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

simply unacceptable

[yagu]

Head First Java and Head First EJB are two of the first HF books I'd read. Kathy Sierra is one of the co-authors of these, books in what I consider an amazing series both in its approach and its enlightenment of what can be tediously dry material. Anyone who contributes to the technical community with that credibility is a superstar. Unfortunately superstars end up in the less sane miscreants' crosshairs.

The blogs and comments posted threatening Kathy are unacceptable, and look to be very illegal. It's a pity there are those who are disturbed enough to post such garbage. Normally I shrug off the garbage I see, but I think Kathy is making rational choices, albeit drastic ones.

I hate that by Kathy's own words, she isn't the same person, she'll never be the same person. It's a crime this happens to the good guys.

For those in the slashdot community with any knowledge of who might be making these posts, it is incumbent upon you to bring forward that information. For those in the slashdot community with some sniffing/hacking skills (mine are rusty), have at it deducing who the asswipes are, find them, and report them.

I hope Kathy sees and realizes enough support from the community and can regain some semblance of self.

(Aside: I don't think the internet has become the war zone the article describes. I do think the internet has made it much easier and maybe too easy for the disturbed to wreak personal havoc on the unfortunate targets. There may be a case to be made here against anonymous non-traceable postings, but for the most part the internet community seems (so far) to be self-policing. Hopefully that holds true for Kathy, and they find the posters, and prosecute.)

Re:simply unacceptable

[photomonkey]

I read the posts suggesting ill of her, and find them disturbing, but childish and prankish.

I feel really bad that she is "afraid to leave her yard", but that really only feeds into it. We all have the capacity for malicious action, but nearly none of us ever act on it. This seems like a 'who can be more extreme' pissing contest that went way too far.

Unfortunately, this will probably only fan the flames for IDing each and everyone connected to the internet.

I really do feel bad for her. I just don't think any of it was intended to become true, nor will any of it become true. Bullying exists across all demographics. It's just that once you grow up, you're not so afraid of losing your lunch money, so the threats become greater.

Re:simply unacceptable

[geekoid]

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

"For those in the slashdot community with some sniffing/hacking skills (mine are rusty), have at it deducing who the asswipes are, find them, and report them."

yes, vigilantes are well known for making things better.

Re:simply unacceptable

[dedazo]

Yes, this is unacceptable. However, it does happen, and it will continue to happen as long as people can continue to be essentially anonymous. It's that anonymity that changes a probably normal person into a blathering, vile fucktard.

But I think this woman is overreacting a tad. Maybe this is the first time something like this has happened to her. The chances of one of these assholes hunting her down and doing that stuff they so eloquently described in their posts to her is probably about as high as her chances of being hit by a meteor. I'd hate to think she's somehow milking this for the PR value, but her "OMG I have to sequester myself at home with my dog and a shotgun" is a bit too much. Not that the behavior that led to this is acceptable at all, but still.

I do find it ironic though that the very community that considers online anonymity to be so sacred can turn around so quickly and demand that these people - again, vile fucktards - be "brought to justice". But then I guess we all have our double standards.

Re:simply unacceptable

[CAIMLAS]

I hate that by Kathy's own words, she isn't the same person, she'll never be the same person. It's a crime this happens to the good guys.

That's why "retreating" is the absolute last thing she should be doing. It will do her more emotional harm in the long run; its more than likely that no threat is actually intended, it's just meant to terrorize her and make her submit, anyway (why issue a death threat if you're planning to carry it out?).

Re:simply unacceptable

[Seumas]

I know I'm going to get modded to hell for my posts in this thread, but whatever. I think there is more than enough navel-gazing going on in this and other threads on this topic, so we can afford to consider other opinions.

Yes, she needs to regain some semblance of self. Based on the couple of comments I saw which were incredibly disgusting and uncalled for, I can see that she would be offended. But really. She needs to get a hold of herself. She calls it mysogyny because someone posts "fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob" on a couple of blogs? Is she new to the internet or something? Name a blog out there that hasn't had even worse repeatedly posted on them. Even directed toward specific individuals? Liberals, conservatives, religious people, atheists, people of different ethnicities and sizes and colors and shapes and views and backgrounds and opinions have things like that said to them online all the time. They don't immediately cancel all events and lock themselves in their home for fear of their life like this person claims she is doing.

I've had people completely lose it on my site. Seriously, I have witnessed people have flat out breakdowns over the last nine years when I've banned them. They'll return with dozens of accounts and post the most shocking and creepy things. They've made vile and repulsive threats. One of them has been doing this for FOUR YEARS across the internet and via email and myspace and various false accounts AND THEY ARE STILL DOING IT! All over having their account banned!

But still.. it's the internet. If this stuff were being sent via the USPS or voicemails or phone calls or something, I'd say it should be taken more seriously. As it is, ban the account and the IP and move on. If you waste your life on every skinflint like that, you'll never have time for anything else.

And by the way - what the hell is with labeling the entire tech industry as a bunch of misogynists because of this guy? The internet is anonymous. How do we know this guy isn't a burger flipper somewhere or a school teacher or a lawyer? Just because he's posting on a tech related blog doesn't mean he's some industry insider somewhere venting his sickening Freudian rage toward women or something.

Seriously, does nobody think guys like Dvorak and Malda and many others haven't had to put up with this stuff? I'm sure it happens all the time. They just don't have a nervous breakdown over it.

Re:simply unacceptable

[drinkypoo]

The blogs and comments posted threatening Kathy are unacceptable, and look to be very illegal. [...] I hate that by Kathy's own words, she isn't the same person, she'll never be the same person. It's a crime this happens to the good guys.

I agree wholeheartedly with both points, but I agree with the second statement ("I hate that by Kathy's own words, she isn't the same person, she'll never be the same person.") for reasons which probably differ substantially from yours.

The reason I hate that is because no one should be such a coward that some death threats that almost certainly mean absolutely nothing should cause them to withdraw into themselves so completely.

People have made all kinds of threats against me, but none of them have been carried out since high school. If I took them seriously then I would never do anything but hide in my house and check up on the status of various police reports I'd made.

I hope Kathy sees and realizes enough support from the community and can regain some semblance of self.

I hope that Kathy sees how ridiculous she is being, what an overreaction she is making, and gets on with her life. Again, I agree that it is wrong, and pathetic, and inexcusable for people to do such a thing. But I think it's also pathetic that she is now afraid to go out in public because of something someone said on the internet. People make bullshit death threats every day on the internet, probably moreso than through any other medium of communication! I think that John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory is the gospel truth. For those who don't want to clicky, the upshot is that normal person + anonymity + audience = total fuckwad. It's not true of everyone but it is true in a disturbing number of situations. The result is that you must consider that people will say things they would never say elsewhere and in most cases don't even believe simply because they feel they can get away with it, and in many cases they can.

One more time: I THINK WHAT THE PEOPLE DID IS WRONG. But I think that this woman is quite frankly unequipped to deal with the real world. An internet death threat generally means jack shit. If she's that upset by THAT non-event, what does she do when someone flips her off in traffic? Pull over to the side of the road and have a good cry?

Re:simply unacceptable

[cdrguru]

Illegal? Where? How? Who is there to enforce any sort of "rules" for use of privately created web pages on the Internet?

There is no "right of free speech" here - there are no rights (or wrongs) at all. No authority except that which comes from the power to delete.

People know there are no consequences whatsoever for whatever they do on the Internet, so they are emboldened to do anything they want. No behavior, no matter how extreme, seems to have any real world effects connected with it. And, most of this stuff is anonymous anyway or with unverified identities.

This means that any female is a legitimate target. Haven't had any in a while? Chase down some female "in cyberspace" and rape her, figuratively speaking. Don't like what someone has to say? Out-edit them or shout them down. Delete them. Flood their email. Whatever. It is all fair game.

This is all about anonyminity and the side effects of knowing you can get away with anything.

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.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Irvu]

or those in the slashdot community with any knowledge of who might be making these posts, it is incumbent upon you to bring forward that information. For those in the slashdot community with some sniffing/hacking skills (mine are rusty), have at it deducing who the asswipes are, find them, and report them.

Definitely a bad idea. Vigilantism, as cathartic as it may be is never never a long-term solution. It's often disasterously bad in the short term as well.

In the short term any information collected by such means would be inadmissible in court and probably lead to violations of other laws. Secondly said information may not be that meaningful in the court of public opinion. Coming down like a ton of bricks on abusive people often tends to a) increase their own hatred and willingness to make and carry out threats, and b) drum up some twisted support/sympathy for them.

In the long term it creates a show that adds fuel to the Great Firewall argument of mandatory online id's and
registration of posts both to prevent such threats, or at least identify the guilty, and to stop the vigilantes who either break things in the process of their attack or can be painted as being just as destructive as the original threats. At the end of the day all it would be is a turf war between would be online police and the vigilates and the original threats would be ignored.

This is not to say that they shouldn't be vilified. I think that the process of condemning the attackers should also involve condemning the bloggers who started said site and who, by omission or commission, allow the posts to stand and attack. Christ Locke and others must deal with this or they should be sidelined from all future public involvement. It isn't as cathartic in the short term but it is effective.

Re:simply unacceptable

[SatanicPuppy]

It's just a reality on the internet that people will make outrageous threats toward people they don't agree with. And internet or any other medium, if you piss off certain people they'll resort to physical threats...I sold off the last of my guns when I was 20, and bought the first of a new set after I someone my journalist wife pissed off started harassing us...The truth can be a weapon, and some people will treat it as such.

It's the way of the world, and it's unfortunate, but it's a fact of life. If you're afraid of death threats, possible harassment, and (unlikely) serious danger, don't do that sort of job. It's well and good to say that "This sort of thing should never happen" but it always has, and I'll bet it always will.

Re:simply unacceptable

[sharp-bang]

People have made all kinds of threats against me, but none of them have been carried out since high school

Big deal. The situation is different for 1) women, 2) attractive women, and 3) public figures.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Daniel Dvorkin]

She calls it mysogyny because someone posts "fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob" on a couple of blogs? Is she new to the internet or something? Name a blog out there that hasn't had even worse repeatedly posted on them. Even directed toward specific individuals? Liberals, conservatives, religious people, atheists, people of different ethnicities and sizes and colors and shapes and views and backgrounds and opinions have things like that said to them online all the time. [snip] Seriously, does nobody think guys like Dvorak and Malda and many others haven't had to put up with this stuff? I'm sure it happens all the time.

If someone told a black writer, "fuck off you boring nigger... i hope someone lynches you," would you say that wasn't racist? If someone told a Jewish writer, "fuck off you boring kike... i hope someone throws you in an oven," would you say that wasn't anti-Semitic?

Personal threats directed solely at the individual happen all the time, yes. But threats directed both at the individual and at an entire group (sex, race, religion, whatever) to which the individual belongs are something that most people regard as Crossing The Line, and with good reason; historically, it's been easier to deal with the one-offs. Does Dvorak get called a "Russki?" Does Malda get called a "Wop?" (Just guessing on that last one.) The fact that clearly misogynist threats like the ones aimed at Sierra get a "no big deal" response from so many people says to me that there are a lot of guys out there on the net -- now, in 2007 -- who have an attitude toward women that's about on the level of the KKK's attitude toward black people.

Also, starting your post with a line like "I know I'm going to get modded to hell for my posts in this thread ..." is a stupid rhetorical trick. If you've got something to say, just say it; don't try to impress us with how tough and brave and anti-establishment you are.

Re:simply unacceptable

[LarsWestergren]

. But I think that this woman is quite frankly unequipped to deal with the real world. An internet death threat generally means jack shit. If she's that upset by THAT non-event, what does she do when someone flips her off in traffic [...]

Nice way to belittle her fears. It wasn't just ONE comment. This is something that has been going on for a long time it seems, and we saw only a fraction of all the stuff that have been posted against her, stuff that others have described as being completely vile. If you haven't been exposed to bullying or stalking, you don't really know how bad it makes you feel, how it wears you down over time.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Gr8Apes]

Here's a back in the day story, that starts out, originally enough "Back in the day..." ... of Usenet News, there was this one rather contentious news group that had a lot of fanatical religious folk on one side and scholarly level-headed ordinary folk on the other. So these ordinary folk would bait the fanatics, exposing their own contradictions and hypocrisy for all to see. One fanatic was so inflamed that first he threatened one of the ordinary folk in the manner common of the day, with vile threats known as flames. He started responding to every post with something along the lines of "your mother was an unwed ape" and so on. He also prolifically posted his dribblings in other posts, which assured that there was plenty of cannon fodder to bait him with, which a small group took on to see if they couldn't make the fanatic see the light, so to speak, including the original target. This inflamed the fanatic to such an extent that he started making bodily harm threats to the original target and the community at large. He actually showed up at the original targets work 1500 miles away.) Look up David J. Rasmussen some time. I believe he may have been the first, or one of the first, net.loons.

The difference at that time was everyone on the net was traceable.

Re:simply unacceptable

[R2.0]

"OMG I have to sequester myself at home with my dog and a shotgun"

Absolutely the wrong response - she should get a gun and carry it with her! That way, she can protect herself AND have a life.

Oh, wait - there are places where that is illegal. Well, I guess the police will protect her...

On second thought, get the shotgun and 2 dogs.

Re:simply unacceptable

[drinkypoo]

Big deal. The situation is different for 1) women, 2) attractive women, and 3) public figures.

The situation is different how? If I get shot, stabbed, or hung, I'm no less dead than she is.

If your assertion is that it's different because she was not equipped by her upbringing to handle reality, well, I'll buy that argument. But it's not an inherent property of being female. My girlfriend is not so afraid of life that she would hide from death threats; she is both female and sought after (having been chased around since she sprouted chesticles as a pre-teen.)

You're correct that things are less scary for me, as a man, but that is only PARTLY because I am bigger and stronger. First of all, there is always someone bigger or stronger than you are, unless you're that ONE guy at the pinnacle. Second of all, size is not a useful indication of physical prowess. Third, as a wise man once said, "with a gat it don't matter if he's smarter or bigger". I can get perforated as easy as anyone else, maybe easier because I'm larger.

So what is the real difference? The difference is that my parents did not train me to be a victim. Maybe that's because I'm male, I don't know. But I never learned to be afraid of my own shadow.

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

[networkBoy]

He is the exception rather than the norm.
In this case I believe the sexual content was what did her in. It is violating in i's own right without the need to commit a physical harm. My wife's masters (sociology) was going to be in on-line communities, status, social rank (low UID on /. anyone?) etc. It turned out to be such a mess of a minefield that her chair strongly advised her to save that for doctoral level work.
she did.

I don't blame Kathy at all for her feelings and FWIW I throw my support to her without even knowing who she is (and WTF is this coffee programming language anyway ;)
-nB

Re:simply unacceptable

[slackmaster2000]

I agree with you. I couldn't find what I would consider a death threat in the article. It's extremely disturbing, perhaps even illegal, but I didn't see anything that I'd consider an actual, direct threat. What I'm seeing here is a generic "I'd kill that bitch/asshole/whatever" commentary. Completely inappropriate. Completely out of line. But not a statement of actual intent. This is a prankster (or group of) with no cooth and a terrible sense of humor.

Then again, I'm no detective. Maybe this behavior is indicative of more, but I really doubt it.

Re:simply unacceptable

[canUbeleiveIT]

Yes, she needs to regain some semblance of self. Based on the couple of comments I saw which were incredibly disgusting and uncalled for, I can see that she would be offended. But really. She needs to get a hold of herself. She calls it mysogyny because someone posts "fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob" on a couple of blogs? Is she new to the internet or something? Name a blog out there that hasn't had even worse repeatedly posted on them. Even directed toward specific individuals? Liberals, conservatives, religious people, atheists, people of different ethnicities and sizes and colors and shapes and views and backgrounds and opinions have things like that said to them online all the time. They don't immediately cancel all events and lock themselves in their home for fear of their life like this person claims she is doing.

Good point. For example, there's some moron on /. that has a sig something to the effect of "be a patriot, murder a Republican." I doubt very seriously that most people who know him personally know that he's such a jackass. He would probably never suggest such a thing in person, much less act upon it.

More than likely, these people who are tormenting this lady are the same: disturbed but impotent people hiding their rage within the anonymity of the web.

Re:simply unacceptable

[drinkypoo]

Nice way to belittle her fears. It wasn't just ONE comment. This is something that has been going on for a long time it seems, and we saw only a fraction of all the stuff that have been posted against her, stuff that others have described as being completely vile. If you haven't been exposed to bullying or stalking, you don't really know how bad it makes you feel, how it wears you down over time.

I have been exposed to bullying and stalking, so maybe you should just shut your piehole before you make any other ignorant, arrogant statements about "if you haven't". I grew up as a mama's boy and I was picked on and physically, mentally, and emotionally assaulted by my "fellow" students from basically sixth grade on. The difference between Kathy and myself, aside from plumbing issues, is that I got over it. I got better. I eventually grew up and decided not to let the world drag me down into hell any more.

Now, this woman is starting at a disadvantage because society, including her parents, taught her to be a victim - what we think of in most of the world as a woman. In general, societies all over the planet are based in part on making women into a second, subservient class. Men want women to believe that they need men for purposes other than procreation because it is convenient. They can thus be trapped into unrewarding lives from which they feel they have no escape so that certain men can have the privileges to which they have become accustomed, like having their dinner ready for them when they get home and all that shit. Women are of course part of the problem, in that they tend to grow up believing this shit, and they pass it on to their children (and all other females whom they are in a position to influence) instead of taking a long look at their convictions.

Not all women are this helpless. For instance the Take Back the Night rally sends a clear message of female empowerment.

So, is it her fault she feels this way? Only partly. But is it her responsibility to grow up and join the party with the rest of us? Absolutely. Hiding in your house is a common response but it is not a rational one. In fact I think you can draw a direct parallel between this woman's experience and the situation with terrorism in America today. What do people want when they make bullshit threats? They want you to cower in fear. What do terrorists want when they attack? Same thing. What do both groups, those who threatened this woman, and the terrorists have in common?

They have both won due to the responses which their actions have produced. This woman is afraid to leave her yard, and our government is systematically dismantling our freedoms without functional response from the citizenry.

If she wants to allow them to win, by all means, she should continue hiding in fear.

If that's not what she wants, she has an obligation to get on with her life, just as we have an obligation to at the very least stand up and be counted as being incensed when our freedoms are denied us.

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.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Hoi Polloi]

I just have to wonder who the hell gets that worked up over an author of Java books for C's sake. I can't imagine having that strong an emotional response over a programming language. I wonder if this guy (I assume it is a guy) also gets that worked up over cordless drills. "Damn you Black & Decker scum!!"

