Burningbird

Good points and good response.

I'm troubled by the rash of sites like meankids (though I honestly have never visited it until today and now I'm doing it through cached versions and second hand blog posts that linked to the content that is no longer visible). I'm troubled by photoshopping to incite troll-like behavior, and the even more troubling behavior that happens in those posts - like the comments Kathy talked about in her post.

Like you, I don't know about what crimes have been committed or what charges may be filed - that's not up to me. I do know that the blogosphere and people should be better than this.

Snark and sarcasm are one thing, this is something else entirely. I like snark. I don't like threats.

[…] Disappointed by Shelley Powers (context here!) […]

Shelley -
Frank has already publicly apologized. We have been very careful here, we have documentation that supports all of the connections that Kathy made on her blog. At this point we don't know who actually made these horrible posts, but we do know who applauded and encouraged them.
- Bert

Bert, two things:

There was statements of threats against Kathy's life in comments and posts and emails. Those need to go to the police.

But there were other posts that, as appalling as they may have been, were not criminal. Kathy's post merged them all into one, and it's difficult to separate out what event happened where.

It's important that all sides be heard. I think it would be a good idea for Frank et al to actually return the original sites.

As for the comments deleted that threatened Kathy's life, then of course you all need to handle that differently. Which police force is investigating this?

When I cautioned care, I was cautioning people's reactions. I still caution the same — people need to think, first, before responding. It may be, in the end, they'll respond the same, but at least it won't be an off the cuff reaction.

[…] I'm playing catch up. Trying to sort out what went wrong and why. Like the always brilliant Shelley Powers, I'm not interested in pointing fingers at any individuals. Kathy can do that, with whatever […]

Denise, no I don't like threats either. I know of a very popular weblogger who had to quit some years back because she was being stalked by an individual. He actually even inserted threats into her weblog statistics using specialize headers on page's requested.

I also like snark, but I also know that it's only 'fun' when all parties are 'with' the program, so to speak. And yes, there are lines between sharp wit, and witless behavior.

I think the sites were a very bad mistake. I think they, and it sounded like adopted 'roles', gave people a great deal of freedom and they didn't use good judgment or sense. I did find cached versions of the pages, and well, the posts are mean. Not particularly funny either. I'm not sure what happened with this — I think people did as a group what they wouldn't as individuals.

I do know these people, though. I'm trying to reconcile the events Kathy described and the people. This is just making me feel incredibly sad. And worried.

I'm also concerned that this will start another round suppressing those who are critical, or those who write anonymously. This could end up being a witch hunt, and that will harm weblogging as much as the nastiness described in Kathy's post.

I don't want Kathy to be harmed, and I'm sorry she was threatened, what a horrid thing. But I don't want to see webloggers reacting as webloggers–in other words, reacting as a mob, and reacting badly.

I don't want Kathy to be harmed

Too late. She was harmed the moment she genuinely feared for her safety. Threats of violent sexual assault and murder aren't something that can be brushed off lightly.

Shelly, I am afraid I disagree on calm response. Internet is a wild wild west and there is a desperate need to tame it. There is already a growing belief among the young that one can do anything on Internet. Some foolish ones are even led to believe they can away with anything in real life if you are smart enough. True or not, lines have to be drawn, lines with flashing sign that reads "we'll come down on your ass hard if you cross this line." These lines will step on some idealistic toes and hurt some folks unjustly but they are needed.

Bedrock of civilizations are made of blood and bones.

[…] I love what Kathy Sierra does, but apparently some people really don't. How they communicated that is just sick, though. Here's Shelley's take. […]

I think this is extremely sad, and worrisome .. and I think we should not be surprised that it has happened. The Web shows us the actions and behaviours of humans in real life, but in sometime sharper and sometimes fuzzier relief (in this case very sharp). Kathy's concerns are real, for her and for others, and Shelley's points are thoughtful and very well crafted.

Sites like meankids and the bob thing are (IMO) reflective of the cynicism and spiritual violence that (in my opinion) has accelerated in the USA and around the world over the past decade plus, and while I (like you) know a number of the people cited, in my experience they are fine, decent and caring people. Satire is a powerful instrument, and it can also be very influential and manipulative on minds and psychologies that are less mature or tempered. It deserves to be wielded with care and a difficult-to-define degree of responsibility.

Let's hope that this situation, now that it is public, becomes a moment and an opportunity for deep reflection about what being an effective human being means for all of us who believe that the Web is by-and-large an useful addition to peoples' lives.

Don - tell it to the politi-bloggers. You will find such horrific comments posted regularly on hard Left leaning or Right leaning blogs.

All the time.

It's only here - among the digerati - that the shock is so raw.

I want those that posted and emailed the threats in jail. However, those that run the sites or 'encouraged' the behavior?

Then you'll have to arrest folks as diverse as Howard Stern. As Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs. And Kos at Daily Kos.

So what should we do, Ralph? Should we put Jeneane Sessum in jail? Frank?

Should we ban them from weblogging?

What actions should we take to lessen the harm?

What I'm trying to say is that we haven't heard from all the people, and isn't it reasonable to wait until we do? I don't want harm to come to Kathy. But a person from Spain and a guy named Joey made the threats — not Jeneane, Frank, Alan, or Chris.

