth Kanter just blogged about it here, but in case you haven't seen it yet, here's a link to the essay ( http://www.pbs.org/teachers/learning.now/2007/03/m... ) on PBS.org where I lay out the idea.

...I find myself challenged by this. It's so easy to agree that these words and images are sickening, but I've found extracting the lesson, particularly when people that I know and respect are involved on both sides, to extract what went wrong, and what needs to happen in the future to keep this place clean.

The hate speech isn't just a nasty inconvenience of the internet, it threatens all of our livelihoods, whether we earn money or creative expression from blogging. The Blogosphere is a self-policing organization, and it warms me to see that so many of us are on-duty, though I'm sad to see that Kathy will still be sitting at home during E-Tech. This isn't victory.

I only know Jeaneane and Frank personally, of the people who were mentioned. I never read MeanKids, but I did read Jeaneane's thoughtful congrats on my wedding day, and Frank's well-reasoned analysis of his time at BlogHer, so it hurts to see such a sad turn. I do not believe they wrote this content or condoned it, though by creating the forum they've become responsible.

I wrote this in a note to Lisa--it's not exactly Proust, but it sums up a lesson:

Don't bother creating sites meant to criticize, it gives crazies a license to go nuts, and then you're left holding the bag.

Jory Des Jardins
BlogHer
Personal Blog Pause ( http://www.jorydesjardins.com )

Lisa,

Excellent, thoughtful post....great that you took the time to dig into this and your post reflects this!

I have to say that returning from Blogher Business which represented all the wonderful things about the blogosphere and the people who blog to this quagmire was jarring.

Although I don't know Kathy Sierra personally, I am a regular reader of her blog and frequently quote her on my blog. Jeneane I count as a friend and colleague and her writing is always a delight.

Connecting Jeneane to death threats is another very unfortunate outcome of this....not to diminish the outrageousness of Kathy's situation; that needs to be dealt with relentlessly, through every available avenue.

Elisa, I agree with you regarding re-publishing the nauseating photos...totally unnecessary.

Blogher's policies and community guidelines and response to this makes me proud to be part of the community and I can only hope that this whole situation serves to direct attention to stopping the perpetrators versus giving them the attention that they obviously thrive on.

Marianne

Marianne Richmond
resonancepartnership ( http://www.resonancepartnership.com )

I think Kathy Sierra is brilliant. The Head First books in general and her blog in particular are significant because they create a challenging and forward-thinking dialog about learning, education, and human interactions with technology. I also read Jeneane Sessum's blog and find her level headed and incisive on the technology topics she writes about.

These blogs are not disembodied electrons. They are connected to human women who react to threats in human ways.

Lisa, I appreciate you doing some fact-finding around the parts of this issue that relate to BlogHer.

I think we as a community need to help find out who created these noxious threats if we can. Other threats against women bloggers should not be tolerated either. It's a major flaw in the system that people who are held responsible for their actions in the real world can do such things anonymously in a virtual world and not be held accountable.

http://www.webteacher.ws/
http://first50.wordpress.com/

Like many others, my email runneth over on this issue. One of my emails was from a former colleague Bill Harris ( ironically while we worked for a client in Seattle , we discovered we went to the same high school in Richmond, VA). In sharing his thoughts with me on this issue of women against violence he wondered if we would want to create a graphic...a symbol much like the HIV Aids ribbons, breast cancer,etc that we could put on our blogs to show our support, our concern, our advocacy on this very important issue. As Bill shared in his email....

OTOH, we risk bumper-sticker politics at some point; I know that there are limits to the goodness of the idea of showing one's colors -- self-righteousness isn't a fashion that wears well. And the _real_ implications of being against violence spread pretty far (and I think that's good).

Thoughts?

elana
Blogher Contributing Editor,Business&CareersFunnyBusiness ( http://funnybusiness.typepad.com/funnybusiness )

Thanks for representing so well, as you always do, Lisa.

I blogged about this on Worker Bees ( http://workerbeesblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/stalkin... ), and then this morning after seeing the continuing blogswarm on the topic, I had to ask ( http://workerbeesblog.blogspot.com/2007/03/update-... ): are we, the blogosphere, perpetuating Kathy's exploitation to the delight of her trolls and her own detriment?

Here's what I mean: I'm seeing people post about this and using the disturbing images Kathy pointed to to illustrate exactly how serious her problem was. I can understand blogging about this...even though it breaks the "don't feed the trolls" guideline. But re-publishing the photoshopped images? I think that's really really bad...and re-exploiting Kathy.

Right? Can people stop that please?

Elisa Camahort
BlogHer and Worker Bees
elisa@blogher.org/elisa@workerbees.biz

Lisa, this was an excellent post and I'm happy to see you were able to address the situation without bias and to bring some clarity to the events. It was very shocking to read Kathy's article and I do hope her attacker is caught and faces the consequences for the damage done.

Dana from The Dana Files ( http://thedanafiles.com ).

Susan Mernit, Susan Mernit's Blog ( http://susanmernit.blogspot.com )
Lisa--good post. I've commented here ( http://susanmernit.blogspot.com/2007/03/kathy-sier... ) and the short version would be--don't be an asshole and then wonder if you went off the tracks-you did.

I'm also glad BlogHer has responded, thoughtfully and judiciously. I've only just learned about Kathy Sierra and the whole meankids phenomenon as a result of this controversy, and I must say that when I read about it, my mind reeled. Like many other women online, I've received my share of disturbing comments and e-mails, but this is beyond the pale. I certainly hope this ugly episode comes to a swift and safe conclusion for her.

Lisa, I think that this situation, and your response, demonstrates why there is still a place for professional journalists in the blogosphere -- people with the experience and maturity to check the facts and exercise editorial judgment. Thanks, Lisa.

BlogHer Contributing Editor ( http://www.blogher.com/<a )
Law and Journalism/Media
Professor Kim ( http://professorkim.blogspot.com )

Contributing Writer ( http://www.ojr.org/ojr/people/KimPearson ), Online Journalism Review

For this clear and well-thought out post, and for taking the time to fulfill your daily commitments and then sit down to digest everything, talk to Jeneane, and post this. There is the strangest energy in the blogosphere sometimes that just because we can scrawl something out and hit "post" we need to drop everything to respond to things immediately and first, like it's a race or like there's nothing else going on in our worlds. I think this post was done in good time and in good form. Thank you for the information.

Liz Rizzo ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/liz-rizzo )

I blog at Everyday Goddess ( http://everydaygoddess.typepad.com/ ) and On The Lot ( http://community.thelot.com/blogs/lizriz ).

This is evil, malicious and every legit blogger should be outraged. If there is any good that has come out of Kathy's horrid experience it is the bright spotlight on something that has been swept under the table for too long *and* the support from the community .. both men and women.

If there is an additional lesson learned it is one of blog/social media credibility. A link and a name on a blog does not does not = the truth, as we've seen happen to our colleague Jeneane, who is going through her own nightmare because we assume that all that is written is real.

Bottomline - we can’t allow the bad guys to halt what has become important business and personal “conversations.”

For people who have never had to deal with this kind of situation (myself included), it's hard to believe that anyone would be mean-spirited enough to even fathom doing something like this.

Personal blog: Keep Up With Me ( http://www.zandria.us )
BlogHer blog: Life - Singles ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/zandria )

Personally I am disgusted with myself for buying and recommending Chris Locke's book and I sincerely hope I haven't contributed in any way to the rest of the meankids' bottom line.