Re:simply unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

With respect, I think it's very easy to talk about what people should do in particular extreme circumstances (such as this one, but it's a general problem IMO) in situations which one has never personally experienced. For the first few years I was driving a car, I often wondered how I'd react if I got involved in an accident. The fact is that, as the cliche goes, you really don't know what it's like until you've experienced it, and I suspect that applies to lots of situations at various levels of trauma. (And as a man, you are pretty unlikely to experience rape or threats of rape.)

(Incidentally I have been raped [and am a man], and whilst it was a pretty unpleasant experience in itself, it's the long-lasting psychological effects that have the potential to really fuck up your life. I'm doing pretty well now, 13 years later, thanks for asking :)

(And no, it wasn't in prison!)

Well golly gosh darn, now I have to post anonymously.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Mysticalfruit]

I agree. I think she made a huge tactical mistake by basically giving in. What she should have done is instead told them to go fuck themselves and gone about her business. Then quietly she should have gone to the athorities and reported the situation and waited for them to threaten her again so she could catch the bastards.

Obviously if the threats are serious she should protect herself accordingly. i.e. make sure the alarm is turned on, travel during the daytime, stay in well lit public places, make sure the submachine gun is within easy reach, cocked and really to roll, etc...

Re:simply unacceptable

[Knux]

And that's why threats are threats, you just never now when or if they'll become true. IF they become true, they are not threats anymore and you won't be able do anything about it.

Re:simply unacceptable

[93 Escort Wagon]

But I think that this woman is quite frankly unequipped to deal with the real world. This is not the real world, except maybe in the minds of maladjusted twits that are stalled at the social age of about four.

Re:simply unacceptable

[skoaldipper]

The Internet is the wild wild west, and unfortunately so - anything and everything goes. The real irony is if those same bloggers had made those death threats and comments over the phone, there would be police knocking on their front door.

It's not enough to freely dismiss this behavior as tolerant Internet norms, no more than we would today accept a pistol duel in the dusty streets over a drunken bar exchange.

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.

Re:simply unacceptable

[digitig]

The blogs and comments posted threatening Kathy are unacceptable, and look to be very illegal. Agreed unreservedly on the first part. Not sure about the second part. Illegal where? Where Kathy is? Where the posters of the offensive material are? Where the owners of the blogs are? Where the blogs are hosted? Anywhere that the posts might be read?

Re:simply unacceptable

[Otter]

It's not enough to freely dismiss this behavior as tolerant Internet norms, no more than we would today accept a pistol duel in the dusty streets over a drunken bar exchange.

If there's a crime here, I absolutely support enforcing the law. If there's not a crime, I still have no problem with these scumbags being kicked off their ISPs.

Like I said, I don't blame Kathy Sierra for being as upset as she is. But this whole thing is a lot less extraordinary than the various links are making it out to be.

Re:simply unacceptable

[drinkypoo]

But I think that this woman is quite frankly unequipped to deal with the real world.

This is not the real world, except maybe in the minds of maladjusted twits that are stalled at the social age of about four.

If you want to see someone stalled in their social development, all you need do is regard a mirror. The internet is a component of the real world, a subset if you will. It does not exist in our collective imaginations; it is a real thing. Comments on blogs do not materialize mysteriously from the aether, they are placed there by humans (or software written by humans, which can be considered to be the same thing because a human had to write the program) and as such are communications from real people.

Why have I turned this statement around against you? Because I used to see people with your mindset every day, for example on IRC. You'd kick them from your channel for talking shit and they'd say "what's the problem? it's just irc!" That is a horribly small-minded and immature view. The people on irc are (again, with the exception of bots, which are far in the minority) actual people behind those nicknames, and they do not cease to exist when you quit your client. Your words have repercussions, even if it's just that it annoys someone - that someone is a real person and believing that irc or the web is part of the real world demonstrates an utterly juvenile state of mind.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Otter]

The situation is different how?

Because nobody is interested in you enough to bother stalking you, where it's plausible (albeit unlikely) that some nut might genuinely go after her.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

Err - maybe I'm missing something here. She is so frightened by the comments on her blog - that she has written a blog entry on the topic? It's nice that so many people have offered support and everything, this will probably help frighten the losers away, but this doesn't look to me like the actions of a frightened woman - it looks like the actions of someone cashing in on publicity (if you're American you might not get that, since it's so prevalent in America). She says...

I have no idea if I'll ever post again. I suspect I will. But for now, I have a lot to rethink. Let's see how long it takes to rethink - oh!

[UPDATE: In comments... That didn't take so long huh?

This is a blog topic about a blog about comments on a blog. Navel gazing gone mad.

And by the way, I'm glad she writes books on Java, I'm sure she never deserved any of it, and yes - they should be prosecuted.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

Your logic is ridiculous. What about his comment is mysogynistic? That he said something mean to a female? Or because he said the word "slut" about a female? If so, then I know a hell of a lot of women who are misogynists too. And how is this person commenting about a single individual actually attacking an entire group? He was attacking her as an individual. It's weak to try and build sympathy for yourself by claiming someone's personal dislike of YOU is actually somehow connected to the commenter's dislike for an entire group of people. It's a pathetic try to get everyone to support you because you don't think you'd get as much support if it was just someone who hated YOU as an individual.

Hate crimes are different because when you beat someone up while making racial slurs, you are sending a threat to an entire group of people. An entire ethnicity. That compounds the impact of the crime beyond just the individual who is the direct victim of it. I fail to see how you can extrapolate that to calling some woman a slut and wishing her ill will is a threat to all women everywhere in the same manner as attacking someone for race or for being gay.

Because one person said something about her PERSONALLY, she says the tech industry is misogynistic. It sounds to me like someone has a chip on their shoulder and is just looking for a chance to vent it. She doesn't know that this guy has anything to do with the tech industry but she labels the industry because of it.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Fizzl]

Ah, it is nice to live in secluded place where no insane troll would dare to come. It calms my nerves to be able to operate chain saw in single hand. It's also nice to own a character of mean fucking lunatic when need be.
I laugh at kids who threaten me online, taunting with my home address and inviting them for a visit.

I guess the situation would be entirely different if I was living in a city condo with no implementations of destruction and sense of personal space. Every day, all day, surrounded by people unknown.

Re:simply unacceptable

[drinkypoo]

Because nobody is interested in you enough to bother stalking you, where it's plausible (albeit unlikely) that some nut might genuinely go after her.

What makes you say that nobody is interested in stalking me? The arrogance of the average slashdotter is amazing - I thought I was arrogant. But everyone around here thinks they know everything about everyone else's life.

But on a more serious note, on one hand you're right, probably no one will stalk me. But on the other hand, I put myself into more dangerous situations than she probably does, simply by virtue of where I go and what I do. So I am probably at a higher risk of actually being attacked, not least because I regularly welcome those who would attack me verbally and accuse me of being (whatever) to meet me in person and say it to my face. So far, zero takers.

The primary difference is one of attitude. I used to live in a house off of Ocean St. in Santa Cruz, very near Barson St., which is where the hookers hang out (or traditionally have, I'm not a patron so I don't know if they've moved) and where the gangbangers stand around and talk shit. I had a small female housemate who had a female friend of similar size, attractiveness, and build. The housemate, when walking down Barson, would be paid attention to but received only a bare minimum of lewd suggestions and the like. Her friend would be harassed, followed, et cetera. The difference? The housemate had attitude. Her friend did not.

If you decide to be afraid, if you decide to take the bullshit, you will only be afraid and covered in bullshit.

Re:simply unacceptable

[LarsWestergren]

I have been exposed to bullying and stalking, so maybe you should just shut your piehole before you make any other ignorant, arrogant statements about "if you haven't". I grew up as a mama's boy and I was picked on and physically, mentally, and emotionally assaulted by my "fellow" students from basically sixth grade on.

Hah, I beat you, I got bullied from third grade. I thought being in such a situation would give you a certain empathy, that is why I thought you hadn't. My apologies for misjudging you.

Is hiding the rest of your life in your house a rational solution? No, and she won't. She did report these people to the police, and named and shamed the people who ran the site and let the stuff carry on. Good on her.

But really, it's great that you assume she has gone through the same things you have and then call her pathetic, ridiculous, and a coward.

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.

Re:simply unacceptable

[drinkypoo]

But really, it's great that you assume she has gone through the same things you have and then call her pathetic, ridiculous, and a coward.

She is a coward, by definition. She's living in fear. It is ridiculous to allow people to win, giving them what they want, when they psychologically assault you. And I don't think it's entirely her fault that she's being pathetic, but let's face it, you have to live your life. She says she's afraid to leave her yard. That's not living.

I don't assume she's gone through the same things I have. I assume she's gone through things I haven't, in fact. I've experienced trauma she hasn't, and vice versa.

I would be equally pathetic if I took the same action in response to the same stimulus.

I don't even think it's all her fault - I put a portion of blame on society, and a portion on her parents. But only she can take charge of her life from this point, behave in a rational manner, and live life.

I also think it's pathetic that We the People are giving up our freedoms for a little temporary security...

Re:simply unacceptable

[tgibbs]

I do find it ironic though that the very community that considers online anonymity to be so sacred can turn around so quickly and demand that these people - again, vile fucktards - be "brought to justice". But then I guess we all have our double standards.

The "community" is actually a bunch of people who do not necessarily think with a single mind. I'm sure that there must be some people who believe that anonymity should be sacrosanct up to and including specific and credible threats of terrorism. But I think that you'll find that there are a great many who feel that, as important as anonymity may be for freedom of expression, the right to anonymity ends when it comes to direct or indirect (e.g. "I hope that somebody...") threats of physical violence.

As to whether the specific comments are technically illegal, I think that they are close enough to the line that the question should be decided in a court of law, so I hope that anybody who has knowledge of the identity of the perpetrators will turn this information over to the police.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Mr. Cancelled]

I feel really bad that she is "afraid to leave her yard"

Sounds like terrorism to me! And since the country's on an "ignore the real problems and focus on the terrorists" kick as-of-late, I'd imagine that it should be fairly easy to track and prosecute the problem.

Seems pretty straightforward...

1. Determine IP's of user(s) who left the comments
2. File a lawsuit, and work with their provider to determine who used the IP at the time the comments were left
3. And finally, have the person arrested on suspicion of making terrorist threats

It's pretty straight-forward to me. Though I'm not familiar with individual, or the site the comments were made on, the people who made the comments have probably been a member for awhile, and there are likely other posts to help identify the user, in addition to whatever information was provided when the user account was opened.

Seems like this would be a better solution then hiding from life, and worrying about who made what comments. Identify them for the cowards they are, and prosecute to the fullest extent of the law. Once this happens a few time, people will begin to understand that they aren't totally protected by the anonymity of the Internet.

For that matter, it'll be nice to see a website-related case that isn't tied to the RIAA make it to court for a change. 8)

Re:simply unacceptable

[elrous0]

That is part of the downside of notoriety. You want attention, fine. But that's going to mean dealing with some nutballs. The way she bemoans it makes her sound very naive and immature--as if it had never occurred to her that the more well-known and/or controversial you are, the more nutballs you will attract.

Re:simply unacceptable

[dedazo]

I think that from a practical standpoint if you want to allow whistleblowers and critics of corporations for example to have their anonymity, you'll also going to have to live with these people. You might be able to prosecute them after the fact, but you can only be reactive - not proactive - in dealing with them.

Re:simply unacceptable

[maxume]

Simple, unless your county gun board doesn't like you. And for the most part, if you aren't serious about using it, a gun is generally going to give you larger problems. Lots of people aren't prepared to use one...

Re:simply unacceptable

[maxume]

It's just Scoblonarcissism. No fair lumping anything and everything 'blog' in with him.

Re:simply unacceptable

[maxume]

There is an ongoing investigation.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

"I just have to wonder who the hell gets that worked up over an author of Java books for C's sake. I can't imagine having that strong an emotional response over a programming language."

This from someone who worships C.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Wansu]

 
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.

 
True. But at the same time, it is illegal in most parts of the the US to communicate threats verbally or in writing. From what I've been able to gather, it sounds like a crime has been committed. This is probably another situation in which law enforcement hasn't caught up with the technology. And, that may never happen. Indeed, as some have pointed out, the cure may be worse than the disease.

Re:simply unacceptable

[pNutz]

Or you could just, you know, calm down. They're not really all out to get you. You don't constantly need the capacity to instantly kill someone, even in a city, to not die everyday. It's going to be OK.

And if it's not? If you succumb to the astronomically slim chance of dying by the hand of The Criminals? At least you didn't live your life in fear--a paranoid always clutching your gun in a hostile, terrifying world. Just calm the hell down.

Re:simply unacceptable

[drinkypoo]

Amen, glad someone said it. You'll probably get modded down for it

Currently: 60% Insightful 20% Flamebait 20% Overrated

I love how the slashbots with modpoints can't tell the difference between "flamebait" or "troll" and "something I don't agree with". I made my comment in all honesty, and I am gratified that someone gets the point.

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.

I too have been on the internet for quite a while (since 1992 or so in my case - I think I discovered Unix in 1991, or actually Xenix in that case - gorn on echo street) and you're quite right about the consistency of the internet. But I disagree with your point about the "filtered, moderated, homogenized world of web bulletin boards" because let's face it, there are plenty that are not filtered, moderated, or homogenized. The only way you could truly believe that the "blogosphere" (as if that actually meant anything) was a kinder, gentler place is if you had never seen an unmoderated forum. Basically this woman is utterly ignorant of the realities of life, not just the internet!

In fact, there are plenty of blogs that are about hate. Hell, Maddox would qualify (and I love that site with all my crotch.) I wonder what her reaction would be if she visited the best page in the universe, or strongbad (HER HEAD ASPLODE, I am sure.)

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.

Well, and that's the rub. What did she think would happen when she started a blog? That people would line up en masse to shower her with roses and bon-bons?

Re:simply unacceptable

[djchristensen]

why issue a death threat if you're planning to carry it out?

That's like saying, "Why imprison someone and torture them when you plan to kill them, anyway? I can't pretend to know what goes on in the mind of someone willing to make these threats or do these things, but even if a big part of the thrill is the terrorism, I wouldn't assume that the actual act is unnecessary to them.

Re:simply unacceptable

[elrous0]

The fact that clearly misogynist threats like the ones aimed at Sierra get a "no big deal" response from so many people says to me that there are a lot of guys out there on the net -- now, in 2007 -- who have an attitude toward women that's about on the level of the KKK's attitude toward black people.

No, it says we're grown-ups who've been on the net long enough to realize that there are plenty of nutballs and jerks out there and there always will be. Making a big deal out of this as if it's something shocking and new to the net is laughable in 2007. Hell, it would have been laughable in 1997.

Re:simply unacceptable

[elrous0]

I think your post just sent me into a loop. Starting it out with "I know I'll get modded down for this" then attacking that very practice was the verbal equivalent of

10 Print "My Name"
20 Goto 10

Re:simply unacceptable

[Fizzl]

Ah, yes. Maybe I gave a wrong impression in my post. I simply ment that I feel sympathy for someone who is living in a place where she doesn't know her neighbours and cannot know everyone around him, being threatened with violence online. Having very limited personal space.
I ment that I can shrug it off as shit talk by some random dweeb without even considering possible consequences. She cannot.

Re:simply unacceptable

[sumdumass]

No, This is a common misconception about motive. Calling a blck person a nigger during a spat is no different the telling him his momma is so fat the cops regularly tell her to break it up when she waiting to cross the street.

You see, when you are angry at someone and wishing to hurt them, you do anything you think with hurt them. In the example about someone's mon doesn't mean you dislike their mom nor does it mean you dislike anyones mom. It definably doesn't mean you have a problem with moms in general.(well you might after they hear you say it.

Suppose you told me that calling you a cunt really offends you. Well, when I want to offend you, guess what I'm calling you? It doesn't mean I'm racist or anything outside wanting to offend you for what ever reason. Now the fact i want to offend you could say lots about me, If I'm trying to just because your a women or black, then I'm a racist. But using racist terms to hurt a person doesn't make me a racist. (doesn't make me smart either, but being stupid isn't an automatic racist)

Re:simply unacceptable

[elrous0]

Actually, it's really not belittling her fears. Anyone who has been on the internet for a while would know that a road rage incident is a HELLUVA lot more a real threat than some anonymous prick on the other side of the country (or world) firing off anonymous rants against you. Someone who is in your real physical proximity can physically assault you with great ease. Most flame artists barely get off their asses to go to the bathroom, much less drive across the country to assault some blogger (who is probably only one of many people they might be flaming at any one time).

Re:simply unacceptable

[AK Marc]

"I'm gonna rip your head off and shit down your neck"

If I had a quarter every time I heard that...

Re:simply unacceptable

[gad_zuki!]

Yeah, this is a little over the top. I wouldnt be surprised if there was a follow up article on how the person who wrote this was an ex-boyfriend or just a random nut. Using this as a springboard to get on a soapbox and talk about misogyny in technology is more than a bit disingenious. The agenda pushers and chronic complainers are out in force today I see.

Re:simply unacceptable

[sumdumass]

And for the most part, if you aren't serious about using it, a gun is generally going to give you larger problems. Lots of people aren't prepared to use one...

That would likely be covered by the training. And if someone is afraid enough to hide from everything, then they can be trained to kill. You just have to make sure they know how and when.

But I gave worst case scenarios. It will be more likely that the gun would never be used in self defense. I know lots of concealed carry, some cops and most private citizens. Only one has ever used his gun in self defense and he didn't even pull the trigger. The attacker went from smashing the driver side window in while yelling "I'm going to kill you and fuck you girlfriend" to dropping everything and running when he saw the gun coming out of the lock-box that we need to put them in when driving. And of course, if the attacker is retreating, you don't shoot them, the idea is protection and defense not punishment.

If they never use the gun outside practice, and they aren't afraid of anyone anymore, then as long as they don't go "John Wayne" on us, it is a win-win.

But as you said, if your county gun board has a boner for you, then you have some problems. I guess dropping from a firearm and going with a tazor or some time of stun gun could be an answer. I'm not sure how the less then lethal weapons are regulated. Most of them are listed as a dangerous ordinance in my state so a permit to conceal carry them is still sort of needed.

I think I should design a non conductive liner to go under a coat/jacket or maybe even underware and place a stun gun on various areas were a ripp-cord can be pulled to activate it and if someone attacks, it turns the circuit closest to the attacking points on. Could you imagine getting struck from behind and when the rapist goes to hold you down, he trips a stun gun that only hits him allowing you to escape? I bet it owuld make some feel better if they couldn't get a gun legally.

Re:simply unacceptable

[sumdumass]

Concealed carry isn't about living in fear and clutching a gun. There are very few times you can legally use it and this is explained in the courses when you apply. It is the safe knowledge that you could take care of business if you need to and only when the situation dictates it.