The one was an email, and Joey's comments were in a weblog — does that mean they have to accept responsibility? Hell, I might as well shut down comments now, because I can't always trust that one of you won't say something harmful. And with Google caching, even with me deleting it's around forever.

Don, what is the line? Seriously? Are you the judge then? Safely from your desk?

Death threats? Of course they're wrong. And they should be directed to the police. But Jeneane, Alan, Frank, nor Chris were the creators of these threats. And as far as I can see from cached copy, didn't condone them either.

So what are they guilty of? Providing an environment for people to write this way? Well, hell, we're all guilty of that.

All of us, including you.

"I want those that posted and emailed the threats in jail. However, those that run the sites or 'encouraged' the behavior?

Then you'll have to arrest folks as diverse as Howard Stern. As Charles Johnson and Little Green Footballs. And Kos at Daily Kos."

A-MEN karl.

Or Feministe or Pandragon or … the list goes on.

Did you know that Jeneane was in the hospital the entire time this Uncle Bob site was live and these words were written?

Second and third karl and Shelley's comments .. and I believe that Kathy very clearly enunciated her support for a wide interpretation of free speech. That said, there is much that could arguably pass for hate speech on many blogs / in blog communities. Thats the danger of visible, retrievable text and pictures simulating peoples' lives and interactions in full view of evryone and anyone .. we get to see what lots of people might say in their family room of across a backyard fence or while driving down the road.

We need to learn how to shun and shut down online, yes, but appropriately and with proper information. We do not need to create posses at the flick of a link. I have already seen too many posts denunciating Frank or Jeneane or Chris or Alan based on pure assumption or association, without any information … or specifically in Jeneane's case without reading her post where Update #3 may not have been immediately visible.

By having comments on my site, I may, as you say, provide an opportunity for people to comment in such a manner. The fact that they haven't may reflect the fact that nobody reads my site, or it may reflect the fact that I don't encourage such comments.

A site like meankids.org, on the other hand, did. The purpose of the site, as I understand it, was to attack people. I don't for a minute believe it was intended to do so in the way that Kathy was attacked, but that's a matter of degree. It was a mean spirited initiative.

I'm not interested in seeing Frank or Jeneane in jail. I believe that Frank is shocked and appalled at what has happened and ashamed of his own part in enabling it to happen. +1 for the apology, Frank; minus several million for starting the site in the first place. I'm not sure what to think about Jeneane at the moment. I found her back-and-forth in comments with Kathy's partner Bert troubling. Jeneane has always been about living her life as openly as possible. I would never post the kind of personal things she posts on Allied. So to see her going silent at this point, where the only thing on her site addressing this appears to be a rather rude exchange with Bert, I don't think it reflects well on her right now. Yes, I know she was in the hospital. But she still found time two days ago to have that exchange. I'm not saying she should post a detailed explanation of everything she knows or anything; if she has any idea who posted the threats, that's best communicated to the police investigating the matter, not to an audience of bloggers. But a simple apology, an expression of regret and sympathy, of horror at the way things have unfolded, would go a long way, much as it has for Frank, and the longer it takes for that to happen, the worse things look.

I find the whole idea behind meankids.org and Bob's Yer Uncle odious. I had enough of flamewars in my years on Usenet to last a lifetime. If Frank and Jeneane didn't want to risk their reputations, they shouldn't have gotten involved with the sites in the first place. If you fly with the pigs, don't be surprised if you end up in the muck.

Shelley you contradicted yourself. You said toward the end of the post: "At a minimum, for all the people calling for the police and demanding jail time, I would counsel calm, because we don't know the full story."

But then you said in comment #4: "There was statements of threats against Kathy's life in comments and posts and emails. Those need to go to the police."

So which way do you feel? People should be calling for the police or not? I think illegal activity is illegal activity and it is calm to contact the police. Don't you?

Just a quick correction; thanks to my unclear writing, my last paragraph in comment 16 implies that Frank and Jeneane were part of the Bob's Yer Uncle site. My understanding is that they weren't. The point still stands, though, given that they were part of the meankids.org site.

Thanks Shelley and Jon. I should add - I've never read any of these sites. Didn't know they existed. The names that have been associated with them are people I *do* read here and there however - and this seems way out of character.

There is a special circle of hell set aside for those that wish violence on others. Especially women. I know that's sexist but the image that Kathy posted was out of a horror movie. That kind of behavior is NEVER acceptable and I feel terrible for her. It's behavior that should be discouraged by all of us.

TDavid, sorry, didn't mean to be confusing. No, if direct threats were made, and continue to be made, these need to go to the police.

At the same time, the post mixed multiple events, some of which had nothing to do with Kathy. I think people need to be careful about including Alan, Jeneane, Chris, and Frank in their demands for justice and jail.

Better clarification?

Ralph, I had a site called the Bb Gun. Remember that? You wouldn't believe what mean things people said to me in comments at that site. I accepted such because I wrote strongly, and critically of people. You might be surprised at who wrote some of the mean things, and what they said.

How do we differentiate 'mean' from being critical? Oh, some is pretty obvious–but not always. Sometimes it is really is in the eyes of the beholder.

Now everyone is demanding weblogging ethics and lines drawn — what kind of impact do you think that will have in the future? I know for a fact that people will probably think twice about being critical of anything Kathy says. Will that be good?

