Death Threats In the Blogosphere

Several readers have written in about the death threats and threats of sexual harm that have been directed at tech blogger Kathy Sierra. She is the author of a number of books about Java and a popular speaker at conferences. She has now stopped blogging and cancelled her appearance at eTech. She names the names of four prominent bloggers who are backers of two sites on which the threats were posted. Others in the blogosphere like Robert Scoble and Tim Bray have posted publicly in support of Sierra. Scoble in particular emphasizes the streak of misogyny that is still all too evident in the tech world. The Washington Post is also grappling with the issue of vile comment posts that flirt with illegality. One commenter on Bray's post summed it up: "The Internet used to be a university. Then it became a shopping mall. But now, it's a war zone."

Comments

Blogosphere = ???

[WED Fan]

The blogosphere has turned into spam, flamewars, threats, and general kookery. Welcome to the new Usenet.

This sort of crap sickens me

[ScytheBlade1]

People are people. People have the right to express their opinions about someone else.

So where, as far as the law is concerned, is "too much"? If it is one person's opinion that another person should be shot and raped, does that person have the right to express that opinion?

My personal opinion is that death threats and rape threats are far beyond the free speech line, simply because they infringe and threaten another person's right to life. Which, in my opinion, is a rather important right. I support her fully, and personally think that the posters of said comments need to have charges brought against them.

But to what degree do the law books say too much is too much? Where is the line as far as the books are concerned?

Just honest curiosity.

Close

[toddhisattva]

"The Internet used to be a university. Then it became a shopping mall. But now, it's a war zone."

The universities became shopping malls and war zones. The Internet merely reflects the decay.

Life's Tough All Around

[Seumas]

I've had members of my site become brutal and rather scary after I've had to ban them for fraudulent and other unacceptable behavior against other users. On more than a couple occasions, they have done things like dig up my phone number and make threatening phone calls. Call police in my state and make various absurd false reports. Spread insanely ridiculous things about me on the internet, email me and post to my website the most vile, disgusting, threatening things you can imagine.

But what can you do? Are you going to lock yourself in a bunker the rest of your life to keep yourself safe from mentally imbalanced teenagers and idiot, vindictive, insane adults?

I've had people flat out threaten to hunt me down and cut my head off if I didn't restore their banned accounts and I've had one post things across the web that are among the most vile and disgusting and insulting things you can claim about a person. But I'm not out there asking everyone to stick up for me or... well.. even wasting two seconds on it. People are dicks. Life is hard. A lot of people say a lot of shit and don't follow through. Either grow a spine or go away. There's no sense being a big baby about it because someone hates you. And if someone really has you fearing for your life, then do something about it besides blogging about it and trying to manipulate other people into sticking up for you.

Right, this is a total change

[Skyshadow]

Yeah, back in the day you never would have seen this sort of thing on the web, assuming that by "back in the day" you mean "the time between when Tim Berners-Lee came up with the web but before he told anyone about it".

Not to say this sort of thing is all right, of course, but while this is almost certainly a sad byproduct of the culture of the internet, there's nothing in the post she pointed to that I find disturbing or even all that unusual. As she noted, you get everybody online and give them anonymity, this sort of thing happens.

This doesn't mean, however, that it's happening *more* than it would have back before the internet, just that now it tends to be visible. Public figures, even minor ones, have always run the risk of attracting sickos, especially when they're decent looking women. Going so far as to suggest this is something new that's being caused by the internet just seems ridiculous, and trying to paint it as a byproduct of the culture of men in software development is even moreso.

I know it must be disturbing to realize you're the focus of this kind of thing, but let's try not to make more of it than it is.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[sharp-bang]

there's nothing in the post she pointed to that I find disturbing

Maybe, but you are not her. Different people have different comfort levels with threats of bodily harm. I am not sure that your post reflects an appropriate standard for all victims, and I suspect that you would change your tune fairly rapidly if you, yourself, (or, worse, someone you loved) were the target.

Going so far as to suggest this is something new that's being caused by the internet just seems ridiculous

I don't think anyone familiar with Usenet thinks this is anything new, but it must be acknowledged that the Internet has greatly facilitated this sort of anonymous abuse. What's different from Usenet in this situation is that it is entirely within the ability of individual bloggers to stop this sort of abuse by their participants.

trying to paint it as a byproduct of the culture of men in software development is even moreso.