If someone is going to attack you and kill you, your gun that is put away is probably going to be little help. But the training that comes with getting the license goes a lot further then "this is a gun, this is how you load it, shoot it, and this is how you clean it." You have review of laws, tips on avoiding situation that could be dangerous. Instructions on how to determine if someone is a threat or not. All these kinds of things.

In fact, A good self-defense course could provide most of if not all this. The problem with them are that some people will never be strong enough or quick enough to defend against most attackers if something does happen. They will end up infuriating them even more. With a firearm, you don't have that disadvantage. When shit hits the fan, it is do or die and too often it is dead.

So yea, Going though the training for concealed carry, even if they don't get the permit, it would product a more confident person who is the exact opposite of clutching their gun in fear. You should take a course some day.

Re:simply unacceptable

[PitaBred]

But did you cut off all contact with any males after that? Because she's cut off all contact with ANYONE simply because of some threats. There's also a difference between actual violence, and threatened violence.

Re:simply unacceptable

[PitaBred]

If he was attacking her BECAUSE she's a woman, I could agree with you. But they just happen to use the fact that she's a woman in their insult, which doesn't make it misogyny. Or, would you label me a misandrist because I assume that her attacker is a male, and that you're only thinking with your dick, hoping to get props for protecting women?

Just because someone says something is misogynist or racist, or any other kind of "-ist" doesn't make it so.

Re:simply unacceptable

[n5vb]

I wonder if this guy (I assume it is a guy) also gets that worked up over cordless drills. "Damn you Black & Decker scum!!" We all know Milwaukee power tools are God, so it's only *right* to get worked up over B&D. :D (because it's better to laugh than to cry ..)

Re:simply unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

"Hah! I finally found you. Now prepare yourself...mooohahahaha!"

We've got cows posting AC here now?

Re:simply unacceptable

[Arcane_Rhino]

Your argument would be a log more convincing if you hadn't posted anoymous coward. lol.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Fizzlewhiff]

No, I think people on the internet need to grow up. People need to learn how to disagree with someone without launching a personal attack, using profanity, death threats, and threats of sexual assault. The attacks on Kathy Sierra were childish. The comments made towards Scoble and his wife were just downright obscene. If you disagree with Scoble or Maryam and dislike their blogs, then quit reading them. Don't attack them by making childish and obscene comments about their pregnancy. The same goes with any media. There are real people on the other end and they don't deserve it.

Re:simply unacceptable

[dscruggs]

She strikes me as someone who desperately wants attention. But attention has its downsides too.

Here's the deal. I happen to know Kathy Sierra pretty well - she's on the advisory board for my company and until recently lived only a mile away from me.

More disclosure: Chris Locke lives a block away from me. We used to go out for lunch every now and then, though it's been at least a couple years.

IMO Kathy does not "desperately want attention." What she wants is to write about passionate users. How controversial is that? It's not like she's writing about the Iraq War or abortion or the Second Amendment. She writes computer books, for crying out loud. And for that she gets death threats?!

I have no idea if what she says about Chris Locke and others is actually true. But I do know that she 1) believes it to be true and 2) has good evidence to back it up. I know this because she called me Sunday to ask a few questions and shared her reasoning with me.

I've never known Kathy to be scared or unreasonable about anything. Her writing is terrific and she does terrific presentations (she keynoted South by Southwest a couple weeks ago). That carries a lot of weight in my world.

Conversely, Chris Locke has a reputation for being, to put it politely, edgy. It may be that he did something that was misinterpreted. But as others have noted on this thread, it should not shock you that a women might feel more vulnerable than a man when she gets the kind of threats and comments she quoted in her post.

Re:simply unacceptable

[Anonymous Coward]

The GP has a good point, though; he never said it was EASY, just that it was NECESSARY. I'm a victim of sexual abuse myself (and I'm male, too, FWIW); I've suppressed it and let it control me for the longest time, and it's only now that I'm in therapy that I'm finally starting to get over it. If there's one thing I've learnt, then it is that how you react doesn't just make a difference, it makes ALL the difference. And it doesn't even matter whether you're ultimately successful; what matters is trying and not letting yourself get taken over by fear, dread and all that. It's not easy, no, but it's the only thing you can do if you want to emerge as a sane person.

Eh, looks like i have to post anonymously now, too. I didn't originally intend to, but it's amazing how difficult it can be to talk about these things even now. Anonymity at least makes me a bit more comfortable doing so.

Re:simply unacceptable

[lahi]

That's so true. Kill all anonymous cowards. Right now! Then continue with the Pseudonymous Cowards. ARMM: ARMM: ARMM: ARMM!

-Lasse Hillerøe Petersen

Re:simply unacceptable

[pNutz]

My experience is mostly anecdotal, I'm afraid. I've worked with several people who have concealed firearms permits, and they were all very paranoid, constantly conjecturing dangerous and unlikely situations where they would have to kill someone, and laughing about it (usually with heavy or just plain overtly racist overtones). I never heard them talk about how to diffuse dangerous situations or avoid conflict. Quite the contrary. They were all very obviously afraid of the world and saw evil and danger everywhere.

I don't know any old ladies that carried concealed .44's, as if this was commonplace it might change my perception of carrying concealed weapons.

"When shit hits the fan, it is do or die and too often it is dead."
They said something to that effect a lot. But you see, it's NOT QUITE OFTEN THAT THIS HAPPENS. That was my point. It's incredibly rare, actually. And it's a huge investment of mental resources and well-being to be constantly armed in preparation for your attempted murder.

Re:simply unacceptable

[CAIMLAS]

If I were referring to a situation I'd not experienced, that's quite possibly true. But I wasn't. I've had such threats made against me; indeed, I've had someone point a gun at me before. So I know what it feels like. Cowering in the corner and shrieking like a beaten monkey isn't going to make things better, short term or long term. Only standing up and facing your demons can possibly defeat them.

hmm

[mastershake_phd]

I dont know about the Internet being a war zone. But I though programmers were more rational than to be making death threats on the internet.

Re:hmm

[geekoid]

haha...

You mean the people who wrap themselves up in things soley to look important?

Look at any flameware. What are programmers really fighting for? to hold onto some stupid opinion, or that there product is better for them, therefore it's better for everybody?

Programmers are no different then anyone else.

Re:hmm

[FMota91]

Being intelligent alone doesn't make you moral, sociable, or even wise.

I personally find this situation disgusting and hold sympathy for Kathy Sierra. I know how someone changes after being abused verbally like this, and I wish I didn't. It's a crime, and if it isn't, then it should be. I believe we should find those responsible and bring them to justice. Anything short of ruining their careers and social lives (if they have any) is probably not enough.

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:hmm

[SatanicPuppy]

Man, where have you been...The only person I can even imagine making a death threat to someone who writes java books is a programmer. You've never worked on a "team" with a programmer who would lose his fricking mind if anyone criticized his code?

Anyway, tech weenies are some of the most verbally nasty bastards on the internet...It's like they save up all the aggression from every time someone pisses them off, and then they spew it out all over the place when someone pisses 'em off online...It's specifically because they're not going to doing anything about it other than talk, that their talk is so nasty.

Re:hmm

[rs79]

This shit is news? People have behaved like dangerous lunatics on the network at least since I joined in the mid 80s. Wait... I didn't mean it like that.

Who can forget Geoffrey Dahlmers post to news:alt.tasteless?

These yobs today are just amateurs.

(Is "blogosphere" an abbreviation for "self absorbed wankers let off steam" ?)

Re:hmm

[dorianh49]

I don't think war zone is an accurate description, either. More like "Detroit".

Re:hmm

[smellsofbikes]

You are so right. I have (apparently) a hobby of dating hyperintelligent women -- I'm talking PhD at age 23, perfect SAT, Harvard grad, those types. Routinely, they've made some simply appallingly bad decisions. While I'm at it, my dad, perfect SAT, engineering degree from CalTech, plus Master's, in four years: same thing, so it's not just a superintelligent *woman* thing.
49 times in a row they'd have disagreements with someone else and be right, so that 50th time, when they were wrong, they seemed to actually be incapable of realizing they were wrong, so the opposition from friends and coworkers didn't have the limiting effect it has on most more normal people.
What's weird is that this kind of behavior is usually associated with people who aren't very bright at all. Typically, brighter-than-average people are better at self-analysis, self-doubt, and anticipating (and, more crucially, planning for) failure. I'm three-sigma on the intelligence tests, but I screw up ALL the time. I sometimes think I'm flat-out wrong as often as I'm right. So, I never *trust* anything I decide: I spend a lot of time verifying and making sure I have back-up plans. But the five-sigma people I've known? dude. Like riding an express train to hell.
So, I'd add to your statement that part of wisdom is self-doubt and self-evaluation: the ability to analyze your analysis and be open to criticism even if it's almost always wrong.

Re:hmm

[labnet]

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. I have no Mod points, so I'll let you know; one of the best comments ever on /.!

Re:hmm

[dragonturtle69]

A more simple comparison of intelligence and wisdom is found in crossing a street.

Intelligence is knowing how to cross the street, wisdom is knowing when to cross it, or if it should be crossed.

Re:hmm

[Dan Hayes]

Great comment, I was engaged to a woman like that, she acted in often crazy ways but had the intelligence to rationalise and get away with it. Made my life hell for years though.

Re:It's a Tradeoff

[CRCulver]

Why do you think George W Bush has bodyguards?

To stop him from running with scissors and to keep his fingers out of electrical sockets?

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.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[Seumas]

Regardless of how vile people can be (as I mentioned my own experiences in another post here), it's still the internet. I'm sorry, but I'm not going to take a threat on the internet serious. My information is completely publicly available and I've had people who I've banned for their behavior on my site spread offensive rumors about me on the web and even threaten to cut my head off. But what are you gonna do? It's the internet. Going to spend a few months of your life with the police and a lawyer hunting down some skinflint who's all bark and no bite?

When these things have happened to me, I didn't even bother to post about it on my site or elsewhere. Why would I? Who cares about it? So while I have sympathy for this person's situation, I also think there is a bit of attention-getting going on here. Look at me getting' threats and mean comments from nutcases! Poor me! Give me some attention intarweb!

Now, I'm sure this person in question is a talented, kind, decent person. I'm not saying they deserve any of the comments or threats they've been getting whatsoever. But really... dude... it's the fucking internet.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[etymxris]

"I hope you get..." = not a threat.
"You should get..." = not a threat.
"I will..." = a threat.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[djan]

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

This is true, but a lot of people don't realize that you need to bear the consequences of expressing your opinions.

If you are in the record business and spout off a la Dixie Chicks about GW Bush, expect to suffer backlash in the form of fewer record sales from people that disagree with you. If you threaten to kill someone, expect to have law enforcement to become very interested in having a talk with you.

Free speech is great, but prices are paid for the execution of it.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[butterflysrage]

not according to the law.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[etymxris]

not according to the law.

Ok, do you have something to back that up? I was under the impression that everything except calls to engage in imminent illegal activity were protected speech.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[mastershake_phd]

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?

Well the first amendment says:

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

It doesnt say but no advocating harm to someone else, or your inciting a riot, or your yelling fire in a crowded building, or peaceably assembling without a permit or in defiance of the police. Yet you can be arrested for every one of those things. Why? Because judges thought these infringements on the 1st amendment were reasonable. The constitution is amendable for a reason, and amending it is supposed to be the only way to change it. For that reason I would say these things are technically legal despite what any judge says, the framers of the Constitution certainly thought so, and so do I.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[Anonymous Coward]

So what happens when some nutjob that just so happens to live within 100 miles of you decides to cyber-stalk you?

You know there's a line. Are death threats, made from letters cut + glued from magazines and left in your mailbox just as acceptable as annonymized email death threats?

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[bigtangringo]

Interstate? I'm not sure, but in Arizona:

A. A person commits threatening or intimidating if the person threatens or intimidates by word or conduct:

1. To cause physical injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another; or...

The law continues. Anyway, if the proverbial "reasonable person" would feel threatened, then it's probably a threat in the eyes of the court.

CAPTCHA: hostage

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[Jimmy King]

The problem is that context is just as important as what was said. Sure, people said some shit they probably shouldn't have. They didn't actually do those things, though, and being the Internet, it's unlikely they have any plans to do so or actually believe that these things should be gone through with. People talk shit on the Internet. People say things just to be dicks on the Internet because they can be fairly certain it's not going to result in the ass kicking they probably deserve.

In this case specifically, these "threats" look like 90% of the arguments I see on the Internet. As far as I know not one of them has resulted in any of those suggestions occurring. This is what happens on the Internet.

If it is in fact believed that a person intends to make good on such threats or wants to believe they will (whether they actually can/will or not), well, we've already got that covered.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[drinkypoo]

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?

Saying you think someone should be shot is legal. Saying you are going to shoot someone is a crime.

Telling people in a position and with a will to shoot someone that someone should be shot can be considered illegal as it is inciting someone to commit a crime. But telling people with no history of violence that someone should be shot is probably not a crime.

It all depends on how good your lawyer is...

As for a picture with someone next to a picture of a noose, that frankly doesn't mean anything. It could be suggestive of their own hanging, or it could be suggesting that they perform hangings. Now, if you put the noose around her neck and provide a caption saying "I'm gonna hang the bitch", that's actionable.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[FSWKU]

Disclaimer: The usual "I Am Not A Lawyer" applies here.

While I'm not a lawyer, I have studied media and mass communication law. One of the things we had drilled into us from day one was the full text and meaning of the First Amendment. What we started getting drilled into us from day two, was that your rights under the First Amendment end where someone else's rights begin. That is to say, freedom of speech gives you a wide berth to say what you want, but as soon as you cross the line into threatening someone or directly impacting their safety or well being, you are no longer protected.

I haven't read the comments, but it sounds like they may be walking a very fine line. Saying things like "you should die" or "you should be beaten with a riot baton" are, while vile and nasty things to say, protected speech. However, if they were to say "I am going to kill you", or "I am going to fuck you until you see things my way", then that is NOT protected speech. Bottom line is that threats carry with them the reasonable expectation that they will be carried out, even if they are made anonymously via the internet.

If the comments were made to walk the fine line between protected and unprotected speech, yet with the intent to cause emotional or psychological distress, then the law would most likely point to the comments being unprotected, as they are harrassing in nature. If Ms. Sierra has reason to believe that those comments could lead to actual physical harm, then she is taking a (sadly) prudent and necessary course of action.

While I have not read any of her work, and have formed no opinion of her, there is no excuse for the comments that have been aimed her way. While I don't believe the internet is a war zone, I do believe that anonymity tends to override people's better judgement, and can result in cases like this. For a summation of this last paragraph, I ask you to refer to John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[Seumas]

Cyber-stalk me all you like. What are they going to do, spam me to death? Pingflood my head off?

Can we please be rational about this for a minute? Seriously, making some gross sexual comments and saying that someone is a waste of flesh or whatever via the internet is not even remotely the same thing as having a death threat mailed to you at home or left via the telephone.

Further, the couple of comments I read that were left by this person were horrible, but are they really the quality of comments that should be taken seriously? Have any of us not had something along the lines of "fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob" said to us or to someone else that we've read on the internet a thousand times over? People say some very disturbing shit on the internet, but that doesn't mean that they're all out to stalk and murder and rape us. They're just creeps with big mouths.

Now, if this person were making comments about knowing where the "victim" lives or other personality identifying information to give weight to the idea that they are seriously capable of and willing to make some physical effort in the real world, then that is a different story. But Calling someone a boring slut and saying you hope someone cuts their throat - while fucking disturbing as hell - is not the same as sending them an email saying that you know where they live and they better watch themselves next time they go grocery shopping.

By the way, back in the BBS days I actually did have some creep find out where I lived and at about midnight, drove down our street, found our house, knocked on the door and asked my parents to speak to me (this was in about 1993 and I was sixteen). That was fucking creepy. I don't know who the guy was or what his deal was. Only that he was from the same MajorBBS/WorldBBS server that my friends and I hung out on. And THAT guy didn't just say some random absurd shit like the guy posting on this person's blog. THAT guy actually said "I know where you live and i'm going to come kick your fucking ass".

If you involve the authorities every time some lunatic online says you should die or something, the authorities are going to stop giving a damn and won't give credence to real people who are truly being "stalked" and intimidated instead of just chronically verbally attacked by some bored douchebag with nothing better to do than try to make you quit your blogging.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[Seumas]

But in the comment I read, this person didn't threaten anyway. They said they hoped that someone else did something to them. And really, the point is that you can't just go around being threatened by every crazy person on the internet who takes the time to try to offend, insult or hurt you. There are hundreds of millions of people on the internet worldwide and at any one time there are probably a dozen who hate your guts. And maybe a couple who will say so vocally. Do we really want to waste the time and resources to hunt down every anonymous lunatic who says "you're a fucking idiot and I hope you choke on your vomit and get eaten by a pack of dogs" on your blog because they disagree with your politics or religion or review of a movie or something?

Not to mention, threatening a blogger who writes about Java?! How much do you want to wager the person making those "threats" can't even get out of his chair, much less stalk someone without getting winded?

I'm not saying true threats that are truly threatening to a person in the physical world shouldn't be taken seriously. I'm just saying that there is a difference between wishing someone ill will and being crude, gross and vulgar and actually threatening to do something to them or suggesting that you could if you wanted to (ie, I know where you live) and we can't all stop the world every time someone feels something is offensive or threatening. How many times have Slashdot editors had worse said about them by name on here? How many times have they made a point of posting about it, manipulating others or shaming others into defending them and then pulling the authorities into it while they claim to be hiding in a dark room of their house with the front door and windows locked?

If this seemed like a legitimate threat and not just some crazy freak on the internet, I'd be completely sympathetic to the situation. While my view is clearly unpopular here, I am sticking to my guns that what I've seen so far does not justify this "nervous breakdown" response. There is a whole lot of over-reacting going on here and I'm sure that the dumbass who made the posts to begin with is even more proud of themselves than if she had simply deleted the posts, banned the account/IP and ignored it.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[geekoid]

Isn't there a difference between:
"I am going to kill you" and "I hope someone kills you"?

It seems to me there is.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[Vexorian]

"Person X should be raped and murdered" Should the IPs of those people be released, I guess that they used a proxy, but that doesn't prevent the FBI from finding hackers as far as I know... And they did this multiple times so I just hope these guys get the whole weight of the law. And that this programmer can eventually continue expressing her own opinion cause that's freedom of speech.

What is currently sicking me is the ad in the top of that page "Scoble says blogging will make us richer and improve our sex life..." bew....

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[butterflysrage]

it depends on the detail and nature of the comment.

if we subsitute "get rained on" for some type of personal threat then "I hope you get rained on" will likely not warrent legal action, however "I hope you get rained on tomorrow afternoon at 3:00 while you are walking your dark brown dog on Smith St when you have your long red coat on" usually will. Setting a time and place moves it from simple speach to a threat.

of course, various jourisdictions will have different laws for treats... hate crime legislation can also play a factor.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[chris_mahan]

Simple.

