The Matter of Kathy Sierra

You always have to take seriously about what are you writing about when thousands of people can read it. It can be a risk of some kind of misbehavior from the side of those who got this information. Also, if someone of your relatives or friends used to be interested in your posts you should remember not to abuse some of them...
So, it is known that the number of violent deaths tells only part of the story. Many more survive violence and are left with permanent physical and emotional scars. Violence also erodes communities by reducing productivity, decreasing property values, and disrupting social services.
To prevent all these problems a special program should be embedded in all edu institutions to tell more students how to cope with it. More term paper writing ( http://www.bestessayhelp.com/term-paper-help ) should be composed.
"No one knows what it feels like. I have survived abuse. I have had to run for my life living in shelters throughout the country before the name change. I have tried to get my story out and most of the media has ignored me. Has the world become so complacent that no one cares?"
The author of these words is a lady, whose name is Jane. Once she became a violence victim. She also said: "Abuse knows no borders. The government of every country has to protect its people."

I think I will become a great follower.Just want to say your article is striking. The clarity in your post is simply striking and i can take for granted you are an expert on this subject.
GPS Fleet Management ( http://virtualfleetsupervisor.com/ )

The issue brought up here goes beyond the blog world and is also in talk radio programs. I have just been on a long road trip and sometimes the only talk radio I could get was right wing. Listening to the hosts surprisingly often was not as bad as their callers. I felt the hosts egged them on, created an environment where those anonymous callers got nastier and nastier as the atmosphere enhanced an attitude of hate.

Since I do not know any of the people you mentioned, had never heard of the blogs other than Frank's (and have only heard nice things about him), I had to go read the woman's site to fully understand what happened. My first thought was amazement that what she had been writing inspired hate mail of the sort she was writing about. It had all seemed innocuous-- unless in my hasty skimming, I missed something else. Amazing what people can become enraged about-- although I have seen before from past experiences and different essays ( http://www.bestessays.com ) in chat rooms that the internet inspires a particularly nasty quality in some people. They seem to feel, that being anonymous, they are safe to be as ugly as they want.

It would seem that her fear was increased when she saw the post at meankids. I never was there, the title would never have appealed to me at all-- I had enough of that when I was a kid or my own children were young; but it sounds like nobody at meankids meant it to be life threatening only seeing it as a way to let of steam maybe?

Since the world is full of those who do mean it threatening-- on the right or left-- it's not hard to see why she'd be afraid. We have seen too many celebrities killed by someone who got an idea in their head and carried it out.

I think blog hosts do need to be responsible, and I appreciate what Time goes by does here by not allowing hate talk. Some use humor to hurt also which I also don't appreciate.

On my own blog, which sometimes is political and controversial, as long as comments stay polite and stick to the issues, not character assassination, I appreciate dissent and often get it. I have had concern about being known by my name and see where when you use your full name in a blog, you would have more concern as it's quite easy to trace people with the various methods online. And as you wrote, those risks for people who are out front has been there all along. I think that we need to not cheer when someone says something vicious and instead stand against that kind of talk, wherever we see it, because there are sure plenty on the other side creating a more and more mean environment where real discourse becomes impossible.

OMG!! That's taking it too far. This is NOT satire. Noone should be threatened this way to youtube ( http://www.youtube-izlesene.org/ )

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.

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 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.

In her interview with KGO-TV ( http://jerseygoddess.blogspot.com/2007/03/have-you... ), 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 ( http://nexus.writingjunkie.net ) And here's a link to the blog ( http://jerseygoddess.blogspot.com/ ).

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.

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 ( http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/cybercrime/cyberstal... ))
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 ( http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech/arts/to... ), 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 ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carol_Burnett#Lawsuit... ) 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. ( http://jerseygoddess.blogspot.com/2007/03/have-you... )

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 ( http://nexus.writingjunkie.net ) And here's a link to the blog ( http://jerseygoddess.blogspot.com/ ).

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

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.

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.]