Jon Husband:

I hesitate to join in on this discussion because, in the past, I have defended (with significant reservations) things which could be termed as hate speech (http://www.martinlutherking.org/ for example). As such, I think I have to hasten to add that it's important not to confuse hate speech with things like libel/slander or threats of violence. They are different issues, and I think they need to be addressed differently. Certainly, none of them should be tolerated as acceptable discourse among civilized people, but I believe that it's important that speech such as what I linked above (nofollowed) remain protected. Not because any of it is true, or deserves consideration, but because I believe that disallowing it gives it some legitimacy it would otherwise not have.

All that said, I too feel shocked. I've come to expect this kind of filth from some parts of the internet, but it's terrible to have to confront this kind of thing in the parts of the internet that I have come to expect better of.

(editor removed link, as nofollow isn't supported at this site.)

[…] that we should allow for a reasonable time and not rush to judgment in hanging the parties named.  Shelly Powers has a good post, and I appreciate some of the comments.  I liken the this to the short story by Ambrose Bierce, An […]

To characterize the threats that prompted Kathy's post as simply "mean" is to trivialize them. The line here isn't between "mean" and "critical", it's between "mean" and "criminal".

I haven't said anywhere that any of your four friends mentioned in the post belong in jail. I don't know that. I don't know who posted the threats; if any of them were directly involved, then jail is a possibility; so is psychiatric treatment. I do think they each had a role in creating the atmosphere where such threats would be posted, and I think it diminishes them.

Yes, that makes sense, thank you for the clarification, Shelley. My post on the situation didn't include those four people because I read their involvement as tangential at best. If more comes out to indicate otherwise I may feel differently but from what I've read so far it seems largely like a case of anon cowardice and abuse :(

As you know, IP addresses are mostly meaningless. An anonymizer takes care of any meaning they may have had and if someone is posting anonymous threats, it's likely that they've disguised their identities as well.

I'm all for free speech when it's owned by the person speaking. My familiarity with meankids.org isn't much — I recall it being linked in someone's blog post and that's about it.

But there is a Digg mob mentality afoot and lately it's been rearing up. It's no longer about agreement or disagreement, it's about finding the most vulnerable part of someone and attacking. It's predatory behavior, and it really does need to stop.

I agree TDavid, and thanks for that.

Ralph, Kathy's post covered multiple topics. One was threats of physical violence. No one condones that. But the second introduced had to do with people being mean. People can be mean without being violent or threaten violence. I think the two became somewhat conflated in Kathy's post.

The person who sent the email did so based on their own views, not because they were 'encouraged' as such. The person who made the comments about Kathy and the noose, did so based on their own views, not because of the post. People have to take responsibility for their actions.

If we go about making weblogging 'safe' for everyone, we have to eliminate 98% of the political weblogs, first. And then we'll have to filter all the rest of the weblogging environment. People react as they do because of who they are, not because they're 'made' to by others actions.

Meankids didn't make people send threats. Uncle Bob didn't make people send threats. People did that all by themselves.

As for meankids and Uncle Bob's? Ignore them. Ignoring someone is a wonderful weapon, I use it all the time against bigots and most sexists.

"These lines will step on some idealistic toes and hurt some folks unjustly but they are needed."

Unjustly? What would be the point of countering an injustice with more injustice? What would be gained?

I can't say that I blame Kathy for conflating them. Given the nature of the threats, I would be inclined to reinterpret previous "meanness" as well. That doesn't mean that I think that Frank et. al. bear anything like full responsibility for the threats. But they ought to feel some shame for their part in creating the atmosphere where someone thought that would be acceptable. So far, Frank is the only one who has accepted that publicly.

What a bunch of totally twisted, sick little minds living inside a thimble - believing they comprise any part of the real world - simply amazing, sick.

Ralph, with what has been said, I would think that all four would want to take their time and think about what they want to say before saying it.

Reinterpret previous meanness? Well, then you'll have to include me in this. Should I also bare my soul for the masses? Beg for absolution? Promise never to be 'mean' again?

I despise people who use threats against anyone. I despise people who use the threat of physical and/or sexual violence against anyone, but especially a woman since we are typically physically weaker.

But I have the ability to separate my emotion from my intellect and believe in that people are innocent until proved guilty.

I reread the original Kathy Sierra post and I see no indication that she plans to file charges against the maintainers of the sites involved. She's contacted the police about specific, enumerated threats–and do not doubt for a moment that several of the remarks and images she reported were full-fledged threats of violence, they certainly were, and as such they were criminal, not just tasteless or unfortunate. But the police action, I would presume, is concerned with the individual posters/mailers of the threats.

And then she uses the same post to express dismay about the general atmosphere in certain areas online, and that's where she gets to naming names of people involved with the sites. I guess she makes mention at some point that it's possible that specific threatening posts were authored by one or more of these people, but that's short of an accusation; she's painstakingly clear about what she knows for certain and what she doesn't. So what's the problem? The relationship between how she feels about the threats themselves and how she feels about the site maintainers who maintain a likely venue for such threats is obvious enough. And even if it weren't, it wouldn't have much bearing on any police action; they're still going to look for the actual threateners, and site maintainers should be in the clear unless they refuse to divulge any records they may have about who the posters in question were. What's the problem?