You write:

I will drive to your house, kill you, kill your children by strangling them with piano wire, and rape, then kill your wife...*

On a web site somewhere...

You instamagically get your own FBI Special Agent assigned to your case. Your internet connection is immediately tapped. Your name is identified, your particulars are entered in a watchlist database, and you get your own profile built by dedicated professionals. (remember that anything using the internet is a federal matter since the internet is an extrastate communication medium)

But wait, there's more! The local law enforcement professionals also get to participate. They may place you under surveillance, tap your phones (they have probable cause) and trail you around town.

Don't touch that dial! A full report of your online and offline activities may be compiled and analyzed by mental health professional(s) to make a psychological evaluation, all at no extra charge to you!

Don't like the offer yet? I'll throw in the best: A task force may be assigned to your case, and a team may try to trap you, including a free undercover agent posing as a tasty morsel for your vile pleasure. You might certainly meet all of them in person, get a free bondage session complete with regulation handcuffs and a tongue-lashing. Plus you will be housed in a sturdy facility for a time, participate in a dog and pony show, and be introduced to rather unpleasant individuals who will make your life prior to their "handling" a delightful memory.

In other words: If you can't do the Time, don't do the Crime.

What does the law have to do with all this? You'll be asking yourself the same question when you are swapped for cigarettes in the slammer.

* Please note that I am using this sentence to illustrate the point and in no event intend to do any of these things to you or anyone else, nor condone this behavior by anyone else.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[RexRhino]

While I'm not a lawyer, I have studied media and mass communication law. One of the things we had drilled into us from day one was the full text and meaning of the First Amendment. What we started getting drilled into us from day two, was that your rights under the First Amendment end where someone else's rights begin. That is to say, freedom of speech gives you a wide berth to say what you want, but as soon as you cross the line into threatening someone or directly impacting their safety or well being, you are no longer protected. So are Black Panther protected by the First Amendment when they threaten to "kill whitey"? Communists who advocate violent revolution and the purging of Capitalists, should they go to jail?

Should the Koran be banned, because it says that Muslims should kill people who convert from Islam to other religions?

What about Ann Coulter, when she said about Muslims "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."? Should we put her in jail? That certainly sounds like a pretty vicious threat to me!

Should we throw Pat Roberson in jail for threatening Hugo Chavez?

Should we throw gangster rappers in jail? They are often threatening rival rappers!

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[FSWKU]

So are Black Panther protected by the First Amendment when they threaten to "kill whitey"? Communists who advocate violent revolution and the purging of Capitalists, should they go to jail?

There's a very fine line between "we should kill whitey" and "we ARE going to kill whitey." The former being protected, as it is a statement of opinion. The latter is NOT protected, because it is a direct threat, or a call to cause actual physical harm. Hate speech is not protected, which is why you see groups on either side (Black Panther AND Klu Klux Klan) stepping right up to the line, but seldom crossing into actual hate speech in an official capacity. Individual members may say things that aren't protected, but the party line from both groups is one that walks that edge between First Amendment rights, and hate speech.

Should the Koran be banned, because it says that Muslims should kill people who convert from Islam to other religions?

The Koran, Bible, Torah, and other religious texts are a completely seperate, and much stickier issue. Unfortunately, it is also one I'm not informed enough to discuss. I would think, however, that most people agree such texts were written long ago, and subject to broad interpretation. Having not read the Koran personally, I cannot speak on the exact wording used, but I'm fairly sure that there are quite a few instances where it may seem to say one thing, yet be intended to say another (akin to the Bible saying the world was created in 6 days, yet going on to say that our ways are completely different from God's ways. Thus, 6 days to God could very well be several billion years on our time scale, but that's another discussion entirely).

What about Ann Coulter, when she said about Muslims "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity."? Should we put her in jail? That certainly sounds like a pretty vicious threat to me!

Again, the razor's edge is in the wording. As much as I believe Ann Coulter to be a racist, bigoted, attention-whore, the majority of what she says still falls under the First Amendment (including the John Edwars = faggot comment, which I thought was completely uncalled for). Note the example you gave (emphasis mine) said "We should invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." That is a statement of opinion, and thus protected by the First Amendment. Had she said something that was a direct call to assasinate the leaders of Muslim nations, there would be (and rightly so) reprecussions from that, regardless of the fact that she is powerless to actually have anyone do such a thing.

Should we throw Pat Roberson in jail for threatening Hugo Chavez?

As far as I know, he never directly threatened Chavez. He merely suggested that someone kill him. Had he said he was going to fly down to Venezuela and personally put one in the man's skull, then yes, he should be put in jail.

Should we throw gangster rappers in jail? They are often threatening rival rappers!

Here, we get into the issue of artistic license. This is the very reason there was such a huge controversy over titles such as Ice T's Cop Killer. The debate was over wether or not it was a call to commit violence against law enforcement, or merely an artistic expression. As with any First Amendment case, there is a very fine line to walk, and context must often be taken into account. This is why an exasperated "I'm gonna kill you!" is rarely acted upon. If what is said is clearly intended as an expression, than not much will be done. However, if there is a reasonable expectation that the threat will be carried out, then it can and should be brought to the attention of the authorities.

Re:This sort of crap sickens me

[mink]

Bad example IMO since it was not just record sales that people who "disagreed with them" used to "send a message" to them they got death threats among other things.

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.

Re:Close

[lbbros]

I think it's more than that. It shows how on the Internet people can abuse the lack of personal presence to the extreme and say many disturbing things and get away with them (or so they think). This is an extreme example of this situation.
Already it's impossible, on certain forums, to have heated but *polite* debates, and very often one of the two sides will steep low and say slimy things.

Apparently, we have reached a new degree with death threats and such, as this story outlines.

Re:Close

[billcopc]

I'd replace war zone with kindergarten. It used to be you had to be at least somewhat smart to get on the internet, mainly because it had little to offer the common twit, as it was composed mainly of technical and scientific documents, combined with the fact that you needed either a Unix system or 3rd party software to even get connected. ISPs were a niche market for geeks and professionals, monthly access fees were relatively costly.

Today's internet access comes prepackaged with every computer with a free trial, costs less than a cheap dinner so any oregano-selling kid can afford it, and interactive web sites allow anyone to mark their territory with their digital urine. The very fact that kids and young (and/or dumb) teenagers are allowed free roaming is a direct contributor to the filth. Way back when I was in college, we had a pretty fast campus link, but it was monitored and abusers were routinely banned at the firewall. Given the novelty and appeal of the internet at the time, most students used it responsibly because we sure as hell didn't want to miss out on the fun.

The combination of uneducated, immature users and lack of punishment/enforcement had led to the chaos we see today. It certainly doesn't help that modern parents have become pussies, kids are out of control and grow up confused, aimless and irreverent. Idiocracy is not so far off and the internet is merely a window into everyone's psyche, a sample of things to come.

Re:Close

[servognome]

It used to be you had to be at least somewhat smart to get on the internet, mainly because it had little to offer the common twit, as it was composed mainly of technical and scientific documents, combined with the fact that you needed either a Unix system or 3rd party software to even get connected.

The problem with your arguement is these threats were posted on a techblog that has little to offer the "common twit." Intelligent people can be as cruel and closed-minded as anybody else.

It certainly doesn't help that modern parents have become pussies, kids are out of control and grow up confused, aimless and irreverent.

"Children today are tyrants. They contradict their parents, gobble their food, and tyrannize their teachers." - Socrates

Re:Close

[billcopc]

It's not about being closed-minded, it's about ignoring the consequences of one's acts. If someone were to make threats to me in real life (and weren't armed enough to back it up), they're going to need facial reconstruction surgery by the time I'm done with them. At the very least they're going to be prosecuted and ostracized.

If someone were to make threats over the phone, a quick call to the cops and a phone trace later, they're getting court papers served. Easy.

If someone mails me threats, the first thing I do is 1. hire an investigator and 2. call the cops... just because I really don't trust cops.

If someone makes threats on my blog, I can't do squat. The cops won't help me because apparently they've never heard of the internet. People don't take it seriously, when really it's just another method of communication, hardly any different from phone or mail. It carries words from anywhere to anywhere else, so why is an online threat less serious than a phone threat ? My address and phone number are publicly available from a whois lookup, really if someone doesn't like me online, it would be trivial for them to harass me in real life. The big difference is that it's pretty hard for me to throw an online aggressor off my 7th floor balcony.

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.

Re:Life's Tough All Around

[ReidMaynard]

+1 insightful
(damn out of mod points again)

Re:Life's Tough All Around

[Elouise]

This is what I just don't "get" about the Internet.

Why are insults so easily traded? Why are we told it's ok to have nasty horrible comments thrown about and if you don't like it - you hear "grow a spine" or "if you don't like it go post somewhere else"?

Would the people who do make the comments ever have the ability to say it to someone's face?

I doubt it.

Re:Life's Tough All Around

[Apotsy]

The previous post mentioned two things that go way beyond the internet: threatening phone calls and false police reports. I don't know what kind of site he runs, but damn does it sounds like it attracts some serious psychos.

Re:Life's Tough All Around

[toddestan]

Would the people who do make the comments ever have the ability to say it to someone's face?

I doubt it.

I think it's because on the Internet, it doesn't seem like your dealing with a real live human being. Instead, it's "toddestan" or "jay95859" or whatever. Much in the same way road rage happens, when instead of dealing with another real live human being, instead it's "White Chevy" or "Brown SUV". Throw in the the idea that they are anonymous hding behind their keyboard, and can often attack without revealing who and where they are, and that's how you get the Internet tough guys.

Yea...

[koreaman]

First the internet was a tree. Then it was a painting. THen it was a mass of shitty analogies...

Re:Yea...

[Jaqenn]

The internet exists as a method to deliver car analogies. It's like those 18-wheelers that carry other vehicles.

Re:Yea...

[PitaBred]

And porn. Can't forget the porn. It's like the donkeys in Tijuana...

I stretched too far on that one, didn't I?

Re:Yea...

[azenpunk]

but...but...i thought it *wasn't* a truck you could just dump stuff on. i'm so confused.

Re:Yea...

[adrianmonk]

The internet exists as a method to deliver car analogies. It's like those 18-wheelers that carry other vehicles.

You might even say the internet is often used as a vehicle to deliver car analogies.

PC Backlash

[Applekid]

When you can't say intellectually controversial things in public, on TV, in print, or anywhere else that repressed need eventually bubbles out from somewhere. Unfortunately, when it's on the internet and self-authored and published, the respective screening (getting beat up, losing your license, reputation flushed down the toilet) leaves and we're left with a river of hateful slime.

Like Ghostbusters 2. Only more serious. I suppose this makes this post controversial, as well.

Re:PC Backlash

[apathy maybe]

I assume you use "PC" as short hand for "politically correct". In which case you obviously don't know what being politically correct is all about. It has nothing to do with saying intellectually controversial things, unless you think something like "Jews rule the world and control the government" is somehow intellectually controversial.

Political correctness is about not making stupid comments that hurt minority groups or other groups in society when there is no

So, in summing up, I think you are wrong, and also possibly stupid. Politically correct is only ever used as an insult by right-wing conservatives who want to be able to insult "niggers", women (who should be staying at home bare foot and pregnant anyway, not actually being real people), and similar groups in society who have little power anyway.

Care to apologize?

(The Wikipedia article seems vaguely alright just now. At least the introduction does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_correctness )

Re:PC Backlash

[Applekid]

So, in summing up, I think you are wrong, and also possibly stupid. Politically correct is only ever used as an insult by right-wing conservatives who want to be able to insult "niggers", women (who should be staying at home bare foot and pregnant anyway, not actually being real people), and similar groups in society who have little power anyway.
And that defense of the language police is the wrong and stupid defense of a head-in-the-clouds pretend-utopia liberal arts major. By alluding to "groups in society who have little power," you are exposing the inherant defect: speech that is intended to protect should protect all equally, not just a minority.

My point, if you were to push aside the seething hatred towards one that dared insult your precious institution of "political correctness", is that the world at large makes people wear "verbal masks" in public that are lifted when they're being a computer so they don't have to face up to what they say.

Someone makes "nigger" comments in public gets the Michael Richards treatment. Someone seriously claims women should be barefoot and pregnant on TV will get picked apart. Writing in a newspaper that minorities deserve what they get generates backlash to the editor.

Meanwhile, on the internet you can write whatever you want with very little chance of getting called on it, especially if you aren't all that important. Public shame for language and message content goes out the window as long as it's online.

You can't discuss anything intellectually controversial because of the atmosphere of groupthink that the generation of Politically Correct language seems to encourage (as in, can't say "this", say "that" instead). Online speech seems to be free of that since you're one-on-one on your computer, but a pristine pool of ideas and challenges gets pissed in by a bunch of jerks.

There was a time when there wasn't Political Correctness. The hate and prejudice that went with that era hasn't gone away, it's just swept under rugs. I'd argue not giving people the freedom to say downright ignorant things and expose themselves is perhaps less dangerous than knowing outright who is ignorant.

Care to apologize?
No.

Re:PC Backlash

[Applekid]

There was a time when there wasn't Political Correctness. The hate and prejudice that went with that era hasn't gone away, it's just swept under rugs. I'd argue not giving people the freedom to say downright ignorant things and expose themselves is perhaps more dangerous than knowing outright who is ignorant.

Fixed. This is why I should be working instead of browsing the /.

Re:PC Backlash

[turing_m]

What is Political Correctness? It can't be understood without reference to the Frankfurt School, a movement composed of Jewish Marxists intent on subverting the host society they were in at the time, which was Germany in 1923.

The very idea of conflating being pregnant with "not being a real person" is exactly the sort of genocidal thing PC was, and is still about. How would Jews like the ever-present and mass marketed suggestion that they shouldn't have kids, or if they have kids they must be stupid, or that non-Jews make better husbands? Works out about the same as a death camp in the end. Gentiles don't much like it either.

The first link google popped up is here:
http://www.academia.org/lectures/lind1.html

Wikipedia mentions the Frankfurt School also, if you scroll past the introduction.

The Pain of Celebrity

[Friedrich Psitalon]

While I respect anyone in the public limelight, I think Kathy is being a tad bit naive. As a mildly well-known member of a gaming community once upon a time, I came to realize that some people really do get their rocks off on simply making vile threats. (Yes, I know, the scale is very different, but the concept is much the same.)

Odds are very poor that many of them are serious, and in the case of the incredibly slim few that are, most of them are so functionally disturbed that they wouldn't be able to make a trip to a convention anyhow. They're too worried about the peanut butter covering their sidewalk or the time cubes floating in front of the bus station.

Part of being a celebrity on any level for any topic means accepting that you gain both fame and infamy in parts. Refusing to continue doing good because of the threat of others doing evil against you is (while perhaps the most understandable kind) simply cowardice.

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.

Kathy should recognize that her acts do far more good than the risk of harm merits and go on. Courage of the unknown is a tough thing, but an important thing - it is what makes (most) of the greatest humans great.

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:The Pain of Celebrity

[Howserx]

"Kathy should recognize that her acts do far more good than the risk of harm merits and go on."

Do far more good? It's not like she's a crusader for the homeless or human rights. She blogs and writes about Java.

Re:The Pain of Celebrity

[butterflysrage]

you say you "may" be assaulted for doing your job, I actually have been. I have seen my own blood pool on a tile floor for being who I am and if there was any way I could reduce the chance of having that happen again I would do it in a second.

To say that someone should risk their life simply so YOU can get another book out of them is horribly selfish. Calling someone a coward because they wont risk being raped so they can sign your book is selfishness in the purest form.

you say you are "going to stare at that terrifying situation", those are just empty words until you actually have had someone come at you with a knife or copper pipe.... trust me, speaking from personal experience, that bravado of yours means jack squat when it actually happens. When you actually have had someone threaten your life, someone who was fully capable of doing it, had the motive, means, and opportunity, if you can tell us then that you would not take even the most remedial protective measures then you can criticize her

Re:The Pain of Celebrity

[Knux]

And that's why threats are called "threats" and "harm", you just never now when or if they'll become true. IF they become true, they are not threats anymore and you won't be able do anything about it.

Re:The Pain of Celebrity

[mcd7756]

In some sense, she is working for human rights. Her blog is about how to build companies, systems, customer support, etc., that respect other people and focuses on the best for them. She's always talking about how we are not to turn into some kind of soulless entities, but to actually care for our customers as people, not as wallets with legs.

If somethign like this happened to me, I would be hurt as well. But it goes beyond that. These people didn't do it because they personally disagree with her techniques for good customer relationships. They did it because she is female and because of their own inadequacy and failings as human beings. They decided to prop themselves up by vile, cruel, and demeaning comments.

I met Ms. Sierra briefly at a conference once. She is gracious, kind, and funny. Her books are well-written and many parts of them are hilarious, which considering that they are just software development books, is pretty special. Her blog is insightful and witty. She really does bring, in a small way, the world to a better place and the wretches who verbally raped her are beneath contempt.

Re:The Pain of Celebrity

[Hoi Polloi]

Just like people's obsession with child kidnappings by strangers. I always tell paranoid surburban people (and it is mostly suburban folks) to remember that what they hear on the news is distilled down from over the entire country and over 350 million people. The odds of having having something bad happen somewhere are pretty good but the odds of it happening in their town are pretty damn small. I ask them to look around their town. Is violent crime frequent? Have you been threatened by strangers? When was the last murder by a stranger? Once they think about they usually realize how overblown people's fears get.

Now if you live a crime infested urban area that is a different matter.

Re:The Pain of Celebrity

[jahudabudy]

An aspect of non-local culture (I like that phrase, by the way) that you might not have considered is the feed-back effect. Not only do the potential victims see things happening hundreds of miles away and fear for their own safety, potential perpetrators do as well. Copy-cat crimes have been around for some time; as national media make the rare localized sensational event a part of the national consciousness, EVERY potential copy cat is exposed to EVERY sensational crime. Bored, depressed, picked on at school? Get a gun and shoot people! Being the next headline will spice up your life! Somewhat ironically, the mere perception that these events are common could very easily lead to these events becoming common.

Re:The Pain of Celebrity

[Achromatic1978]

verbally raped

I agree with the rest of your post but this. "verbally rape" is one of those phrases that is a small step from "undressing me with his eyes", and "penis is rape".

I remember reading a story of a girl who tried, successfully, to have charges filed for being raped in an online game, in text. "Huh? You could ... I don't know ... disconnect!", people argued. "I felt frozen reading those words, I couldn't, I just had to sit there!" ... hrm.