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

Ronni Bennett
Time Goes By ( http://www.timegoesby.net )

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 ( http://doc.weblogs.com/2007/03/28#whatItIsnt ) none of the people Kathy named are responsible, and as a matter of fact, Chris Locke did delete the entire site ( http://blogs.zdnet.com/Ratcliffe/?p=277 ) himself one post at a time.

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

You miss the point.

This is what happened ( http://dan100.blogspot.com/2007/03/paynter-and-loc... ). 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. 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.

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.

You can read the full text of it here ( http://doc.weblogs.com/2007/03/28#whatItIsnt ). 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: ( http://listics.com/20070326984 )

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 ³You Own Your Own Words² tradition, so moderating or central editorial control wouldn¹t 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 ( http://drumsnwhistles.com ))

Ronni,

If no fire exists, do you believe the 1st amendment allows you to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater?

From cwfa.org: "Federal law is clear. 18 U.S.C. Sec. 875 (c) states: "Whoever transmits in interstate or foreign commerce any communication containing any threat to kidnap any person or any threat to injure the person of another, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both."

I'm all for the 1st amendment, I'm the ACLU's biggest fan, but death threats are simply not protected speech. I agree that those terrible words and images aren't acts, but they're also not "free speech".

Finally, I don't think "inuendo" is an accurate description. The people Kathy mentioned either helped to create these sites, create the "content" on these sites, and/or celebrated these sites. Where's the inuendo?

Ronni Bennett
Time Goes By ( http://www.timegoesby.net )

Bert...

As you say, Bert, until someone explains, no one knows what happened. I have worked on professional news websites where any number of people had publishing privileges and sometimes mistakes were made and not caught for a long time due to overwork and just plain human error.

In addition, none of us knows the original intent of the site administrators when it was created. There are dozens of questions that are unanswered. The images and words were hateful, but I still stand as a First Amendment absolutist. However terrible words or images may be, they are not acts.

Due to other obligations, I don't have time today to follow the conversations going on around this, but so far here I don't see anyone addressing Kathy's accusations by innuendo. There are no facts here and people are jumping to a lot of conclusions.

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

What I find troubling about both MeanKids and UncleBobism is that heinous, misogynist, racist things were said about Kathy Sierra and Maryam Scoble (and others) and to the best of my knowledge, none of the other MK/UB participants issued a protest.

Hi Ronni,

You said: "If it had been my site on which someone (sic) posted those images and words, would I have removed them?"

The word "someone" doesn't apply in this case. The POSTS in question were in fact POSTS, not user comments. By definition, this so-called "content" was created by the site's owner(s), or by someone to whom the owners gave special access permissions. While it's true that WE don't know who, in this small circle, created this content, it's simply not accurate to say that the owners aren't responsible. They are responsible not only for allowing the content to stand, but also for creating it in the first place. Don't mistake this for some sort of debate over moderation responsibilities.

As far as I'm concerned, the fact that no one in this small crew is coming forward makes it absolutely appropriate that they should all be under suspicion.

Bert

Ronni Bennett
Time Goes By ( http://www.timegoesby.net )

I am not an attorney and I have no idea, from what Kathy has told us and not told us, what may or may not be forbidden speech. Neither does anyone else I've read yet.

You see, I am a First Amendment absolutist and I would like to read, amid the discussion of how the Delete key should be wielded, some more nuanced discusssion than I have seen on just where anyone believes the line should be drawn in censoring the Web, blogs or any other speech.

Certainly the words and images directed at Kathy are hateful and abhorrent. If a law has been broken, the accused should be prosecuted. Let's do keep in mind, however, that that person is the one who created and posted the words and images.

Beyond that, I don't see what can or should be done publicly. In case anyone hasn't noticed, anonymous abusers are not the sort of people who "own their words." There are bad people in the world. They do bad things. Bad things happen to good people.

And it multiplies the violation when good people respond in kind.

If it had been my site on which someone posted those images and words, would I have removed them? Yes, because they are personal attacks. I would also have removed Kathy's post - because it too is a personal attack. That one is more frightful and graphic does not make the second less offensive. And what is to be said of the commentators who are publishing the one available image?