As for the "posse," I admit I didn't read the whole way through the comments, but I read a number of them and people sounded pretty reasonable to me for the most part. What's your fear? That a number of bloggers will have a loose association between these threats and the people called out by name in the post? So what? Anybody who cares enough to follow up on it can probably get clarifying information from one of the principals, in the long run; the others will likely forget, but even if they don't the worst they'll do is decline to read the blogs of those three or four people. It's not much of a punishment.

I suppose the named individuals might be at a slightly greater risk for flamewars in their comments now?

My gut/semi thought out reactions:

1. I'm reminded of the GIFT.

2. Like you, Shelley, I don't believe these alleged actions match Alan's, Frank's or Jeneane's MO. I don't read Chris Locke so I have little to go on other than association, and I'm not seeing anything so far that points the finger of blame squarely between his eyes.

3. Just the same, I empathize with Kathy Sierra and hope that justice is served. Justly.

4. I am already finding traces online of people rounding up their posses and looking for strong tree limbs and twirling a rope. I think various "[name] sucks" sites can be amusing (in small doses), and thinking this != encouraging anonymous threats. Sites like "Eye on Winer" strike me as kinda pathetic, but I view them as rooted in deep disagreement/GIFT/boredom, not threats of any harm.

5. Apparently the accused harasser posted a comment over at HeadRush denying culpability and is essentially claiming that something aimed at "Kat" was misconstrued as a threat against "Kathy". I have nothing to add to this other than to glance askance, as I'm not seeing much in the way of cached material concerning these alleged threats. (Note that I'm saying "alleged" until an actual conviction or other damning evidence is presented to make me drop it.)

6. There is an old adage about online text: Nobody reads anything. Hence the posses, and for that matter, reason to say "alleged" about the threats without harder evidence. Of course, I mostly headed straight for the comments at HeadRush to see what the fallout looked like and to read Frank Paynter's apology, so I'm guilty of not reading too. Arguably more benevolently as I haven't jumped onto my horse, six-guns a-blazin'. But my apologies for not being well-armed with the facts before experiencing my gut reactions.

Robin, I would assume also that there are no legal threats and threats of lawsuits against the four named.

I'm not so sure about what harm will come of this. If it goes like a typical weblog post, it will be forgotten in a couple of days. If it goes into something that triggers all the repressed anger of past exchanges, slights imagined or not, it could be ultimately inhibiting, and even potentially destructive for all the noble sentiments given.

Regardless, since the two events were combined in one post, I have responded to them both in my views of each. I think that condemning the threats of violence is good, and it's nice to see support given to Kathy for this. Perhaps it will make folks more thoughtful when they make crude sexual innuendos and jokes.

But the second part…there the way is more fraught with complication.

As for the impact on the named individuals — do you really think this won't have a significant impact on them and how they perceive weblogging and their own place in it? I imagine Kathy is not the only person thinking of quitting.

There was no threat made to Kathy. The entire thing is a misunderstanding or an intentional hoax which stems from my criticism of her books. I am the "Joey" she is referring to and I ask that you read my reply at her site; assuming she doesn't delete it.

It wasn't a *comment* on the Uncle Bob site that included the horrendous photo of Kathy, or the mention of a noose. Those were *posts*, by one of the *invited authors* of the site, posting under the pseudonym of "Joey".

Frank wasn't silenced–he's been quite eloquent in his apology for the hurt the sites caused. Which is more than I've seen from anyone else involved in the whole sorry business.

BTW, to actually cite an example of a) the posse coming to town, and b) wondering when the actual downward spiral started, check out this post by Frank Patrick on his Listics blog (2/8/2007) where Kathy Sierra encourages the "mean kids" to pick on her for a change, because, quote, "t’s about f’n time. It’s always Tara Tara Tara."

Scroll down to the final (as of this writing) comment.

Honestly, if the above cite is the only thing I have to go on, I'm not seeing where Frank was encouraging any sort of "attack" on Kathy Sierra. I would have assumed that the site was more "[name] sucks" hectoring at worst.

OK, I moved Heaven and Earth and managed to find a decent cached copy of the offending post. (Scroll down to "This is such a bowl…") Nothing threatening in the main post content TEXT.

In the comments of that post, "Joey" says, quote, "The only thing Kathy has to offer me is that noose in her own neck size ;)"

Um, not seeing how that's "Kat" as opposed to "Kathy". Personally, I'm amazed at how quickly the site, including most cached material was de-rezzed. Hmmm. Not the best way to bolster one's case or assert one's innocence. FYI.

On the flip side, I personally view Joey's comment as a throwaway line. I'm having difficulty placing actual context around it, and I will charitably assume that this was a response to something about crocheting together a scarecrow to ward off Kathy Sierra if she ever comes to Sweden. (??) That doesn't say "death threat" to me.

However, I am aware that emails and other comments are in question. I am reserving my remarks to the so-called "noose post". CAVEAT: Images were not cached, so this is purely regarding the text.

Ethan, I read that comment also that way. The photoshopped image was tasteless and crass but I don't perceive it as a threat. Unhappy with the person who did it? Yes! Women have a hard enough time without stupid crap like that. But threat of harm? No, not in my opinion.