Re:The Pain of Celebrity

[Chicken04GTO]

"someday, I'm going to stare at that terrifying situation"

You don't know shit. You're crying for attention because you want people to feel sorry for you. "Oh the brave teacher!" Your more likely to get struck by lightning or run over by a car then shot by some student. How often do incidents like that happen? Hardly ever. Stop attention whoring.

Re:The Pain of Celebrity

[mcd7756]

I agree that "verbally raped" is one of those victimhood phrases that some women use to avoid self-responsibility. By no means am I a feminist apologist. However, from Ms. Sierra's reaction. it's clear she feels attacked. From what little I know of her from her books, blog and a brief conversation, she is not a self-pitying, victim kind of person. Nor is she cynically manipulating the incident to gain traffic on her blog or sell books. She is worth defending and I feel bad for her.

You make a good point though. Thanks.

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.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[Hoi Polloi]

If you'd gone into any public restroom, even before the internet, you'd likely been greeted by a lovely array of racist, juvenile, sexist graffiti. Now it is just in electronic form and the bathroom wall is a blog.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[etymxris]

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.

You're telling us not to speak for her and then go on in the next sentence to speak for us? I've been the subject of thinly disguised threats "I know your name and know where you live...", which worried me much more than would "I hope someone slits your throat and gobs down your neck" because the person actually did know my name and where I lived (and this was stuff I did not make public). Still, while I increased my vigilance a bit, I hardly went to the extremes of this woman. I think it's fair to say she's overreacting.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[msimm]

"As she noted, you get everybody online and give them anonymity, this sort of thing happens."

That is exactly right. The internet was much worse before its mainstreaming. Hiding behind even the thin veil of anonymity the internet provides has always made certain people feel they could act their worst.

Not being within hitting distance probably has a lot to do with it. There are things you can say face-to-face that will have immediate consequences. Particularly if you're a guy.

What does surprise me is that someone can be active online and not have seen this sort of thing?

Re:Right, this is a total change

[sharp-bang]

You're telling us not to speak for her and then go on in the next sentence to speak for us?

Yes, I do. Like a lot of people posting in say "she's overreacting", you're assuming that your limited personal experience is an acceptable metric. It isn't.

the person actually did know my name and where I lived

Case in point. Apples and oranges. You are not a public figure subject to multiple sexually disturbed anonymous threats. Assuming the threat in your case was limited to the person you describe, she has less recourse than you did and is much more exposed owing to her role.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[sharp-bang]

Women are a minority of technical workers in almost all communities/organizations, generally lopsidedly so.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[etymxris]

The disanalogies you pointed out are either not relevant or only work against your point. First of all, this is not even a threat: "fuck off you boring slut... i hope someone slits your throat and cums down your gob." Maybe you're just not familiar with the underbelly of the internet, but I see stuff like this all the time. Taking this is a threat is almost as bad as taking "break a leg" as a threat. Tracking down information on someone that is not public shows directed malice, which is a step up from generic misogynist insults.

Secondly, her being a public figure makes each threat less significant, not more. If someone threatens me, who has no normal reason to have attention directed my way, I would be disturbed more than if I started getting weird emails after my name appeared in a paper or something.

Thirdly, her reaction goes beyond "not speaking at public conventions". She's locked herself in her house with a shotgun and guard dog. So her reaction was more severe than mine was.

And fourthly, there will always be disanalogies between any two revelevantly similar cases. Do I have to murder to judge a murderer? Do I actually have to be a victim of a crime to say whether such a victim is overreacting? If I do, then there would be no such thing as overreacting to a crime, which seems absurd.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[sharp-bang]

This is the etc.

Ms. Sierra doesn't think so. You can argue about intent but at some point a line was crossed and it is quite clear Ms. Sierra now feels very uncomfortable, and it seems clear to me that that was intended by the perpetrators all along.

The environment should not have to change for one individual. No majority should have to walk on eggshells because of one individual.

Yes they should. Minority workers in ANY US workplace are entitled to a non-threatening work environment (a sentiment clearly enshrined in US employment law) and society as a whole expects individuals not to harass or threaten others.

Words are by their nature are harmless.

Wrong again. Threats are intended to intimidate, which means they are intended to make people make decisions based on their assessment of the reality of the threat. This assessment differs for different people, and I think one should be inclined to give others the benefit of the doubt. Offensive comments are intended to upset the recipient, thereby making them less able or willing to participate in the environment, and frequently serve to denigrate the individual in the eyes of others as well. In the workplace (your example), economic harm frequently results. It may be that Ms. Sierra suffers economic harm as a result of these incidents, since, to a certain extent, her workplace is in public fora.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[dharbee]

"You can argue about intent but at some point a line was crossed and it is quite clear Ms. Sierra now feels very uncomfortable"

It's not clear to me at all. What's clear to me is that Ms. Sierra CLAIMS she feels very uncomfortable, which is a far cry from proving to me that she actually is uncomfortable. Her actions in this situation leave me with my own feelings, generally that she's trying to play us.

"and society as a whole expects individuals not to harass or threaten others."

No. This statement is at best a half truth, and needs extensive qualification. For example "If you do not come to work tomorrow, you will not have a job." Threat. Perfectly acceptable. "If you don't get back to work and stop horsing around, I'll be standing in your office watching you finish this proposal" Threat AND harassment. Perfectly acceptable. The idea you're trying to engender, that of some kind of absolute type of harassment or threat, doesn't exist. I suspect you haven't considered this though.

"Wrong again. Threats are intended to intimidate"

No buddy you're wrong. Words are not threats, yet you equate the two. There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat. The distinction is one that I suspect you have not sufficiently considered. Hoping something happens to someone is not a threat by any definition. You may not like that, but it doesn't matter.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[sharp-bang]

Her actions in this situation leave me with my own feelings, generally that she's trying to play us.

Well, maybe. I am inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt.

This statement is at best a half truth

Of course I take your point, but I think my meaning was plain. Straw man.

Words are not threats, yet you equate the two.

*sigh* Threats are made of words. The poster said that words can't hurt you. Since you can construct a threat or a slur from words, and threats and words can cause harm by invoking a rational reaction, it follows that they cause harm. Again, this premise underlies US law on workplace harassment, discrimination, and, for that matter, slander and libel.

There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat.

No, an empty threat is still a threat. And I do not concede that the threats made against Ms Sierra (some of which, according to her, are not public) were not credible. Finally, if you're arguing that Ms Sierra's harassers did not intend to denigrate or intimidate her, that's clearly a non-starter.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[dharbee]

"Of course I take your point, but I think my meaning was plain. Straw man."

Which is it, do I have a point or is it a straw man? The answer is that I do have a point, and it most certainly IS NOT a straw man. When you're discussing the impact of words, you don't get to dismiss the difference between "threat" and "threat of imminent violence".

"Threats are made of words. The poster said that words can't hurt you"

No, the poster most certainly DID NOT. Again, if you're going to debate the strength of words to influence people, you don't get to paraphrase what you thought was said.

"No, an empty threat is still a threat."

NO, it's an EMPTY threat. It has that qualifier for a reason. If you're going to debate the ability of words to inflict harm, you don't get to dismiss some of the words when they're inconvenient.

"Finally, if you're arguing that Ms Sierra's harassers did not intend to denigrate or intimidate her, that's clearly a non-starter."

Now THAT is a straw man. Nowhere, in any of my post, is there anything that could remotely be considered as an argument of such.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[sharp-bang]

I see stuff like this all the time

You're cherry-picking. Read TFA. There was plenty else there and personally directed stuff besides.

her being a public figure makes each threat less significant

No, the likelihood of violence against public figures is well-known enough that some of them hire security guards and get police protection. What I think you mean is that public figures receive more threats and have a higher profile, the likelihood of any individual threat being carried out is less, which is probably true, but not relevant to my point. There is clearly a pattern here, and, again, Ms Sierra asserts other, non-public information that makes a threat more credible.

So her reaction was more severe than mine was

I agree, it was. So was the threat.

Do I have to murder to judge a murderer?

I think most reasonable people would say, no.

Do I actually have to be a victim of a crime to say whether such a victim is overreacting?

Not necessarily, but it sure helps. A lot of people on this thread are arguing that Ms Sierra is overreacting because they would have reacted differently, and, when pushed, it emerges that they have never experienced a threat of this nature but are arguing from their own experience anyway. Having had indirect experience with the impact of these sort of threats in my professional life, I can assure you that they are a major reckoning in people's lives if they believe them to be credible, and particularly so if acted upon. I can also assure you that they are, on sad occasion, acted upon. Most of the people in this thread who are asserting similar experience seem to be giving her the benefit of the doubt, and until proven otherwise I would like to recommend that you respect their more relevant experience instead of your own less relevant experience.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[sharp-bang]

The answer is that I do have a point

Not really. What I am trying to say is that people expect not to be subjected to unwarranted threats and harassment in their daily lives. This expectation is reflected in numerous laws, not least US employment law. There are obviously legitimate threats that can and should be made. You are making a straw man because this is clearly not the case for Ms Sierra nor for the general class of threats and harassment to which she was subjected, which is the context of my remark, which I had thought to be obvious and which I think you do actually understand.

No, the poster most certainly DID NOT (say that words can't hurt you).

The original poster said: "Words are by their nature are harmless." Please parse me the difference.

If you're going to debate the ability of words to inflict harm, you don't get to dismiss some of the words when they're inconvenient.

You are moving the goalposts. You said, "There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat." I'm sorry, but that's not part of the generally accepted definition of the word "threat". Just stating intent is enough, and it is generally understood that even indirect statements of the form "I hope you " can be construed as threats even if they do not explicitly state intent, because such statements are provable predictors to future harm. Law enforcement certainly treats them as such. And, while the degree to which one treats such threats as credible obviously differs for each situation, I do not concede that the threats made against Ms Sierra (some of which, according to her, are not public) were not credible. I wonder if you could address that point?

Now THAT is a straw man.

See the previous point. The previous poster and yourself seem to me to believe that only the possibility of imminent physical harm is important to the credibility or impact of a threat. That's simply not true. The previous poster also seems to believe that no harm results from harassment or threats; I argued previously that that is not the case.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[etymxris]

I would like to recommend that you respect their more relevant experience instead of your own less relevant experience.

No. I'm tired of being told not to judge people unless I've had exactly the same experiences as them. Any criteria you suggest for judgment should be one that is available to any reasonable adult, regardless of their background. But even if your criteria is correct, it goes both ways. How does anyone have the right to sympathize with her? After all, they have not had the relevant experiences.

Anyway, you said my example was cherry picking but after reading her post again I didn't see anything worse. I didn't see any assertion of other non-public information, but even if I did, I would never give any credence to claims of non-public information. Witness the evidence of WMD in Iraq for a prime example of why I do this. Maybe she has info she's sharing with the police and reasonably doesn't want to make public. That's fine, but then she should not use such hidden evidence for public sympathy.

And I can hardly see this blog post as anything but a call for public sympathy. That in itself, all other things aside, raised the bar for my judgment of whether her reaction to these events has been reasonable or not.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[sharp-bang]

No. I'm tired of being told not to judge people unless I've had exactly the same experiences as them.

Not my point. My experience has been that it is not easy for people who have not had harassing/threatening experiences closely analogous with Ms Sierra's to judge hers. I think it's important to recognize that and give the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. I think most people do in fact respect experiences other than their own, and make deliberate decisions to do so or not do so. I am suggesting that you consider doing so in this case because the analogous experiences you have provided as a basis for your reaction don't seem to me to be adequate to Ms Sierra's situation.

Any criteria you suggest for judgment should be one that is available to any reasonable adult, regardless of their background.

I think they are. Everyone accords some respect for others' experiences without truly understanding them.

But even if your criteria is correct, it goes both ways. How does anyone have the right to sympathize with her? After all, they have not had the relevant experiences.

That's an interesting point. I guess I don't regard sympathy as something which requires a 'right'. I do think most of us are sympathetic to people in obvious distress even if we don't know why.

Anyway, you said my example was cherry picking but after reading her post again I didn't see anything worse.

Well, I think it's cherry picking because it's so generic and just because it's an isolated example. I guess I think the sum is more than the parts, that the context of the blogs as user communities (i.e. where a lot of people know each other) is important, and that the pattern emerging is one of sustained, condoned sexual harassment, which is significantly more dangerous that the random Internet type of sexual harassment. I also thought the graphic posted was seriously out of line. I also take into account that she has to get up on stage in front of people who have posted this crap, and participate in forums with them, have them for students, etc. not knowing who they are, etc. This sort of dynamic is incredibly destructive because it undermines trust, and it's why, when people do this in workplaces or schools, they generally get disciplined/fired/expelled. In a sense (which I admit is a stretch), this is like workplace harassment because she is a public figure and makes her living in public forums. Your view may differ.

Maybe she has info she's sharing with the police and reasonably doesn't want to make public.

I'm too lazy to find it now, but I believe that is the case.

And I can hardly see this blog post as anything but a call for public sympathy. That in itself, all other things aside, raised the bar for my judgment of whether her reaction to these events has been reasonable or not.

I think she deserves some sympathy. She does not deserve this treatment. I also saw her post as calling bullsh*t on the general problem. The people who do it, and allow it on their blogs, should be called on it. Finally, because it is typically so upsetting to some people, I tend to give victims of harrassing behavior the benefit of the doubt in their reactions until proven otherwise, and since there are still some unknowns in this situation, I am reserving judgement as to overreaction until more is known. Again, your view may differ.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[dharbee]

"Not really."

Then why would you say "I see your point"? Were you lying? Or are you lying now?

"The original poster said: "Words are by their nature are harmless." Please parse me the difference. "

Words are collections of symbols with no inherent meaning. Let's assume you don't speak German, and I call you an "esel". That word has no meaning to you currently. Then you look it up at a German/English dictionary, and find it means "donkey". Later you ask your native German friend, and he tells you it means "a profoundly ignorant individual". The word NEVER changed. So what did change that causes you to be offended now? That's what he meant.

"You are moving the goalposts. You said, "There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat." I'm sorry, but that's not part of the generally accepted definition of the word "threat". Just stating intent is enough, and it is generally understood that even indirect statements of the form "I hope you " can be construed as threats even if they do not explicitly state intent, because such statements are provable predictors to future harm."

No, that's wrong. At this point you're trying to win an argument and discounting fact. "I hope someone kicks your ass" is not prosecutable. "I'm going to kick your ass" is. One is a crime, the other is nothing but a statement. It is not even a threat, as it does not meet any definition of the word except yours, which is demonstrably wrong. A threat requires a declaration of intent as you said, but "hoping" doesn't meet that standard, and claiming it does like you did is at best disingenuous. You accuse me of moving the goalposts, then attempt to redefine the word to suit your meaning. In any case, it's wrong both legally and by the "generally accepted definition" of the word. You could not be more wrong about this point.

"The previous poster and yourself seem to me to believe that only the possibility of imminent physical harm is important to the credibility or impact of a threat"

No, that's a straw man. Again.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[sharp-bang]

Then why would you say "I see your point"? Were you lying? Or are you lying now?

*sigh* The point of yours that I saw was this one: There are obviously legitimate threats that can and should be made. RTFPP.

Words are collections of symbols with no inherent meaning.

This was not the meaning of the original poster's statement. Please. Here, again, is the original poster's statement:

Words are by their nature are harmless. They cannot physical kill you are hurt you in any physical way unless you are already "broken". If any incorrect/unwanted "touching" goes on even in the above described environment then I agree that is harassment.

As I explained previously, verbal harassment (including direct and indirect threats) causes harm. This is the point you should be addressing.

"I hope someone kicks your ass" is not prosecutable. "I'm going to kick your ass" is. One is a crime, the other is nothing but a statement. It is not even a threat, as it does not meet any definition of the word except yours, which is demonstrably wrong. A threat requires a declaration of intent as you said, but "hoping" doesn't meet that standard, and claiming it does like you did is at best disingenuous.

First, you are still moving the goalposts. You previously said, "There is a certain level of credibility that must exist for words to rise to the level of a threat." That's wrong. Please address this point if for some reason you still feel like replying. (Perhaps you are trying to win an argument and discounting fact.)

Second, I do understand the meaning of the word "threat". What you seem to believe is that a threatening statement must be explicitly stated to constitute a threat. (Previously, you also seemed to believe that a threat had to have some sort of "imminent" quality to it, but you seem to have abandoned that line of thinking.) It is generally understood that even indirect statements of the form "I hope you xxx" can be construed as threats even if they do not explicitly state intent, because such statements are provable predictors to future harm. Context is important, and different people react differently. If the real-life equivalent of Tony Soprano says he hopes you swim with the fishes with his jaw set and his face four inches from yours, I assure you that you will interpret that as a threat and that other people, including law enforcement, will too. And, as I have previously argued, the definition of the word "threat" is broad enough to admit that view. I am not "demonstrably wrong" and there is nothing "disingenuous" about my argument; I have consisently made it throughout this thread. The more narrow definition you've offered and that you seem to think I do not understand is wrong in practice and wrong legally, because such indirectly threatening statements have in fact been used as evidence of real physical threats and harassment in investigations and prosecutions. I've seen it. I know. Every law enforcement officer and prosecutor (not to mention people such as myself who work in the field of security) understands this. This is why Ms Sierra's reaction is natural and understandable. I am forming the opinion that you are capable of reading a dictionary but are choosing a narrow definition deliberately to avoid this consideration.

Finally, you are missing the point I was trying to make to the original poster, which was that verbal threats and harassment alone are enough to constitute harassment. At this point I think you are taking an impracticably narrow interpretation of the word "threat" to avoid trying to address that point, and that, because I reject it, you're asserting I am trying to change the definition. I'm not, and have tried repeatedly to explain why not.

If you are still confused on this point, I recommend that you study the identification and prediction of physical threats. The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker as an excellent popular introduction.

Re:Right, this is a total change

[dharbee]

I have only one thing left to say to you.

You have continually attempted to redefine the argument when I have refuted you.

If you are incapable of accurately representing your position, that is your fault not mine. If you are incapable of making a coherent point without resorting to semantic trickery, that's your problem not mine.

In every single case I have refuted your argument with facts, yet you continue to accuse me of moving the goalposts.

Yet it is you who are redefining words to suit your meaning, ignoring carefully constructed points when they refute you, and being dishonest in your debating.

You have done nothing more than show what I initially suspected, that you are simply not capable of a rational discussion with someone. You have yet to prove anything beyond your ability to ignore facts when they are inconvenient, and that you'll lie when it suits you.

I couldn't care less who has the last word in this discussion. I have had the good words, the true words, the important words. That they are also the last means little to nothing to me.

In the future, should you wish to share your opinion, take this to heart. Admitting you're wrong is not a failing, it's a strength. Had you done so when I showed you you were wrong, instead of smarmy attempts to twist the discussion by redefining common terms to mean something only you agree with, you wouldn't appear as foolish as you do now.