There is a rush to judgment regarding the owners and administrators of the site. The offending site is gone now and for all anyone knows, it was removed as soon as the owners/administrators were made aware of the attacks.

Kathy's insinuations and innuendo against Frank, Chris, Allen, Jeneane and Doc have not been removed. Some people will believe what she has implied, not realizing it is unfair and unfounded. So it would be good to see some more nuanced discussion of that as well. Or are victims given a pass for their bad behavior?

You are hurt and you are pissed off ... but that doesn't give you (or anyone ) the right to become a one-woman vigilante committee. You may not name names and link links at will ... This is what it's all about, oddly enough. The American way, what tromped little shards of it as are left.

I'm on your side, girl - and you need to stop with the naming and blaming in public. I know it's frustrating as hell, and I imagine you are kinda shocky right now, but someone needs to tell you shut up now.

Talk to your lawyer.

> women I hear from who are having extraordinarily awful experiences, how deeply it disturbs and threatens these women and, ultimately muzzles them

Yes. It's the "I'll scare you to into silence" part of the whole thing that's had this former victim of violence shaking in her shoes all day since hearing of this.

Is this a specific topic BlogHer might tackle, to help people understand how there's no such thing as overreacting to this type of intimidation of women?

Now again...on a woman's site a woman has to prove her innocence??
Nope sorry I’m so not buying into that!
How special that some of these terrorists are members of blogher..
God Knows we wouldent want to do anything to mar the record right?

Live simply. Love generously. Care deeply. Speak kindly
http://www.petsgardenblog.com
http://www.petsgardenphotography.com

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

It's a pity it wasn't used by the folks who were behind the MeanKids.org site more judiciously.

I couldn't disagree with you more when you dismiss the comments, images and overall escalation as being similar to high-school antics. We have lawmakers ready to shut down most speech on the Internet as a result of high school antics. Does it make it any less real or threatening because it's juvenile? Tell that to the teachers and vice principals who were the target of high schoolers' arrows on Facebook. ( http://www.blogher.com/node/17345 )

Does the fact that threatening, malicious activity appears juvenile make it any less chilling to the person who is on the receiving end? I think not.

I also don't agree with lynch mobs. But I do think that some responsibility should be placed at the feet of those who had control over the delete key and didn't use it. I also think that some responsibility should be laid at the feet of anyone who encouraged or fostered mean-spirited and malicious speech toward others. The fact that they are held up as prominent bloggers just makes it worse.

The criminal responsibility should be laid at the feet of the one who posted the threats. And there were threats. There's no other way to interpret words like "slash your -- throat", or describing beatings with a bat other than a threat. Those words should be owned by the coward who posted them, who has not yet been named.

Karoli (odd time signatures ( http://drumsnwhistles.com ))

For those of you who haven't read the thoughts I posted earlier, here's the post: Hating Hate Speech: Safety for Kathy Sierra and all women online ( http://www.blogher.com/node/17319 ).

As you'll see, I credit Jeneane Sessum ( http://www.blogher.com/blog/jeneane-sessum ) with being a terrific contributing editor in BlogHer's community and an important advisor for our conferences. She and I spoke last night; read my post for that update and my belief in her. This story is still unfolding; I hope more facts will come to light soon. I am not impressed by a number of the blogs I'm seeing today that appear to understand half the facts but are pursuing a witch-hunt of the creators of these sites anyway.

That said, Ronni, in the spirit of civil disagreement we embrace here at BlogHer, I have to disagree on two key points:

(1) I have to reiterate my personal disdain for sites like the ones where commenters assaulted Kathy. As I wrote in the post above, and sorry to repeat myself but, for the record, 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. It looks to me as though the site devolved into being exactly what anyone who has ever seen that kind of site fester would expect.