Neither do I perceive Alan's comments posted at Kathy's as a threat, since they weren't addressed to her, and seemed to be related to a discussion he was having with something completely unrelated.

What the person wrote in comments at Kathy's was a threat. Since it was completely isolated from the other two weblogs, perhaps folks should just focus on the one true threat. And I wish the police luck in tracking him (or her) down.

Which police are involved? Was that mentioned anywhere?

I don't feel i can speak on this, though I wish I could. Legal statements have been used in emails that leave me unwilling to go beyond stating what I have on my blog. I'll state it again here–anything i have ever written about kathy has been on my own blog. I agree with much of what shelley has written here and thank her, and parts of what Frank has written on his blog as well.

My statements are and will be on my blog, the place I where I actually write stuff, when I know I can speak freely without legal consequence. There are important issues here to discuss, which shelley mentions — layers and layers of them.

I hope Kathy does find the commentor who has threatened her life and takes action to feel safe. And I hope she uses the same vigor to exonerate those whom she has inaccurately linked to those acts.

I'm a little slow getting up to speed on this one. I'm still working on the part where grown ass men and women made a site where they could anonymously poke fun at the way people look.

I'm all for snerk and snark, what we grown folk call sarcasm, but I like mine to rise a little above the junior high slam book level.

Maybe after I figure that part out I'll have a pithy comment about the sorry state of the internet all the jocks and marketers are creating for my daughter.

Robin Tell wrote: "And then she uses the same post to express dismay about the general atmosphere in certain areas online, and that's where she gets to naming names of people involved with the sites."

Robin, imagine that I write a post on my weblog where I talk about people who are threatening me with death. Then I mention that you run a site where some of the threats were posted, and I call you out for promoting such an environment. Could I not be accussed of deliberately trying to imply some association between you and the accusers? Now suppose that the police investigate and it turns out that you are completely innocent in every respect. Isn't there some chance that my reputation will suffer? I think that is what Shelley meant when she said she was worried about Kathy getting hurt. Some of the people reading Kathy's post will feel she's making an implication, and if that implication turns out to be wholly false, then Kathy's reputation will suffer. That is certainly how I feel about it. I love Kathy's blog, and therefore I wish she'd been more careful in the crafting of her post about the death threats.

Hello,

In trying to express my rage and unrest towards these violent events made to Kathy, I created a small graphic called "Zero Violence Blog". I've posted it in my blog hoping people will download the images and include them in a small post relating to freedom of speech, and expressing the support Kathy must be needing today. If you feel like doing so, please head there or ask me and I will e-mail the logos directly to you.

I hope you are moved enough as to try to express yourselves and do something now, before violence spreads wider into our blogging lives.

Thanks,
Ron E.

http://brandcurve.com/zero-violence-blog/

Karoli: >It's no longer about agreement or disagreement, it's about finding the most vulnerable part of someone and attacking.

Yup, particularly if they have more traffic than you do. Then it's "acceptable" behavior.

Personally, I've come to expect that kind of stuff to be aimed at me. But Kathy Sierra?

>jeneane.

You're getting bad legal and/or PR advice. First, if you are telling the truth online, it will come out in the wash. Second, by being quiet you are further sullying your reputation. Third, if you are above reproach (I wonder) then being silent will only sully a repuation that shouldn't be sullied. If you are guilty as charged, though, keep your mouth shut. THAT +is+ good legal advice.

If you aren't guilty, apologizing that your name is even associated with such things would be a proper thing to do.

I'm still trying to wrap my head around everything going on with this. It seems like the references to Frank Paynter et al relate to the creation and maintenance of a website which went out of control. I don't see anything in Kathy's post accusing them of posting the threats, rather, she seems to be pointing to the sanctioning of a site that encouraged anonymous bashing of high-profile bloggers.

Browsing some of the cached items was sickening. The nasty post about Maryam Scoble was just uncalled for. Not threatening, not illegal, just unnecessary, mean and disgusting. I'm not certain what the purpose or ultimate goal of meankids.org was or why it was created in the first place. What did it bring to the table?

As to the noose comment, I don' t know how else one could possibly interpret it other than as a threat, even if it were a 'throwaway'. There's a cumulative effect going on here, beginning with the remarks posted to Kathy's blog and continuing with the comments such as the ones she posted (which she does not attribute to any of the aforementioned bloggers), and culminating with the escalation to email and photoshopping of a degrading and juvenile image.

Having been on the receiving end of a similar escalation as a result of my employment in an online community 10 or so years back, I understand her reaction completely, and sympathize with it. That particular incident was why I entered the world of blogging carefully and under a pseudonym at first. It is why I chose not to blog about politics at first, too, because the land of politics is fraught with loonies on the fringe who are unhinged enough to do harm on a whim.

Sometimes what appears to be non-threatening to the person on the outside is terrifying to the one it is happening to, because there seems to be an irrational escalation that is, in itself, a threat. When it leads off with a comment that someone hopes they 'slash your 'f-n' throat' and escalates to the depiction of images with nooses and culminating in a sick image with comments appended referring to 'beating in your face with a f'n bat', I'd say there's some real cause for anger, concern and yes, fear.

According to her post the Federal authorities are involved. I hope they catch whoever this is and prosecute them.