As an aside, I read almost none of your post. Your previous attempts made it clear it would be more of the same, that being incoherent nonsense from an individual far too impressed with themselves, and having no inherent value whatsoever.

I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[LionKimbro]

I'm a big fan of Kathy Sierra; I own several of her books, and have evangelized for her for a long time.

But right now, I'm worried about mob "justice."

I've seen that, several times, "Joey" has said, "This is a big misunderstanding," and "please, let's talk about this."

The response? "We've seen all the evidence we need-- shut up, you're in big trouble."

Have they seen all the evidence they "need?" Need, for what purpose? I agree that they've seen disturbing, gruesome pictures. But is it all connected up right? I'm not so sure-- did e-mailed death threats really come from Joey & Co.?

But there is something that I'm sure of: Due process is not happening here. We're witnessing a dog pile. I'm sure that a great many of these people are hearing Kathy's story, seeing the pictures, and then calling "Get a rope."

I read the story. It's disgusting. I know how the wanna-be vigilantes feel. But this is no way to do things, and I find the popular response disgusting, as well.

If some of the people responsible are willing and ready to talk, and have a side of the story, it's everybody's duty to give it a fair hearing. We should be encouraging conversation right now, not discouraging it. I'm sure Kathy & Joey & all can have a conversation, and work this out, and make a follow-up announcement.

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[geekoid]

I'll kill you for advocating due process!

You are absolutly right, due process must always be observed by all parties.
The facts need to come out, then justice can be served rationally.

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[Anonymous Coward]

"mob justice" seems appropriate for anonymous little slime molds who get off scaring girls.

You want to help these sick puppies? The best way is out them. They'll behave better after they learn actions can have consequences.

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[unDees]

Granted, mob justice is wrong and all, but I took most of the "shut up, Joey" comments to mean, "don't incriminate yourself (further)." Most of the comments on Kathy's blog didn't seem to be threatening retaliation. I don't remember seeing any remarks about a noose in Joey's size or anything.

Is there any verification that the person who posted five or six times as "Joey" is the same one who originally posted the noose remark? He keeps changing his story ("I'm a poor retiree on a fixed income and can't afford a lawyer," "I have a bunch of money and I'm going to get a lawyer to clear my name -- it's worth it," etc.). He alleges several past flamewars between Kathy and her critics, but Google couldn't find 'em.

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[Hoi Polloi]

There is no point in waiting. Once we have all the data together I assure you it will point to Al-Queda and Saddam. We must invade Iraq immediately!

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[jnana]

Mob justice is never appropriate, because mob justice is an oxymoron.

When you care more about punishing somebody immediately and can't be bothered with technicalities like learning all the facts and being quite certain of the party's guilt, you are not participating in a just process but a mob process.

For the record, I'm appalled by what I read in Ms. Sierra's post and my heart goes out to her, but that doesn't change my feelings about so-called mob justice.

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[Voline]

To quote Jeff Licquia:

"And it is a shame that they're being so taken in, given how said debate-framing is unjustly suppressing the emergent style of misogynistic, sexual-tinged death-threat art. What a pity."

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[elrous0]

What consequences would those be? Seems to me like you're little better than them.

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[gorbachev]

"Due process is not happening here."

What the hell are you talking about? There is no due process on the Internet, because no such concept exists at all outside of the justice system.

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[LionKimbro]

I'm talking about the process that you learn with maturity-- things like, "Check the evidence first, before making a decision," and "Let the other guy speak in his defense," and so on.

Due process.

You don't need a legal system to understand these ideas; You only need to have lived in a community or two. Like, in pre-school, and then kindergarten. There's 2, and we meet quota.

Quota? Of course, there's not a legal quota; This is just a narrative fiction for the purpose of communication, ...

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[gorbachev]

"I'm talking about the process that you learn with maturity-- things like, "Check the evidence first, before making a decision," and "Let the other guy speak in his defense," and so on."

And again, how does this apply to a venue that's not part of the justice system? There is, and will never be, due process on the Internet.

You'd have a point, if somehow the "mob justice" affected a legal decision, but in this case, since there isn't even any ongoing legal proceedings yet, nothing of the sorts is happening.

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[LionKimbro]

I won't speak for you.

But for myself, I practice things like: Giving people the benefit of the doubt, letting all sides be heard, and so on.

I do not require a legal system, to give people what I think is their due.

My name for this is, "due process." The process that I think a person is due.

It doesn't have to come from a legal system- it can come from the heart, as well.

I appeal to all people to grant due process: the process that a person is due, given a concept of decency that is commonly recognized in mature adults.

Granted, this sense of decency may not be universal. But it is broad, regardless of party affiliation, nation, language, and so on.

Re:I'm Worried about "Mob Justice"

[gorbachev]

I buy that. Thanks for clarifying.

Green Blackboards

[Anonymous Coward]

Just another example of John Gabriel's Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory.

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...

Thoughts

[LarsWestergren]

I've been following this today, on and off. I feel really sorry for Kathy Sierra. What is scary is the number of bloggers (mostly female) who describe being subjected to similar things, some even worse. Most of the bloggers mentioned by her have apologized for participating in such a site though, even if, as they claim, they did not do any of the objectionable content.

I think Don Parks summed up how I feel about this best. With reality TV the tolerance of bullying has unfortunately been increased. If something good can be said to come of this, it is that a few online bullies are getting their well deserved come-uppance. I think it was Chad Fowler who wrote that the net never forgets, and building a reputation becomes ever more important. The stuff you write may come back to haunt you for a long time, and never forget that there are real people with feelings on the other side. Even if you disagree with them they deserve to be treated as human beings.

Re:Thoughts

[LarsWestergren]

Whatever, fucktard. Anonymity kinda cancels out the whole 'reputation' bit. I hope your eyes rot out and maggots infest the sockets so that when I skull-fuck you I can feel them squirm.

Yes, yes. Very creative. *pats head*

Re:It's a Tradeoff

[CheddarHead]

Why do you think George W Bush has bodyguards?

To stop him from running with scissors and to keep his fingers out of electrical sockets?

You forgot about the need to apply the heimlich maneuver when he's been eating pretzels.

Aaaaaaand off to prison

[Denial93]

If whoever did this - at least some of them - were stupid enough to leave traceable IPs, they'll go to prison. And they deserve it. And if it is because some trolls simply didn't see that somewhere beyond the limit of decency was another limit, a legal one, they deserve to learn the hard way.

I'm angry. Not angry enough to be happy with the various means of online surveillance that law enforcement has appropriated, but angry enough to hwant to see them used, fast.

I don't get it

[Anonymous Coward]

Why are these morons threatening this young woman? As to the death threats and such, yeah I've been a recipient as lately as last week, just for posting an honest opinion. The opinion was in a Chicago Tribune "Julie's Health Club" article; blog, I guess, since there is a moderated comments section. The topic was child care, I opined that one parent should stay home while one won bread. I didn't say mom should stay home, mind you, but ONE PARENT.

Of course, some crazed misandrist feminazi (I never used that word before now, but thanks to the strange woman from the internet it will become a beloved part of my vocabulary now) emailed me to say that I was a ceve man who should have his "balls cut off" before I bred.

Threatening to cut a man's balls off is worse than a death threat, as the 95% of you who are men well know.

I had death threats back when I got too popular at K5, too (yes, it's the "Paxil Diary" guy mcgrew here). That, ironically, was over a joke that some gays didn't get; one of them was an admin, Pete Jongular, who made the site so annoying for me that I left. Is the asshole still there? If not I may go back...

But anyway, my empathy goes out to this poor woman. I know how she feels, even though I'm too damned stubborn and ornery to let a few death threats and threats of castration keep me off the net.

-mcgrew (sm62704 at /., now at work and w/o my /.pw)

Re:This is coming from a dick ..

[rs232]

Having people come round to your home, post images and sneering references to your religion does not constitute WAY oversensitive. You yourself, are a prime example of what's wrong with online forums.

was .. Re:This is coming from a chick

open source extremists?

[CAIMLAS]

The first thing I thought of when reading this was, "how are these people making the threats any different than the people issuing fatwahs against 'enemies of Islam'? I thought of a friend blogger, Anarchangel, who's had a fatwah issued against him.

His solution? Tell 'em off and make it known he's packing pistols. Over a year later and he's fine. I'd suggest she do the same, for her own safety. And don't back down, for goodness sake! That's what they're after - terroristic behavior is done to make you back down and give ground.

Apparently there are some folks out there who really don't like Java. I mean, I dislike the damn stuff myself, but I'm not crazy about it or anything...

Re:open source extremists?

[N8F8]

One difference is targeting who you are instead of what you are. Not that it matters much.

Re:open source extremists?

[Ingolfke]

His solution? Tell 'em off and make it known he's packing pistols.

Yeah, I had a similar situation occur in Second Life. I was being harrassed and threatened by these jerks... so I told them any time they wanted to come down to my house and mess with me, my shurikens, and my nunchukas they were welcome to. Never heard from them.

Re:open source extremists?

[Notquitecajun]

Probably because they don't own guns.

Re:open source extremists?

[Achromatic1978]

That's hilarious. I read that blog post, and the comments, and all I got out of it is someone with an inflated sense of self importance, feeling the need to make himself seem like a hero-martyr. Wow, booby trapping his car and home? You know, it'd be worth some poor kid being injured by his incessant need to "piss on the corpses" just to see how he'd deal with having his home and family devastated by being sued into oblivion (although you get the feeling he'd just blame those who threatened him for making it "necessary", further absolving himself of responsibility).

Don't even start me on the nationalistic, fundy Christian, "let's have ourselves another crusade/lynch us some towelheads" rampant in his comments.

True

[HangingChad]

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

That's the truth and one of the first casualties of that war was Civility. Free speech ends at the door of death threats and threats of physical violence. That is not unique to the internet and perhaps a new and open media requires a new type of law enforcement. It doesn't have to be invasive or Constitutionally questionable. A few of the worst offenders making headlines going to trial, and a couple of the worst overseas offenders extradited here for trial, would likely be all it would take to end most of the silliness. There will always be those few, desperately in need of therapy, who push the bounds. But we do have to respond. Just like real serial killers usually start out torturing animals, real acts of violence start by giving voice to the desire.

Funny, but I see more of what I could classify as hate speech on right wing web sites. Death threats, suggestions for snipers to take out some imagined offender and many along the lines of, "Who will rid me of this meddlesome priest?" And this from people counting themselves among the religious right. Shame. Tactless comment coupled with faithless religion.

Besides, why would anyone want to threaten a JAVA programmer? .NET or C++, that's understandable. But JAVA? The humanity!

This is new?

[Penguinisto]

I remember getting quite a share of death threats and hate mail from lots of folks back in the mid-and-late '90s. It came with the territory when playing around in alt.flame and trolling other USENET groups for fun... back when trolling was actually an artform (and even educational if you did it right)- not the crude and obvious idiocy that we see today. Got lots of hate in my inbox as a result (and even more mailbombing attempts, etc etc... procmail was my bestest friend in those days...) IOW? Yeah, I was stupid.

That said, the cure for such threats was rather easy: Post the thing verbatim, along with every ounce of information you could dig up on the person. Odds were good that a sharp admin could figure out who sent it, email the ISP (back when they actually paid attention to the inbox of abuse@...), and humiliate the punk online.

Of course, back then, there were lots of advantages: it was easier to track people back then, and I'm a guy with a passion for hunting and target-shooting. I also lived in a state that had some very loose laws considering the disposition of trespassers and those who would threaten bodily harm to persons or property (Arkansas). A few simple public postings in the source's favorite newsgroups w/ all evidence, a letter to his/her ISP w/ all the evidence, and the threat-maker was gone. I had never seen anyone dumb enough to actually try for it, in spite of my (admittedly reckless habit of) publicly calling them out. Most simply went away and stayed gone. But it was a whole other Internet back then.

I suspect that OTOH a woman, who doesn't really make a hobby of pissing people off like I had, and catching crap in an Internet that has now become swamped with a cornucopia of anonymizing tools and techniques? Prolly not so easy for her to simply post and humiliate.

Props to her for posting them verbatim, though... and it's a very good start to name and shame the sources that can be found. Let the bloggers who host such stuff publicly deal with the fallout.

Though this will sound trite, I'd take such postings with a block of salt... the vast, vast majority of idiots who post such garbage don't have the nerve, transportation, or means to pull off anything that they threaten. I daresay that they're little boys who managed to squeeze off something that makes them feel big n' bad when mommy wasn't looking at their monitor.

/P

Prosecute them

[MikeRT]

If those "prominent bloggers" are connected, send them off to the big house for threatening her and harassing her. Do something with the existing laws now to make a case against new laws in the future.

Quite frankly, if I caught up with someone who wrote about my wife like that and threatened her so viciously, I'd have a mind to pistol whip them until they could recite the entire series of Emily Post etiquette materials.

And now..

[FMota91]

it's a series of tubes!

But it's definately not a big truck.

Re:And now..

[FMota91]

YA RLY!

Proving once again.

[AltGrendel]

There have been studies about this. Annominitiy on the Internet emboldends people to be stupid and say things they might otherwise filter out. It's a real shame that people can't be mature about differing points of view.

Gabe and Tyco said it best.

Re:Proving once again.

[geekoid]

DO you have an actually cite for anyu of those studies?
Penny-arcade is not a cite.

Re:Proving once again.

[exp(pi*sqrt(163))]

> There have been studies about this. Annominitiy on the Internet emboldends people to be stupid and say things they might otherwise filter out.

It's amazing what surprising and counterintuitive discoveries can be made by studies. Who'd a thunk it?

Cut the hype..

[Wes Janson]

Calling the internet a "war zone" is idiotic hype. If you want to see what one actually looks like, go to Iraq, or Somalia, or any number of other low intensity conflicts around the globe. A far better metaphor would be calling the internet a playground filled with shouting, arguing children who sometimes say threatening or stupid things.

Re:Whingebag..

[cbradshaw]

This is the internet. I've had nasty things said to me too.

Right, but are you a public figure? Speak at Conferences? Author books? You seem to have spent enough time trivializing her situation, without giving a thought to what it might be like to receive a death threat - knowing all well that the world has easy PHYSICAL access to you.

Think about what you are saying... what good will reporting these threats to the police do? Are they going to be able to track down the bad-guys? It's doubtful.

The way I see it, you are either; a.) A Karma Whore looking for that "+1 insightful", or b.) Have way too much time on your hands, and not a whole lot of common sense. Either way, perhaps you should hang out at "Digg" where you peers are...

Threats are not acceptable?

[sehlat]

When did that happen? After all, the RIAA has turned them into an art form.

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.

Re:mod up parent -dont feed the trolls

[Seumas]

Exactly.

Rather than be all about the glory of me every time someone has threatened me through my site or elsewhere and then posting it, commenting on it, asking for others in the community to defend me and stand up for me, I've kept my mouth shut, forwarded the offending emails or posts to the person's ISP with a letter of explanation, blocked the account and moved on with my life.

I don't bother responding to the person. I don't post about it on the internet. I don't aim for Scoble or Slashdot to post about it. I don't look for the police to send a squad car over and post a man at my front door. And I've had far worse "threatened" than I am seeing in this story.

Often - especially for repeat offenders - ISPs will be very helpful. Especially if you have documented as much as you can about an individual. Show the server logs with timestamps and IPs. Provide email addresses, message headers, post contents and any other information you happen to have (in my case, sometimes account information that they registered with that may or may not be accurate).

But posting on the internet about it accomplishes nothing. If anything, it opens you up to more nut cases who know that you're a good target, because you'll freak out about it and give them the reaction they so desperately want.

I know there are real criminals who really stalk people over the internet and then in person and commit real rape or murder. That's horrific and when it appears to be of that nature, by all means press forward and spare nothing in the effort. But to make this much out of some lame blog troll who says they wish harm to come to you followed by some gross sexual comment and then throws out a couple of lame photoshops (I believe I saw one with panties over a head - it's not like these were photoshops of a slit throat or anything if I'm correct?) kind of diminishes people who are legitimately being threatened over the net and have completely rational fears for their safety because of realistic threats by someone.

Re:mod up parent -dont feed the trolls

[gorbachev]

Oh, fuck you.

Whenever did death threats become "trolling", you idiot!

The stupid morons so clearly crossed the line and should be held criminally responsible for the fullest extend of the law.

Re:mod up parent -dont feed the trolls

[FurryFeet]

Oh, fuck you.

Whenever did death threats become "trolling", you idiot!

The stupid morons so clearly crossed the line and should be held criminally responsible for the fullest extend of the law.

Yes! How dare they insult and demean someone simply for expressing an opinion!

(But, hey, at least they are not hypocrites).

Re:mod up parent -dont feed the trolls

[DogBotherer]

Sadly it's just yet another example of the victim culture quagmire into which western society is rapidly sinking.

Re:mod up parent -dont feed the trolls

[gorbachev]

Well, fuck you, too.

Witness the subtle difference of being a troll and being a felon.

(But, hey, at least I am not sending death threats)

Re:mod up parent -dont feed the trolls

[FurryFeet]

I hope you will pardon me if I do not follow your instruction. I lack both the inclination and the equipment to perform sexual acts upon myself.

It does my heart good to see that your debate skills are up to par with your vocabulary. Balance is an underappreciated virtue. It does worry me a bit, however, that you believe you have demonstrated "the difference between a troll and a felon", when you have actually done nothing more than a feeble attempt at passing insults for debate. Or maybe, just maybe, demonstrated the difference between a troll and a moron.

No, wait, you actually didn't. My bad.

But, to give you your proper due, you do have good ortography, and I commend you on your brevity. But I'd behoove you to work on the content side of your posts; form alone will only get you so far, even with your interesting command of profanity.

Regards.

Re:mod up parent -dont feed the trolls

[gorbachev]

Og. Big Words. Good.

You Win. Me Bad. Oh. Yay.

Re:mod up parent -dont feed the trolls

[FurryFeet]

Wow. If you thought those were big words, your situation is worse than I expected. I'm really sorry for you.

Cheers.

mod parent down. WAY DOWN.

[david_bonn]

Did you actually read the posts made about Kathy Sierra? They were pretty outrageously vicious. I can't imagine anyone saying garbage like that face to face without there being hell to pay.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

Rape is down to 10%? In the early 70s the militant feminists insisted that every woman had been raped. I guess we've cleaned up a lot in 30 years.

Re:And you're not a woman

[dedazo]

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

I am not mocking her. And this has nothing to do with whether or not women are more likely to be victimized by men. What I'm essentially saying is that her chances of being raped in a parking lot by a stranger are probably higher than one of these people actually tracking her down and inflicting harm on her. For them, the threat is the thrill. It's an infantile power play aided by the veil of anonymity, and while I don't blame her in any way - she is the victim here after all - she did fell for it. I've been online for almost 20 years and I've seen these things often enough to know how they work and why they happen.