I'm glad Frank apologized for the effect the site had on the community.I admire Frank for stepping up. There is a degree of responsibility that site hosts must take for creating and fostering community. That's why I also go on and on in my post (linked above) about BlogHer's Community Guidelines ( http://www.blogher.com/community-guidelines ) -- which forbid the kind of awful treatment Kathy received.

(2) You seem to suggest that women should toughen up when you write, "Shocking as words and images can be, they are, after all, words....More recently, I’ve dispatched nasty blog trolls who have personally attacked me by deleting their comments and never responding. They get bored and leave fairly quickly."

I disagree. These are not just words. They are threats, complete with photos altered to depict potential abuse. Like you, I've worked in newsrooms and watched the most prominent women around me get stalked. I've had trouble myself.

What do we do now that blogs are the new newsroom? Today's stalkers are more protected to do their dirty work -- they have email and registered comments to replace stamped mail and telephone calls. We, however, lack receptionists, security guards, bullet-proof windows and photographers and cameramen to walk us to our cars and watch our backs.

I cannot tell you how many women I hear from who are having extraordinarily awful experiences, how deeply it disturbs and threatens these women and, ultimately muzzles them. I think we all need to take responsibility for the space we create.

That's why I've stepped beyond the personal silence I maintain about my own email inbox--and the disdain I feel for the "haters" who occasionally fill it: http://www.blogher.com/node/12104.

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

You are wrong about some of the facts, although I do understand your interpretation of my post. There *are* more facts and evidence I'm not able to state publicly without revealing sources who asked not to be identified. If Jeneane or Frank or Chris states publicly that Jeneane had NO involvement in meankids (beyond a single link to it), I will publicly apologize. So far, she's denying involvement with unclebob (and I believe her), not meankids.

You're damn right I'm *linking* these folks to these posts. You're wrong about their involvement. The posts and comments were NOT made by--as you said--heinous trolls. Whoever made the posts was a registered member, and they *know* who made the comments -- he was one of their participants. I never said Jeaneane was the one creating the noose picture or comment. I said she was a participant in and "celebrated" and encouraged meankids.org. I believe that when prominent people encourage this kind of behavior, they don't get to wash their hands of it, ethically.

I should be more clear, though, that while *someone* broke the law with the noose photo/comment, I'm definitely NOT suggesting that anyone else did anything legally wrong.

But I think Hugh put it better than I can:

--You might not be the guy raping the cheerleader, but if you're the one standing by saying, "go go go!" you share some responsibility.--

Not legal, but ethical. I don't believe any of these folks should be able to create these forums, *celebrate* them, send people there, and actively participate... and then claim complete innocence. If you hand someone a loaded gun. and encourage them to shoot...

I, too, wish that Ms. Sierra had been more clear in her post about the associations between the people she mentioned and the various sites and incidents. I don't have a problem with her condemning people who would start a site for what she saw as the express purpose of bashing others - AND in the same post discuss how it then got even worse when criminal action took place. But it would have been better if more distinction was drawn between the different actions. As it is, I had to read it several times to make out exactly how the folks were connected or not.

However, given how freaked out she was, I'm cutting her a little slack. Especially after she publicly accepted the apology from Frank Paynter in an update to her post. Hopefully as everyone sorts out what happened, any other issues will be handled as graciously between adults.

I am a little frustrated, though, by the folks who are writing things about how they received such-and-such kind of threats and harassment and they shook it off. I don't see how this is relevant. Ms. Sierra is as upset as Ms. Sierra is, and how someone else felt in a different situation is not really relevant. Ronni, I see where you were going with your comments but I do feel it tends to minimize other people's experiences.

All in all, I was shocked that such invective was used against someone who writes about software development, for pete's sake. I don't know almost anything about Ms. Sierra or many of the other people mentioned, but I only expect this kind of junk on political and feminist sites. I was also astounded to see Tantek Celik comment on Ms. Sierra's post and say he'd also been threatened. Here I thought software was a fairly neutral topic, but I guess nothing is safe from mean-spiritedness.
__

Flooded Lizard Kingdom ( http://www.lizardkingdom.org )
Heroine Content ( http://www.heroinecontent.net )