Robert Scoble, that was about the meanest thing I've read tonight. Do you realize how you sound? Joe McCarthy. Do you know who he is?

"People with nothing to hide have nothing to fear from speaking out to the Committee"

I thought the things said about your wife were out of line and really wrong. Much worse than anything said about Kathy. But there is a difference between saying mean, nasty things and making threats of physical violence. And no, one does not lead to the other. If it did, Charles Johnson would be six feet under.

Karoli, and therein lies the danger with combining these into the same post.

There is no pattern. The comments at Kathy's site were inspired by Kathy's writing. Or they were random nastiness. Or a past boyfriend. Perhaps a disgruntled sister. Or, yes, even a weblogger posting anonymously. But there is absolutely no connection between the weblog posts and the threats at Kathy's site.

Separate the two. Condemn them both, but treat them both as the two different types of incidents they are.

If the FBI is involved, it's especially important for all people involved not to say anything without talking with an attorney. And none of this "The innocent have nothing to hide", bullshit. We've all been involved in weblogging long enough to know this is bullshit.

PS Robert: Jeneane is freshly out of the hospital and quite ill. I think if Kathy would like her to write something about all of this, Jeneane will respond.

>I thought the things said about your wife were out of line and really wrong.

Nice to see that sentiment now. How about back when it was posted? Seems that you and the crowd that hangs out here loves the ad hominem attacks and it's not too far a distance from that to all sorts of other kinds of vile attacks.

Yes, I know all about the 1950s.

My post might sound mean, but it's truthful too. If it really is true that she's innocent in this matter then I'd be yelling and screaming about my innocence, if it were me. And if a lawyer told me to keep my mouth shut, I'd find a lawyer that'd both protect me in legal AND PR terms.

>Jeneane is freshly out of the hospital and quite ill.

I didn't realize that. I haven't read her in some time. Sorry to hear that and certainly adds another dimension. Hope she feels better soon.

Robert, I think you need to rethink, strongly, what you just said about me. And you owe an apology to every person who 'hangs' out here.

Shelley, I'm having difficulty correlating Kathy's posts with a comment about slashing her throat — what has she written that would possibly spark that?

I'm not especially sure that the comments on her blog should be separated from the other comments, particularly the ones about bashing the bitch with a bat. I'm not convinced that they're unrelated, but that discovery will be left to better minds than mine.

Karoli, and therein lies the danger that Robin Tell didn't sense: that people would try to find a cause and effect between the two different incidents that Kathy wrote on.

The comments that you're referencing about the bat were not directed at Kathy. I would say, as hard as this is to believe, that they were made as part of a persona in reaction to another discussion. However, they were taken out of context, so we don't know all of the events leading up to that comment. Was it wrong? We don't have all the data. We don't have all the facts. We don't have all the story. We don't have all the posts. We don't have all the comments.

None of us knows, with any absolute certainty, the 'truth'. The weblogs are gone so we can't judge, other than what we can dig up in Google's cache.

There is nothing to link those comments in Kathy's weblog to the posts in the other weblogs. Nothing, other than this one post.

Unless someone has some form of proof equating the two, I would say that conjecture of this could create a great deal of harm (and no, not the physical kind)– for everyone involved. That includes Kathy, as much as Jeneane, Chris, Alan, and Frank.

Nice post Shelley - came here from your comment in Sierra's post because i couldn't tie the described events together also.
I think the rage in air is way too much for such an incident. I guess Kathy has quite a large auditory thus the named persons shouldn't have been named because they are made guilty by opinion. Still, she was pretty much scared, and in such situations it's really hard to think calm, isn't it? If it were Bush, they wouldn't have sent secret service - they would have bombed the whole country of Innernet.
Crazy stuff.

[…] are reacting with predictable and gratifying outrage. Many are outraged, some are disappointed, others are sick over it. All of those emotions have run through my head tonight as I struggled with […]

Seems that you and the crowd that hangs out here loves the ad hominem attacks and it's not too far a distance from that to all sorts of other kinds of vile attacks.

As we used to say on Usenet, addressURI and airfarehey, no need! on request, punkMr Scoble.

No, really. That's a serious accusation. Personally I hate ad hom attacks - attacks on what a person is, not what they do (he's ugly, she's stupid). I try not to write them myself and I try to avoid reading them. I've been reading Shelley's blog[s] for two years now; she's my kind of writer.

So one of us is way out of line here.

I think the simplest explanation is that you're extending the scope of the concept of ad hominem. And it's true that some attacks on what a person does can feel like attacks on what they are, particularly to the person being attacked; if I were to say that Jane Doe makes dodgy deals or Joe Blow makes dodgy arguments, Jane or Joe would probably feel personally attacked. But the specific quality of an ad hom attack is that, because it's an attack on the person, it would still work in completely different circumstances. If Dr Blow gave up the academic life for a shack on Walden Pond or similar, "Joe Blow has parlayed a career out of a couple of half-truths" would no longer be an effective insult. "Joe Blow is fat", on the other hand, would still be offensive. The second is an ad hominem, the first isn't.

But anyway - I'm a tonstant weader of Shelley's blogs and a pretty regular commenter. One of the crowd that hangs out here, you could say. Find me an ad hom on my blog and I'll apologise to you.