I understand your points, and they're valid, but I stand by mine as well. FWIW, if I were married and this was my wife that's probably what I'd tell her. It's scary and annoying and whatnot, but she doesn't need to cloister herself up in a room and shiver in fear, because that's exactly what the fucktards that did this wanted to begin with.

Re:And you're not a woman

[geekoid]

The pistol is called the great equalizer for a reason.

I don't think he mocked her at all, just pointing out that the article came off as a little over reactionary.

"Ever walk to your car in a dark parking lot? When you do, do you give thought to being attacked?"

I do, but that doesn't stop me from functioning.
Yes I ahve been threatened, pretty harshly as a matter of fact. Except in my case it was by people with a lot of money and power who probably could have gotten away with it.

I don't doubt this woman is in fear, but she MUST get control back if she ever wants to be productive and happy again.
I can not give her advice on that, but there are plenty of experts that can help her find her way back.

In your example(which I will take as true for this comment) I hope she nailed the guy to the wall. I , not most men, would have done something like that.
In fact, the idea is so foreign, I doubt it's truthfullness.

Re:And you're not a woman

[radtea]

Ever walk to your car in a dark parking lot? When you do, do you give thought to being attacked? I don't

Well you should. Rates of male victimization for all crimes other than rape are considerably higher than female victimization. The rate of rape in males is very hard to estimate, but is reported at about 1/4 of the rate in females. Given that males are much less likely than females to report themselves as victims of rape, it is quite possible that the rate of rape in males is comparable to that in females. It is certainly the case that rates of violent assault and murder are about four times higher in males than females.

This is because we as a society do not care two figs about violence against males. We do not value our young males, and we do not teach them to take care of themselves. Quite the opposite: we teach them to be careless of their own safety, and we teach them they are cowards or worse if they take reasonable precautions like giving a thought to being attacked when walking to their car in a dark parking lot.

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? And if they do think that, I really have to wonder why. 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.

Re:And you're not a woman

[Hoi Polloi]

When an attacker goes after a man they are more likely to use a weapon because they expect a fight and a man is more likely to suffer a serious or fatal injury because of that. A woman is more likely to be accosted because they don't expect a fight. Woman may get grabbed more but a man is more likely to be killed.

Re:And you're not a woman

[Anonymous Coward]

her chances of being raped in a parking lot by a stranger are probably higher than one of these people actually tracking her So fucking what? The probability is non-zero, the thread provably exists.

Re:And you're not a woman

[Nimey]

The pistol is called the great equalizer for a reason.

"I don't dial 911, I dial 1911."

Re:And you're not a woman

[SatanicPuppy]

I'm a paranoid bastard. I got there the hard way, and its served me well a time or two. I can walk down a street, and spend the whole time thinking about bad things that can happen, and I'm inventive. I hunch involuntarily when I hear target shooting in the distance, even though I know I can't possibly be hit if I hear the shot.

I am a worst case scenario kinda guy, and I tend to avoid a lot of crap that comes down the pipe because of it, though admittedly it's not a fun way to live. I also tend to take a lot of crap about it, from men, women, coworkers, friends.

For every person who is rightly cautious, there are a dozen who never consider danger for a second...This is personal experience with people looking at me like I'm a lunatic for ever imagining a bad thing might happen in X situation.

Sure, a lot of females get sexually assaulted, but you should look up the actual crime statistics...The vast majority (70%) of sexual assaults come from family members, and acquaintances, not from random strangers. In the case of murder, only 14% of murders came from strangers who had no relation to the victim (as far as is known) (BJS).

Fearmongering about random strangers is a fricking joke. The calls are coming from inside the building, and the person on the other end of the line has a key. Rolling up your window ain't gonna help, because the trouble is probably in the car with you.

You know what you can do about it? Nothing. You can live your life like me, a fricking paranoiac who's creeped out to eat food prepared by other people, and is probably still gonna die in some stupid violent way...Or you can realize that that odds of anything bad happening are pretty damn low...50 to 1 against per year for all violent crime (BJS again), and while that doesn't mean never, not even close, it's pretty fricking slim to let it run your whole life.

Re:And you're not a woman

[dedazo]

And in your 20 years, how many of these threats were directed at you?

Enough of them.

I pity the the woman who would be married to you

And what would you do, exactly, over vague threats by unknown people? I never said I wouldn't take action, I said I would explain it to her that way to prevent her from seizing up with fear.

put yourself in a situation where you have a good chance of being victimized and see how brave you feel then.

About as brave as I'd feel when I have been victimized, I suppose. Oh, I'm sorry. Maybe you thought I've never been in that sort of situation?

Please don't do me any favours by reading between the lines here. What I said is plain enough: There is no need to interrupt your life and huddle in a room because some social misfit posted some unsavory comments about you on teh interwebs. That's exactly what they want.

Re:And you're not a woman

[nelsonal]

You correctly point out that humans are unique in our attitudes toward risk, take for example women's concern with breast cancer vs heart desease. Several times a month I see a pink ribbon Avon run or some other breast cancer event, but in reality heart desease is far more likely to kill women than breast cancer (also lung cancer causes about 2x as many deaths as breast cancer). But many women worry more about breat cancer than heart desease. Also, how many violent crime statistics are inflated competition within the drug trade the majority of which is directed at other participants (murder is still murder but it cuts the odds of it happening to non participants sharply). It's my job to think about risk and I find the whole subject exceedingly interesting (even though most of my work deals with a few basis points change in swap rates), and wonder why we tend to over worry about spectacular but unlikely risks while not worrying nearly as much about likely but mundane risks.

Re:And you're not a woman

[sumdumass]

Com'on, There is some truth to what he is saying. There is a lower chance of being attack after someone has warned you of intending to do so compared to just being attacked. You also reduce the chances by increasing the geographical area these threats can come from. If someone is 200 miles away, unless they are an astronaut wearing dippers, I doubt they would waist the time. It isn't like agreeing to have sex or anything.

Re:And you're not a woman

[quantaman]

Ever walk to your car in a dark parking lot? When you do, do you give thought to being attacked? I don't

Well you should. Rates of male victimization for all crimes other than rape are considerably higher than female victimization. The rate of rape in males is very hard to estimate, but is reported at about 1/4 of the rate in females. Given that males are much less likely than females to report themselves as victims of rape, it is quite possible that the rate of rape in males is comparable to that in females. It is certainly the case that rates of violent assault and murder are about four times higher in males than females.

This is because we as a society do not care two figs about violence against males. We do not value our young males, and we do not teach them to take care of themselves. Quite the opposite: we teach them to be careless of their own safety, and we teach them they are cowards or worse if they take reasonable precautions like giving a thought to being attacked when walking to their car in a dark parking lot.

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? And if they do think that, I really have to wonder why. 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. You make some good points but I think you overlooked 2 important things:

1) While males may be at higher risk from violent crimes we don't FEEL at higher risk, partially because we feel we have the ability to defend ourselves in the way a woman can't. Thus we feel much more secure walking through a parking lot or being on a dark sidewalk at night because we feel if we are attacked there's something we can do about it.

2) A lot of the violent crimes committed against males are due to them doing something to provoke it. Now I'm not saying that mouthing off in a bar means that someone has the right to assault you, but you're a lot more likely to get assaulted if you're mouthing off than if you're completely passive. I know that I'm personally a very passive individual and have never even gotten in a heated argument much less a fight, it's very unlikely that myself or similiar individuals are going to be involved in one of those violent crime statistics. As a result myself and other males feel a lot more secure since any violent confrontation is probably something we've initiated on some level and we trust ourselves not to get ourselves into something we can't handle (even if this trust is misplaced). My experience is that women rarely provoke violent incidents to anywhere near the same extent that males do, thus females have a lot less control over these incidents and a passive female is probably at greater risk of violent crime then a passive male.

The fact is that women do feel more vulnerable to violent attacks, and to an extent they are justified in those feelings.

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:And you're not a woman

[dedazo]

You don't seem to have a good grasp on how people work

No, you're right. I've never dated, never lived with anyone, never went to college, never been in the Army, never held a job, never etc. You got me all figured out!

When you have a decent grasp on human action, you tend to take threats like this seriously.

The "grasp" is that if you're half a world away and you can't spell while you tell me how much you want to "hang" me with a rope, I could really care fuck all about you. When I see you coming at me, I'll start taking you seriously. Actually, I'll take you much more seriously if you never threatened me like a retarded child on Xanax to begin with.

I'm sure you're highly qualified in some subjects, but I don't tell my mechanic how to fix my car.

Can I interest you in a nice cup of shut the fuck up, then? Awesome.

Re:And you're not a woman

[vertinox]

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'm not going to comment on this ladies issue, but I live in a city with over 300 murders last year. The vast majority of them were males 18-30.

There are drug dealers who like to hang out on my street, there was an axe murder two blocks over, and I've had a hard time driving home one night due to the fact police cordoned off a local park in hopes to catch someone who just shot a cop (about 1 block over). I've heard a drive by before...

My hood of my car has a big dent in it from someone getting slammed into it (not sure if was the cops) and my girl friend saw an actual swat team once while I was away from home doing a sweep.

And yes... I've often had thoughts about that person asking me for change is going to whip out a knife or a gun. Or if one day I'm going to be walking to my car on the street only to get shot by accident... But it doesn't consume me nor my girlfriend.

I suppose it would be better to move into the sub burbs and things have gotten better recently in the past years... But statically I'm more likely to die than majority of the people that you are referring too.

And yet I don't sit around in fear... Heck... Even my girl room mate doesn't live in fear... You get over it if you want to live your life and just be really cautious.

I don't want to paint it like where I live is a warzone (its not as bad as the city across the river *coughs*) but yes... As a guy who has had girlfriends physically strong than him... I've taken this into account. Of course when you face a person with a gun... Being a guy or girl or weak or strong doesn't make a difference.

Re:And you're not a woman

[SatanicPuppy]

Heart disease is a great one...Number one killer, across the board. Men worry about it, women...not so much.

My "favorite" statistic is the murder/assault rates for strangers vs acquaintances...There is this..."We're all going to be raped/killed in our beds" thing that people are just obsessed with. Violence is going to sneak up on them from some evil stranger...And it's almost always someone they know and trust.

People grab onto these big scary fears which hardly ever occur, and they ignore all the things that are familiar. People obsessing over terrorism when they're far far far more likely to be killed in a car wreck.

Just human nature to be distracted by shiny things. It's part of what we are.

Re:And you're not a woman

[pi_rules]

There is no inherent difference between black and white other than a superficial one (skin colour)...

The US Olympic track team, NBA, and NFL would like to have a word with you.

Re:And you're not a woman

[dougmc]

A lot of the violent crimes committed against males are due to them doing something to provoke it.

So, what has Kathy Sierra done to provoke this?

I'm not saying that she did anything wrong, but these threats certainly don't seem random. Did she piss off somebody somehow? Snub somebody? Unpopular political views? Is merely being a successful, apparently intelligent woman sufficient? (I don't know anything about her beyond what's in her Wikipedia page, but she does appear to be successful and intelligent. But I wouldn't consider that to be unusual enough to warrant death threats?)

Re:And you're not a woman

[daigu]

Chicago History has a few lessons about another equalizer: dynamite.

Many anarchists were obsessively enthralled with the possibilities of dynamite as an instant equalizer, since it was inexpensive, accessible, portable, and terrifyingly effective. This explosive allowed a single anarchist to carry fearsome destructive power in the pocket of his coat. The threat created by the mere existence of dynamite was in itself a wonderful weapon. "Dynamite is a peace-maker," read an article in the Alarm in April of 1885, "because it makes it unsafe to wrong our fellows."

I find it interesting that these days tough guys dial 1911. If you are going to be violent, why half-step about it? Further, you should realize that no matter where you draw the line, someone else is going to draw it a little further than you would like. If you take this approach, where do you stop - and will you still stop there when someone else doesn't? Pistols, dynamite, nuclear weapons - none of these brings peace. None of it makes you safe.

Re:And you're not a woman

[CDarklock]

No, I don't ever wonder if my coworkers will sexually harass me.

But I wonder if asking my coworker out for dinner will get me fired.

After all, it might make her uncomfortable, and then she might be completely unable to focus on her work because she's constantly wondering whether I agreed with her idea because it was a good idea or because I want to bone her. If she says no, maybe I won't pull my weight on the team anymore, and it will make her look bad. If she says yes, exactly how much do I expect of her to contiue treating her fairly? Does she have to sleep with me? What if she doesn't? What if she does once, and it's bad, and then she won't do it anymore? Will I tell everyone in the office? Will other guys think they can proposition her, too?

And if she turns into a complete wreck trying to figure out how to do her job when I think she's desirable, somehow this is *my* fault, and *I* don't get to work there anymore.

In fact, if she just decides she wants to break up, she can avoid the discomfort of working with me by lodging a complaint and getting me fired. Nobody will believe me if I say it's a lie.

So pardon me if I don't have a whole hell of a lot of sympathy for someone who got a few threatening comments and photoshopped pictures from some random loser on the internet.

Re:And you're not a woman

[asuffield]

I recently heard that 10% of high school senior girls report having been raped. These are girls under 18.

Only because they count all the cases where a girl had sex while drunk. The definition for statistical purposes is "non-consensual sex", and a person is legally incapable of giving consent if they are intoxicated - so if they're sufficiently drunk, any form of sexual activity is classified as rape (even if the people involved are in some kind of stable relationship at the time!). These are never prosecuted, but they're listed in the crime statistics in order to create a culture of fear, letting people secure more funding and pass more laws than would otherwise be possible.

Once you rephrase it as "10% of high school senior girls have had sex while drunk and/or stoned", it's not really very interesting (and you have to wonder why the figure is so low). The number of 'rapes' worthy of prosecution is really very small.

Re:And you're not a woman

[The One and Only]

It is certainly the case that rates of violent assault and murder are about four times higher in males than females.

Do females join street gangs and participate in gang warfare? Do females get into bar fights? Do females kill each other for committing adultery?

Re:And you're not a woman

[quantaman]

A lot of the violent crimes committed against males are due to them doing something to provoke it.

So, what has Kathy Sierra done to provoke this?

I'm not saying that she did anything wrong, but these threats certainly don't seem random. Did she piss off somebody somehow? Snub somebody? Unpopular political views? Is merely being a successful, apparently intelligent woman sufficient? (I don't know anything about her beyond what's in her Wikipedia page, but she does appear to be successful and intelligent. But I wouldn't consider that to be unusual enough to warrant death threats?)

My guess is she provoked it by being successful, intelligent, and by blogging (I don't know what she blogs about but that may also be a factor), these qualities are apparently what attracted these threats. As others have pointed out it's not uncommon for threats like this to show up, especially for those with a significant on-line presence. She just happens to feel that blogging isn't worth the cost of dealing with these threats and she's removing the provokation by ceasing to blog.

Re:And you're not a woman

[Arcane_Rhino]

So, what has Kathy Sierra done to provoke this?

I had this same question; as near as I can tell, she speaks and writes about Java. In fact, I am sure that I must have missed something. I mean, the MySQL and PostgreSQL debates can get pretty heated here on /. And, anyone that likes PHP is just begging for a beating but, come on, the stuff she was threatened with over code?!?

This guy has to be writing during his "computer hour" when he is released from restraints.

Does anyone have any idea what Kathy advocates that might serve as any pretext for such animosity?

Re:And you're not a woman

[malsdavis]

"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 absolutely hate when people spurt out rape statistics like that in the context you are speaking of. I don't mean to underplay rape and I fully believe the figure you quote, but in almost every single instance of rape you are speaking of the girl will have known her attacker and in the vast majority of cases will have been engaging in some sort of intimate/sexual contact when the rape occurred (.

I'm not saying that makes teh rapes O.K. at all, but to then use that statistic when talking about girls getting raped by weirdos in parking lots is grossly misleading as such attacks are extremely rare. In fact most criminal studies show that you are more likely to be randomly beaten senseless as a guy in a parking lot by some drunken lunatic then a girl is to be raped by some pervert.

I don't think you can really say which type of attack is worse as it depends totally on the specific incident at hand (both may cause permanent physiological and/or physical injury), but needless to say, the drunken assaults won't be reported by the local media nearly as often as the lesser occurring rapes as they are 'sex' related and therefore an instant news item.

Re:And you're not a woman

[daigu]

I'm actually not in favor of gun control. Case in point. But I do think many people don't follow their logic to its conclusion - and if they decide on a limit, what limits are appropriate and why. You may call it jerking off. I call it the central point.

Re:And you're not a woman

[Nimey]

Further: I'm not advocating aggression. I'm advocating being well-prepared for self-defense. If someone wants to break into my house or mug me, I don't have any trouble with rendering them incapable of harming me or mine, up to and including lethal force.

Despite the pithiness of the quote, I don't actually own a 1911 (expensive!). Right now my weapon-of-choice is a Mosin-Nagant M44 carbine, mixed load of surplus Czech FMJ and S&B softnose for home defense.

Re:And you're not a woman

[mdwh2]

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.

There's a different between how people feel, and the actual risk - these shouldn't be conflated.

And actually yes, I do fear being attacked when out at night, because these things do happen to men (and no, it isn't because they get in bar fights).

Not that it makes it right - it's not a competition. Where there is a common factor though is that it's most likely to be (a minority of) men committing the violence.

Re:And you're not a woman

[mdwh2]

I agree with your general point, but note that in the UK at least, it does seem to be the law that you can still give consent when drunk (there was a recent case where the Judge emphasised this).

It would be rather bad if you couldn't, because this would basically criminalise adults having sex when drunk - even if afterwards, they still both agreed they wanted to, it would still be illegal because they couldn't consent. Also, it would mean the woman should be guilty if the man is drunk.

But yes, your point still stands - that 10% figure is about people who report rapes, and sadly it's a common myth that if you're drunk then change your mind the next day, it counts as rape. (Also I'd like to see a source for that 10% figure ... I remember once seeing a "one in four" claim, which was actually based on people who said they'd had sex then regretted it, or something like that.) So unfortunately it tells us little about the real number.

The worrying thing is that whilst most "rape myths" are condemned, it seems to be a taboo to speak out against these sorts of myths.

Re:And you're not a woman

[radtea]

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.

Even granted that men and women have some significant differences (women are physically tougher, live longer, have faster reflexes, etc) it does not follow that any individual man who is a victim of male violence is somehow complicit in his own victimization simply by virtue of being male, which is something that I hear surprisingly often when I point out that the rate of male victimization is much higher than the rate of female victimization.

Re:And you're not a woman

[urbanradar]

[...] it does not follow that any individual man who is a victim of male violence is somehow complicit in his own victimization simply by virtue of being male [...]

I don't disagree with you there, in fact I think you're quite correct. Personally, I believe that any victimisation is wrong in the same way, regardless of the victim's gender. But what I do disagree with is your assessment that mentally assigning more significance to female victimisation than to male victimisation is somehow on a level with racism.