I wish I could say that I agree with you, but I work in information security and have responded to a number of internal online sexual abuse cases over the years. Your assertion does not completely correlate with my personal experiences with software developers. As with any male-dominated culture, there's a certain percentage of men who think that behaving rudely, crudely, and threateningly towards women is just fine. This is true in any culture; what's important is the group's tolerance for repellent, abusive behavior towards a female minority, and a principal sign of a lack of cultural maturity in this regard is for those not directly involved to sit back, as you just did, and say, "oh come on, it's not so bad, she just needs to get a grip", which is really just a backhanded way of condoning such behavior.

WTF? The internet has *always* been a war zone

[Colin Smith]

Before there were blogs there was usenet, that pristine unadulterated source of helpful ideas and good manners.

Some people just have no idea...

Re:The Pain of Celebrity

[Skyshadow]

I'm a schoolteacher. I *KNOW* because I'm a teacher who connects with kids, and has a knack for reaching troubled kids that my odds of being the target of an angry, weapon-holding students are *GOOD*... someday, I'm going to stare at that terrifying situation. I still teach - I know that I do good things, and I will not live in fear of evil ones.

Interestingly, I think you're encountering another aspect of our new-ish non-local culture.

Consider: Kathy's problem is one of communication. Those sickos who have developed an interest in her due to her degree of public figure status would be out there regardless (stalkers being nothing new), but the internet allows her to see them which, quite naturally, terrifies her.

You, likewise, are being made fearful by our non-local culture. You see a couple of school shootings a year spread out nationally, but since each gets attention and, as an attention-getting item, is reported nationally in the same way that you might expect a local incident to be covered. As such, you've come to the expectation that school shootings are in fact commonplace enough that you're expressing the absolute certainty that you will, someday, "stare at that terrifying situation".

Both of your fears seem to have the common root, and it's something I find interesting. I wonder if that's a problem that has a solution -- after all, reasonable people look for things that threaten them, and mass communication's only going to get easier... Maybe eventually we'll all life either in fear or blissful intentional ignorance.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Otter]

Very few death threats get carried out.
Less so on the internet.

Yeah, I stopped displaying my email address here after a certain quantity of threats from morons; on sites where I still provide it the morons continue to threaten. That's just how the Internet is. I'm a lot more concerned about being hit by a car than I am that some over-invested loser means his threats seriously.

Which isn't to say that I blame Kathy Sierra for being freaked out, but Scoble's comment that "We're putting ourselves out there in ways very few people do. We should be safe from death threats and other sexual attacks and stuff, especially from other bloggers." seems like classic blogonarcissism. That's just how the Internet is, even for low-low-level blogocelebrati.

mod up parent -dont feed the trolls

[crabpeople]

I guess she never heard the expression "don't feed the trolls". This is exactly the crazy overblown reaction that I am sure makes this particular troll giddy with attention happiness. He even made slashdot now.

By trolling standards, this is a complete and utter success. Trolls only want attention people, and shes played right into its hand.

And you're not a woman

[anomaly]

Neither am I, but I know that I can't understand what it's like to maintain constant vigilence - because women can and are abused by men. They are statistically smaller and weaker than men, and easily victimized.

Ever walk to your car in a dark parking lot? When you do, do you give thought to being attacked? I don't, but almost every woman I've asked says she does. I recently heard that 10% of high school senior girls report having been raped. These are girls under 18.

I have an acquaintance who was in her work parking lot and rolled down her window to chat with a coworker who smiled pleasantly as he reached in the window to fondle her breast. This was most certainly unwelcome and abusive! Has that ever happened to you? Do you think she will *ever* consider rolling down her car window on a warm day without thinking of that event? Do you ever think "Will my coworker sexually harass me?" I doubt it.

You mock the blogger's fear as overreaction. Try thinking like a more vulnerable person, and then perhaps you'll respond more charitably.

Re:And you're not a woman

[urbanradar]

This is not to say that violence against females is acceptable. It is obviously not. But any time I hear anyone decrying "violence against women" as being particularly bad I have to wonder if they think violence against men is OK? Or at least not so particularly bad?

Well, you mentioned one potential reason higher up in your posting -- males are less likely to report sexual violence commited against them than females, so we hear about it less and don't assign as much significance to it.