The damsel-in-distress shtick never gets old.

Another threat popped up on Kathy's comment thread tonight, and I've grabbed a screen shot of it, because I would assume that she won't leave it up there. Here's a direct quote (and if it goes offline, feel free to ping me for the screen shot):

Be a pity if you turned up in the gutter where you belong, with a machete shoved in that self righteous little cunt of yours

I have no idea who is behind a comment like that, and I don't care. It's out of line that a woman should be expected to shrug threats like that off.

It is out of line for a man to see something like that as well.

As for the accusations - I am not convinced that just because someone uses a name and a icon it means this is someone.

It makes me wonder and look closer, but it is so easy to pose as someone else.

As for the people being named as supporting such sites - they usually have their own blog where it is rather save to assume that is them.

"believe what you will" as only kind of comment on head lemur is not sounding to me like "i do condem such and was not involved as with what is associated with me".

I do expect over time some kind of statement - gladly done with additional help and not out of the rush of the moment - but I do expect something which will convince me that for example this is not his work.

There is a difference between having a different opinion and a crossed line, and there are different levels of personal relevance.

The lesson to be learned here - as elsewhere - is that there is a change in communication and distribution which we do not yet have rules for and laws are only capable of so much dealing with internet communication. Try for example to sue me as I am not citizen of the States.

It is important to learn from these unfortunate events in ALL directions and the points you mentioned are valid as well.

The concept of innocent until proven guilty has a reason, as well as to make sure mob mentality does not get onto speed because of possible misguided judgement.

[…] Tim Bray notes that the coverage on Valleywag - although I now can't find it, so perhaps it's been deleted - has been awful, discussing this as a petty feud between bloggers. A defensive interview has been posted by Cluetrain Manifesto co-author Chris Locke, who created the meankids site, and this post by another author Kathy names suggests he's been wrongly identified, and has given up blogging after around seven years. […]

Shelley, I didn't reply last night cause I didn't realize just what vile, vile, words were written about Maryam. I couldn't see straight — you prompted me to go and find those words in a Google cache. I lashed out at you and your readers, sorry about that.

But, this morning, I want a personal apology from EVERYONE involved in MeanKids.org.

What they wrote was simply designed to hurt, and hurt deep.

That kind of speech simply should not be allowed, nor accepted, on the Internet.

It is vile. The people involved in the MeanKids.org site are vile. They deserve every bit of public scorn they are now getting and the fact that they haven't apologized yet describes their character to me. I don't care about the legal consequences. I want a public apology for what they wrote about Maryam and me and I want everyone involved to take responsibility for what they wrote. It simply IS NOT ENOUGH to pull down the site.

I hope no one writes anything about you like that and if I ever see someone doing that, I'll speak against it.

Shelley,

Long time lurker, first time commenter. I just went through and read the stuff over at Passionate Users. And while I would agree with you that folks are getting conflated, I find that I'm not sure that I care. Starting something like meankids for me puts the folks (folks that I don't know personally but who have been fellow travellers for many years in cyberspace) so far beyond the pale that I find it doesn't break my heart that they are getting hit by this particular mud spatter. What on earth did they think would happen if they participated in/ started a site devoted to ad hominem attacks? With all due respect, they deserve some consequences. Live by the sword, die by the sword and all that. Hard lesson, but maybe well learned.

C

@Scoble - Good to see an apology, but perhaps you'll take this week off of yours to rethink what happens in your own backyard?

I haven't been to this meankids site or the justin.tv chatrooms — and see no reason based upon what I've read why I'd want to either — but I've seen some garbage posted in your blog comments area that should have been taken out — and wasn't. And no, I'm not talking about your attack dog commenters like Welch or Coulter.

Your past response (emphasis mine)? "Someone claimed I deleted some comments. I did not. I don't delete comments. Even very distasteful ones. Even ones who call me an idiot. Even ones that say discriminatory things."

Yeah, that was May 2005, I guess you've now evolved on your comment philosophy since then?

The only reason I remember this post of yours is because it was the first related archive post when I posted about Kathy's situation yesterday. Strange. Ironic.

True.

Now that it's the day after the night before…

From the comments box over at The Head Lemur:

Best wishes Amigo - this may be a tempest in a teacup, but a non-response will not make it go away.

I realize that this school of thought is prevalent online, but here's another angle: Alan was fingered by association, was sentenced without a fair hearing, and that's that. I'm guessing that he didn't think it was worth the calories to clear his name when he was already being marched to the gallows. And I don't buy this notion that issuing an official response makes any of this "go away". Check out Jeneane's blog and see how that's working for her. Hospital stay and all.

Again, to disclaim, I never read any of these "attack" blogs so I have no idea what was said by whom. But if the content was as "vile" as some are saying, then indeed, where was the outrage earlier? See my earlier comment upthread: Kathy Sierra herself didn't seem to find MeanKids to be show-stoppingly "vile" as recently as February 2007.

Some of the fallout post-scandal strikes me as similar to a time when a local punk punched my brother out of the blue. When confronted, he said that his mother told him it was OK to hit anyone who was ever "mean" to him. He claimed that he remembered something "mean" that my brother said months before and decided to apply this new freedom retroactively.

Check out what is being said now: "I wasn't scared before, now I am."

"I didn't think much of that site before, now I demand an apology from anyone who even has the faintest knowledge that the site existed!"

Or my "favorite":

If you aren't guilty, apologizing that your name is even associated with such things would be a proper thing to do.

Yes, and let's all line up waiting for Jesus Christ to return so we can get a big fat apology for the Crusades. While we're stretching things to the rhetorical breaking point and all. Come to think of it, where is your official statement denouncing and apologizing for slavery and Manifest Destiny?

While I empathize with Kathy's situation, that empathy becomes increasingly tenuous the more the fallout resembles a schoolyard brawl. I haven't trotted out "problem > reaction > solution" yet but it's still early.

Cheryl, first, thanks for delurking. There's a difference between writing tasteless and nasty comments and posts, and making a death threat. I would hope that people do eventually remember this, but right now too many are rushing in the same stampede.

Nicole, yours is a good point: try to define what is acceptable in an environment that's both international and multi-cultural.

fiat lux, after all this attention, I'm assuming there will be others.

That kind of speech should be protected, Robert. And if you don't know why, I suggest you have a chat with the ACLU.

Here you were, as Phil also noted, ready to come into my comments and accuse me and everyone here of the same type of speech as occurred out at that site, because I have been critical of you, and yes, Maryam, as well as Kathy. You were ready to paint everyone who has ever written an anonymous comment or been critical with the same brush as a person who writes death threats. You're using your position of power to move this mob that's been created, using them like a weapon pointed at others.

What was said about your wife at the site was wrong, but it is legal. The only person responsible for what was written, is the people who wrote the text.

I have had people write nasty things about me. Does it phase me? No, it's the innuendo, the sly comments, the drawn cartoon, and subtle digs that bother me — someone who comes out and states nasty comments in blunt language can never hurt me. All they can ever do is hurt themselves. But no, those who cloak viciousness in honeyed words — they scare me to death, because the fine people of weblogging haven't the ability to see the words for what they are.

As for what 'they' wrote — there is no they, there is only each individual who is responsible for their own words.

Oh and thank your for coming out in defense of women in tech with this Robert. However, I would have appreciated it even more if you did so in less high profile circumstances.

Shelley, I find it interesting that you go to great lengths to advocate for clam and not rousing the masses, as well as pointing out that the comments, threats et al. might not be connected. Yet the very power you ascribe to Kathy's blog and others rallying to her defense was already used to make the threats in the first place. I find it callous that you are ready to counsel for caution and skepticism for the "accused" (thought I haven't really seen anyone accused yet) simply because YOU don't feel her reaction is justified. So you wouldn't react in the same manner as Kathy, so what? It didn't happen to you and you aren't dealing with it. You rush to placate everyone with words of steadiness adn warn us all of the dangers of emotional identification leading to "posse mentality" yet you do so on a blog that has it's own "posse" and links to others as well. Why don't you be honest and just say up-front that you don't really believe Kathy? you are already saying such by constantly reminding everyone "we don't really know THE TRUTH,only what Kathy has said" - that's pretty cold.

Using your own blog to tell others not to get aroused while saying at the same time that the meankids site was just a site that bears no responsibility for the incitement of the masses is duplicitous and hypocritical.

smibbo, when you ready to comment on anything I've said, feel free to try again.

Re: People saying "vile" things on mean-spirited blogs, I was reminded by a little something from Mark Pilgrim:

I get to say whatever I want on my own turf, and suffer the consequences all by myself, including you ignoring me. If you don’t like that, you get to go start your own weblog and say whatever you want on your own turf, and suffer the consequences all by yourself, including me ignoring you.

I think that speaks well to Cheryl's point above.

Ehtan, it probably speaks well to most of the commentary.

I've now read in several weblogs that the four that Kathy mentioned were the ones to write the threats and instigate a 'terror attack' on Kathy. So much for the 'journalist' capability of webloggers.

There's a difference between writing tasteless and nasty comments and posts, and making a death threat.

Maybe I'm the odd one out, because I found myself more shocked by the general meanness than by the death threats. Awful for Kathy, of course, but that seems more like a one off problem to me. And something for the police to sort out, which I have no doubt that they will do.

Or– put another way– the fact that there are nutjobs out there who make death threats doesn't surprise me. The fact that people that I respected could think that content like that was okay does surprise me. And in a not very nice way.

And really, even if there is no legal responsibility involved (and I'm pretty sure that there is not) are people such poor judges of human behaviour that they didn't see how eventually people were going to step over the line in their little mean-in? It surely is protected speech, but protected does not mean free from consequences.

I am surprised, like I said. And saddened.

Alan was fingered by association, was sentenced without a fair hearing, and that's that. I'm guessing that he didn't think it was worth the calories to clear his name when he was already being marched to the gallows.

If you're going to set up a site where people can let their id run free with bitter snark, you shouldn't turtle in response to the inevitable backlash. To his credit, Frank Paynter has apologized on his site. The other site founders should do the same, or at least explain what the site was about so people won't think they were the ones threatening Kathy Sierra or encouraging others to do that.

Lacking that explanation, people are going to lump them in with the threats and misogyny coming from others. From my limited interactions with them over the years, I can't believe they condone the threats and abuse she has taken.