Another reason why we hear (and thus think) about violence against women more is because women -- or, the emancipation movement -- needed to do a *lot* of talking for the injustices carried out against them even to be acknowledged.

If they are even remotely decent and humane it certainly cannot be the fact that most violence is committed by men, because it is also the case that, for example, in the United States most violence is committed by black people, and there is a word for people who think that that fact makes violence against black people OK.

Completely ignoring whether it is that fact or not, there's something in your statement that I have to disagree with. There is no inherent difference between black and white other than a superficial one (skin colour) and in some cases also an artificial one (culture). But there is a fundamental and important difference between men and women: Men impregnate, women get pregnant. Since reproduction is one of the most basic instincts a human being has, this does have an effect on thought and behaviour.
Hormonal differences also need to be considered. Men have more testosterone and are thus generally more prone to aggressive behaviour. And men are generally raised to be more aggressive than women (although less so then they used to be).
It could also be said that since men are generally stronger and larger than women, they have more opportunity to be aggressively dominant over the other gender. And finally, it's also a primarily male instinct to impregnate as many women as possible, in order to ensure diverse genes in offspring. Females also have this instinct, but it's less distinct with them, and manifests itself in a different way.

Racism is idiotic because it's not based on fact, whereas there are real reasons to perceive the actions of men and women differently. I don't think you can compare the two.

I very strongly believe that men and women should be equal in rights, respect, opportunities, payment and social status. I don't think that one gender is somehow worth more than the other. But anyone who suggests that men and women are generally equal is, in my eyes, overlooking some important facts.

Re:hmm

[hey!]

You know, some of the smartest people I know have done some of the stupidest things.

For the average person, it is enough that everyone else things that something is wrong. Smart people are used to being right when everyone around them is wrong. And they're often good at coming up with reasons why something that might be a bad for other people is something that they could handle.

A good friend of mine is just about the smartest people I know. She's also incredibly impulsive. Over the years I have watched her make a range of incredibly bad decisions, and there is no point in talking her out of them because trying to win an argument with her is like trying to pin a world class wrestler to the mat. She knows more ways to wriggle out of a logical stranglehold than I know how to twist somebody into one, and "this is an obviously crazy idea that will leave you and the people you care about miserable," just doesn't work.

The difference between intelligence and wisdom is this: wise people are people who know how to let go. They can let go of plans or ideas and see things in a fresh and objective light. Intelligence is a double edge sword. Sometimes it helps people see new possibilities, other times it helps them hold on to what they want to believe is true.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Billosaur]

Which isn't to say that I blame Kathy Sierra for being freaked out, but Scoble's comment that "We're putting ourselves out there in ways very few people do. We should be safe from death threats and other sexual attacks and stuff, especially from other bloggers." seems like classic blogonarcissism. That's just how the Internet is, even for low-low-level blogocelebrati.

Exactly. Sorry to say, but once you are live on the Internet, you cease being a private figure. If you're smart, you protect yourself and don't give out all your personal info (ala MySpace) to make it easier for the nut-jobs to find you. If you're looking for perfect safety, get rid of your high-speed access, frag your hard drive, and dump your computer in the crusher, followed by a trip to the witness protection program.

I'm sure there are people out there who dislike me or are unstable enough to believe I'm some threat to the universe. If I gave a squat about them, I'd be validating their world view; best to ignore them, until such a time as one gets too close for comfort -- then you sic the dogs on them.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Kingrames]

I know I'll get modded down for this, but
Everyone who begins their post with "I know I'll get modded down for this" or somesuch is guaranteed to get at least +3 added to their post because the moderators are predictable morons. Saying that you acknowledge how inflammatory and moronic your post is doesn't make it any less inflammatory or moronic.

Yes, I'll call it an over-reaction

[BenEnglishAtHome]

In response to vile, arguably illegal threats in cyberspace, the object of those threats has written:

I have cancelled all speaking engagements.

I am afraid to leave my yard.

I will never feel the same. I will never be the same.

Yes, the threats were vile and intended to cause emotional distress. The seriousness of them and the capacity of the posters to act in accordance with their stated intentions is very much in question. But EVEN IF THE THREATS ARE REAL, meaning, even if the posters really would kill her given the chance, her reaction is excessive. Way excessive.

You must live your life. Despite the wackos, you must live your life. Sticking your head in the sand solves nothing.

I've had jobs that put me in conflict with people rather severely. On two occasions, I've been assigned a personal bodyguard for a period of weeks until the person trying to kill me was caught and jailed. I've been chased on foot by a drug-addled cowboy who continually screamed that he was going to kill me. I've been chased in my vehicle twice, once by someone who tried to run me off the road and once by someone who was trying to follow me to my destination to do me violence. Hell, I've had a shotgun unloaded at me (from an excessive distance by a drunk with lousy aim, thank God).

I didn't stop living my life. After each of those events (and sometimes during) I walked out my front door and went to work just like normal. I can't imagine someone being so weak of spirit that they would do otherwise.

OK, go ahead and scream at me that I'm blaming the victim. I'm not. For the short term, recoiling in horror from a threat is reasonable. For the short term, only until the threat can be assessed fully, it's a reasonable reaction. But if this lady remains afraid to leave her yard next week, she's got far bigger problems than a few weirdos who might or might not pose a threat to her.

Re:"war zone" rhetoric is so lame.

[TrentC]

People are such cowards these days. It's NAUSEATING.

Out of curiosity, are you including or excluding yourself from that generalization? I find that lots of people on /. like to deride others for cowardice or other moral failings when, truth be told, they wouldn't act any better in similar circumstances.

This woman was not the subject of a harshly-worded argument or even a juvenile personal attack; people were posting Photoshopped images of her in sexually degrading situations, and posting graphic descriptions of violence, mutilation and rape. Maybe that's something you can just laugh off and ignore, but it's getting to the point where women can't even do that any more.

And if she does get assaulted or killed, the same type of people who are condemning her for being too weak to simply put up with it will be condemning her for not taking the threats seriously enough. It's a no-win situation for women and victim-blaming is an easy way to avoid having any empathy for the victim, or feel the need to press for change.

Re:simply unacceptable

[TrentC]

We all have the capacity for malicious action, but nearly none of us ever act on it.

All it takes is one person. And with the person who created such sickening stuff being (semi-)anonymous, she doesn't know who to watch out for.

I think she is giving the trollers what they want -- they don't like what she writes (or whatever), so they want to make her stop or go away -- but I understand her reasons for doing so.

A Brief History of the Internet

[kimanaw]

"The Internet used to be a university."

For about 15 minutes.

"Then it became a shopping mall."

Specializing in penis enhancement products and pornography.

"But now, it's a war zone."

Not a war zone. More like a public restroom in the seedier part of town.

Re:simply unacceptable

[elrous0]

Amen, glad someone said it. You'll probably get modded down for it, but let's face it, there is more than a little drama queen to this woman's blog post.

I have been on the internet for 13 years now. I started out on Usenet--where threats, personal insults, etc. were the rule of thumb. Anyone who has been on the internet (the REAL internet, not the filtered, moderated, homogenized world of web bulletin boards) of any length of time learns to take things like "I'm gonna rip your head off and shit down your neck" with a grain of salt.

It's telling that this woman refers to the "Blogosphere" as if it's some singular entity, or takes such ridiculous threats with enough seriousness to go to a psychiatrist and start taking anti-depressants (does she REALLY think some lame-ass flame artist living in his parents' basement in another part of the country has the courage to even TALK to her, much less assault her?)

She strikes me as someone who desperately wants attention. But attention has its downsides too. Anyone not mature enough to realize that probably would be better off remaining anonymous on the internet.

Yes, it sucks that notable people, especially women, have to deal with flame artists and nutballs. But to be shocked about that as if it's something new suggests she hasn't been paying attention. Ask any Hollywood celebrity if stalkers and nutballs are something new. Ask any major political figure. Notoriety has its downside. When you put yourself out there, you can't have everyone's love and no one's contempt.

If You Get/Stay Married, Your Tone Will Change

[cmholm]

I write to my local paper a lot, and periodically I get a phone call supporting something I've written. My wife has made it quite clear that the first time I get a nasty and/or threatening call, my days as a writer are over. Being married twenty years has given me the opportunity to see that women, by and large, do not grow up with the same sense of control over their person and surroundings that you or I do.

So, while I cringe at Ms. Sierra's language of defeat and withdrawal, I have come to understand that for a good many (wo)men, flight overcomes fight when reacting to threats. You can objectify the odds, but it doesn't always overcome the subjective fear.