The former is a mistake that is very easily made due to the reasons I mentioned in my previous posting, and doesn't necessarily imply complete ignorance or bad intentions. Racism, on the other hand, pretty much does.

Understanding a social problem helps a lot in solving it. Insulting the people who are unwittingly a part of the problem without necessarily meaning to cause harm -- not so much.

Re:And you're not a woman

[kv9]

Do females join street gangs and participate in gang warfare? Do females get into bar fights? Do females kill each other for committing adultery?

only if they're astronauts.

The more things change...

[smellsofbikes]

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

It's *ALWAYS* been a war zone. There were flame wars escalating into death threats on usenet in the '80's. My college suspended a kid for posting violent rape fantasies to email lists in 1986. The only difference is that now enough people know about the internet that stories about it sell newspapers. Anyone who thinks it used to be all nice and safe is either delusional or wasn't paying attention. If you have a forum where governments can't track down and kill political opponents, you have a forum where nice people can't track down and hold liable nogoodniks who froth hate. That sucks for the nice people, but I think our need for widespread, anonymous communication outweighs their discomfort.

Re:The more things change...

[elrous0]

No kidding. Anyone who thinks this is something new hasn't been around very long. They certainly weren't on Usenet and the BBS's back in the day. Shit, people were probably flaming each other via Unix systems before that. Bet you could go back to the 1830's and catch people flaming and threatening each other by mail.

Re:The more things change...

[smellsofbikes]

I've read about duels fought over romances that sprung up between Morse-code operators in the 1860's. Dunno about Indian smoke-signal messengers, though...

"war zone" rhetoric is so lame.

[Medievalist]

Pampered western journalists whinging and grizzling about other people's use of free speech is not a "war". People being so cowardly that they can't function if someone threatens them is not comparable to being carpet bombed because you happened to be born in the wrong place or have the wrong religion.

Win the "war on terrorism"; stop being afraid!

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

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:"war zone" rhetoric is so lame.

[Medievalist]

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.

I am trying not to be included in the category, but I don't think it's possible to judge myself objectively. Somebody spraypainted "kill all nigger-lovers" on the sidewalk behind my house, though, and swastikas on the street signs (when my infant daughter was the only black person living in the neighborhood) so it's not like I've never received a death threat.

I'm sure that these Internet postings are upsetting. But you know what? Having a seagull crap on your head is upsetting too. It's all just a matter of scale, and ugly threats are not in the "war zone" scale - it's simply nothing like having your children step on land mines. Should we institute statutes against Thought-Crime, and criminalize offensive speech? That's a very slippery slope. Instead of cowering in fear, let's help people hold their heads up, and stop acting like cowardice in the face of threats is an acceptable response. ANGER is an appropriate response, SELF DEFENSE LESSONS are an appropriate response, making out a last will and testament is an appropriate response, even finding religion could be appropriate, but blind fear should be treated as an unfortunate weakness to be both scorned and remediated.

I don't know this woman, and I don't know if the sensationalist coverage is accurate. But, if it is, she should take a stand instead of collapsing in fear. And people sympathetic to her situation will get no respect from me if they try to pretend the Internet is a "war zone" when real wars are killing innocents every day.

Re:"war zone" rhetoric is so lame.

[Medievalist]

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

Fuck you.

I like the cut of your jib, sailor. Don't go home crying, hit back!

Re:"war zone" rhetoric is so lame.

[asninn]

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.

You're creating a false dichotomy here when you say that any poster who's not entirely on her side like a yesman is automatically engaging in "victim-blaming". What's happening to her is horrible, and I know from experience that this kind of crap can REALLY make you sick, but ultimately, she's an adult - she's responsible for herself. And if she acts in a counterproductive, childish, irrational manner, a manner that won't actually solve her problems but instead only make them worse, then I don't think it's unfair to point that out. Certainly the way she's acting is *understandable*, but she should have the brainpower to reflect on her actions and evaluate them - and she should be able to overcome the cognitive dissonance caused by others telling her that the way she's reacting is not going to help in any way and that it is, in fact, just going to harm her even further instead.

Maybe there confused?

[geekoid]

http://www.country-studies.com/indonesia/the-java- war-and-cultivation-system.html

Man, some people can hold a grudge for a long time.

Re:Maybe there confused?

[CAIMLAS]

Dude, you're hillarious. I almost fell out of my chair reading that!

Re:Whingebag..

[SpaghettiCoder]

Actually yes I was at one time a relatively public figure and I have published articles too. I have had all sorts of abuse thrown at me, including people accusing me of attention-seeking, blah blah blah just like you.

You fail to realise - if I'm posting here because I've got too much time, then what are you doing responding? How can I be attention-seeking, if I am anonymous (like now). This tech writer real name Kathy IS attention seeking. FACT. She can't handle life in the spotlight. FACT. She can't handle hecklers/scorn. FACT. Because the experience "changed" her so much she considers herself a "different person", she loozes and she got pwned. FACT (sad but true). She is not entitled to my sympathy or anyone else's. FACT.

You've got nothing on me because I'm anonymous here. FACT. You're a deluded sucker who sees a "damsel in distress". FACT. Wouldn't want to be you mister looza in shining armour. FACT.

Uncalled For

[chromatic]

(aw come on the story was just askin for it)

No, it really wasn't. Kathy Sierra is one of the kindest, most decent, and most intelligent people I've ever met. No matter how funny you think your comment was, it was insensitive and rude and trivializes a person I know and respect.

Even if I didn't know her, it would still have been incredibly rude. No one deserves that.

Re:Uncalled For

[chromatic]

It's her problem entirely.

First, if this situation causes her to lessen or cease her contribution to the public good, it's a loss.

Second, I consider both her and Bert friends.

Third, allowing abuse and harassment in one case can lead to a general acceptance of such behavior. I'd like it to stop against everyone.

Re:Uncalled For

[SpaghettiCoder]

Well I can tell you for sure I don't find that language or behaviour acceptable in any way. It's distasteful and probably illegal too. However, it shouldn't have got to the point where actual professional decisions were made on the basis of this obvious smear campaign by either a disgruntled co-worker or ex partner. It's the wrong signal to give out. Especially naming certain people, implicating them (whether rightly or wrongly) in this debacle was a bad idea, unless there is concrete evidence. Furthermore the internet can't serve as any kind of justice system or offer any real support - the best medicine is just to laugh and get some fresh air. As her friend, I hope you can tell her this, from someone who has also been smeared by his colleagues: if a dog urinates on your leg, that doesn't mean that you've turned into a tree.

She underestimates the critical thinking ability and discrimination of normal people. We are not moved by such pathetic and childish attempts to bring someone down, so why should she care either? In the long run, things will work themselves out and everyone eventually gets what they deserve. No worries.

Re:Uncalled For

[zanderredux]

One thing I still do not get is why is she attracting so much hatred? Does she advocate something unpopular?

The internet isn't special

[LunaticTippy]

This exact behavior occurs on highways, parking lots, and all kinds of public places every day. In fact, on highways it regularly culminates in an actual fatality. I think people think they have some sort of anonymity because they are behind glass, even though that is an utter illusion. You're more anonymous on foot, but people rarely scream at each other over how they walk. I think there is something about being face-to-face that causes most people to be more polite. I see screaming fits, fists, and middle fingers on the roads every day. I see obscenity-laced illiterate rants everywhere on the internet. I don't see this in person, face-to-face most days, at least not yet.

Re:The internet isn't special

[lbbros]

Point taken, however I think that the Internet extremizes this. And IMO it's getting worse as the time passes.

Re:The internet isn't special

[LunaticTippy]

I'm not aware of an internet shouting match that turned homicidal. There are 200 road rage homicides a year, and 27,000 aggressive driving fatalities

I remember every September Usenet would go to hell while the newbies learned how to behave. The main difference now is there is an unlimited supply of fresh 13-year olds getting online. Some of them never mature, so we have an endlessly swelling population of fucktards.

Re:mod parent down. WAY DOWN.

[giafly]

I can't imagine anyone saying garbage like that face to face without there being hell to pay.

That's the point - they were not said "face to face". Tards are playing PvP for lulz. It's like counting coup, not a literal attack.

Re:really?

[Ingolfke]

You shouldn't have posted AC... you're point is valid. Half the shit people post on forums is just over reactions to their own personal inadequacies, fears, and weaknesses. Anonymity gives people an opportunity to explore emotions that they cannot excercise and those can be very ugly... but I agree that the likelihood of these threats being real is probably pretty low.

The fact is the Internet is full of people and people are messed up mother fuckers... and if any of you jack asses dares to disagree with me I'm going to post photoshop images of you being eaten by sharks or cut up by the Texas Chainsaw Massacre guy, the Matthew McConaughey one, not the classic or the remake. I will p0wn you b1tch3s... errr... once I clean out my Mom's car.

The Law

[OriginalArlen]

Making threats to kill is illegal in the UK. I must be getting old, because I'm going to say that the police should take such offences more seriously, and yes that should include calling the ISP to connect IPs to human beings.

Re:The Law

[Hoi Polloi]

People will say all sorts of crap in the heat of the moment. You never said anything bad when you were young? The problem is when they keep threatening it long after the moment has passed.

Re:The Law

[OriginalArlen]

Sure. Read the definition I linked to; a jury of your peers would have to accept that you believed the threat was serious for an offence to have been committed. A kid shouting "I'll fucking kill you!" in a playground fight doesn't pass the believability test. (Note that it's the victim's state of mind that counts. So, if the woman in the article is, perhaps, a little naive but takes the threats seriously, it doesn't matter that you , or the police, would take it seriously.

The real culprits...

[sharp-bang]

... of course, are the bloggers who let themselves be conduits for abusive speech. This thread is now over 100 posts and I've seen almost nothing on this. C'mon, all you messaging admins, everyone who has to answer abuse@domain mail... what is their culpability?

What a shame :(

[GodfatherofSoul]

Java Ranch was one of my first resources for learning Java and one of the catalysts for getting me into IT. The site is a great example of how to write technical docs with humor and entertainment value. The article "How my dog taught me polymorphism" (or something like that) still makes me smile. I think the threats are more indicative of the general hostility/sexism directed at a lot of women in IT.

You missed the point,

[geekoid]

He was mocking the kind of idiots that post that crap. Look at the spelling and casing.
It was not pointed to your friend at all.

It is that same attitude that got a Family Guy episode banned.

Peter is an idiot, and on while learning judaism he says some very stupid thing. IN the context of the show, he is stupid every other character chastises him for it. It is a show that basically makes fun of people who say stupid things about Jews.
But because someone can't understand CONTEXT, it will never see the airwaves. At least it is in the collection.

Re:You missed the point,

[Ingolfke]

Well said!

Re:You missed the point,

[stratjakt]

Cartoon Network (Adult Swim) has aired it a few times in syndication. Fox, however, censored Stewie's naked butt crack (A black, sort of curved line) because they were afraid of a backlash. (Was soon after Janet Jacksons nasty saggy tit being shown off at the superbowl).

Another example is the Seinfeld episode where kramer accidentally burns a peurto rican flag during the peurto rican parade, and those two "street toughs" that terrify him just happen to be there. It was a good gag in context.

People are too easily offended. Bunch of pussies.

Re:Whingebag..

[SpaghettiCoder]

Better than being famous for being a whingebag, madam.

Anonymous, unmoderated, civil - pick 2

[superflippy]

There may be a case to be made here against anonymous non-traceable postings, but for the most part the internet community seems (so far) to be self-policing.

I've found that any kind of online discussion only remains civil as long as it's either moderated or requires accountability from the participants (i.e. not anonymous). When you allow unmoderated, anonymous discussions, no matter how noble your intentions, they degenerate.

(For an example of this principle in action, browse Slashdot at +4 threaded or nested, then switch to -1 flat.)

Damn kids...

[rtechie]

I find it amusing that many of the bloggers seem to think this is something novel. I used to post to Bulletin Board Systems (BBS) in the 1980s, and yeah, death threats and (especially) crude sexual comments were pretty common. Of course this should not come as a shock to anyone because these were KIDS posting. Y'know, 13-year old boys? This woman is facing childish pranks and getting a little too worked up over it. The postings were on a site called, of all things, "meankids".

You want threats, go post over on FreeRepublic. After about a week of posting people managed to track me down and started putting up pictures of the front of my house, accompanied by threats and accusations of terrorism. THAT'S when you should start getting a little worried.

Re:Damn kids...

[daigu]

I assume you were posting things on FreeRepublic that would be counter to the perspective of that forum - liberal, democratic or whatever. I do have a question for you: what is the attraction?

I subscribe to The Nation. I read its blog posts and the commentary of posts I think are interesting - just like Slashdot. I find that there is a sizable contingent (maybe as much as a quarter?) that basically trolls the boards offering libertarian, conservative, and other perspectives that differ significantly from the general perspective of The Nation and its readers. What I cannot figure out is - why?

I would never think of spending time reading blog posts from the Free Republic, National Review, Washington Monthly, Townhall.com or other conservative sites. Maybe an article here or there when I'm looking for different perspectives on a particular issue or an issue of these magazines when I am trying to understand what issues seem to be top of mind for conservatives. But I would never read blog posts or commentary - or troll those forums.

Why did you do it? Did you think you would change people's minds? Were you trying to get people's goat? What motivated you?

It seems to me that participating in forums where you don't agree with the thrust of the forum - whether it be an issue (Luddites posting to Slashdot, gun control advocates on NRA sites or whatever) or political philosophy - is a huge waste of time. Yet, it seems like no matter what forum you choose - someone is doing it. Why? Any insight?

Re:Damn kids...

[rtechie]

I assume you were posting things on FreeRepublic that would be counter to the perspective of that forum - liberal, democratic or whatever. I do have a question for you: what is the attraction?

Oddly enough, no. I was posting from a "libertarian" perspective. This was not long after 9/11 and I was expressing concern for the Patriot Act and other (IMO) bogus anti-terrorism measures. I also expressed concerns over the overt racism I saw in the forums. I'd say that my opinion was held by the vast majority of "freepers". It is/was a vocal minority that threatened me.

It seems to me that participating in forums where you don't agree with the thrust of the forum

I don't agree that the "thrust" of FreeRepublic is actually supposed to be white power racism, but a vocal minority seems to push that view. I'd argue that the difference is that MOST forums would toss people for posting such garbage, but FR doesn't. I think it's a matter for debate whether or not this represents tacit endorsement or a commitment to free speech.

Re:Damn kids...

[daigu]

My mistake. I didn't realize that you were talking about dealing with a vocal - and perhaps unsavory - minority.

Another thing I find interesting is that I self-identify as liberal, but I am beginning to wonder how useful that label really is since I find a have quite a bit in common with certain types of conservatives - particularly conservatives that are just as concerned about authoritarianism as I am. Perhaps it is time to think about it differently.

Anyway, thanks for the clarification. Hopefully, one day I'll run into someone that can shed some light on the other question I was raising.

naive

[nanosquid]

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

The Internet used to be populated by university students; that didn't make it "a university" any more than a frat party is "a university". Even 20 years ago, the Internet had big security holes, porn, death threats, flame wars, and all the other stuff that people get so upset about today. There was just less of it, there were fewer users who cared, and the legal system just didn't care.

I thnk...

[GigG]

I think we should kill anyone that uses the term "Blogoshpere."

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:Yes, I'll call it an over-reaction

[TrentC]

OK, go ahead and scream at me that I'm blaming the victim. I'm not.

"I'm not blaming the victim, but" ranks up there with "I'm not a racist/sexist, but" for intellectual dishonesty. Just because you claim it's not doesn't mean it isn't.

It sounds like, in all of your occurrences of mortal danger, you either knew who was attacking you or had someone who's job it was to protect you. How does that make you qualified to judge whether not a person who is concerned about anonymous threats of violence -- possibly coming from "A-list bloggers" or their acquaintances, people that she might actually come into contact with -- is overreacting?

Re:Yes, I'll call it an over-reaction

[retro128]

Dude. What the hell is it that you do for a living?

Re:Yes, I'll call it an over-reaction

[BenEnglishAtHome]

...you either knew who was attacking you or had someone who's job it was to protect you...

Nope. Only in the two cases where I was assigned a bodyguard did I know who the attackers were before they struck.

I can identify with where you're coming from. I am, however, qualified based on experience to judge these things. For a number of years, my job involved going to places that were just an address on a piece of paper to look for someone who didn't want to be found, tell them things they didn't want to hear, and make them do things they didn't want to do. I did this alone, without backup, before 'net access, when cell phones were too expensive to issue to peons like me, without any forwarning if the person I was looking for was a doper, a felon, or just some nice guy who had screwed up. I knocked on the doors of crack houses, got chased by packs of feral dogs (Being a big, fat guy, I was proud of the way I learned to climb atop my car in the blink of an eye), got cornered by a drunk in a auto shop who spent the entire conversation swinging a giant wrench casually at his side, and once was held hostage for four hours by a mentally ill vagrant. (Frankly, I was too good for my own good at finding people who didn't really need to be found.)

Here's my point: Evil, stupid, violent people can intrude on your existence at any time. In any reasonably large group (say, the parents in the stands at your kids Little League game, or even the Sunday morning worship assembly) there is a statistical certainty that some of those people within a hundred yards of you are nuts and would kill you under the right circumstances. Example? I was once attacked, not on the job this time, at a Heart concert by a doper. His excuse was "He was looking at me." There are nuts everywhere. You don't even have to be in a crowd. You can be an innocent preteen girl sitting in a one-room schoolhouse in about the safest, most religious little farming community to be found - there's still the danger of a nut-job intent on committing mass rape busting in, tying you up, and blowing you away when his plan to force you to have sex is interrupted.

There are nut jobs out there. You can't change the way you live your life because of them. You have to rationally understand that your chances of actually being hurt are miniscule and then go on with your life. Everyone should be aware of their circumstances, of course, but constant, numbing worry on this topic is just wrong.

If this woman is just figuring out that there are nuts around, that she may unexpectedly be attacked by some person previously unknown to her, then I have to say she's led a sheltered life. I'm sorry the realization has been so tough on her. I can forgive her for hiding for a while to get her head together; a break in your world view certainly calls for a pause to reconsider things. But I stand by my earlier statement; if she's still afraid to leave her yard next week, she's got a problem over and above (and, in reality, more serious than) these threats.

Re:Yes, I'll call it an over-reaction

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Most of that stuff happened while I was an Officer with the Internal Revenue Service. By itself, that's enough to incite violence in some people. My problem was compounded by the fact that I worked a very tough area.

I was once on a break during voir dire (sp?), you know, picking a jury. We were all standing around and one of my fellow prospective jurors walked up and clearly, plainly told me that he'd kill me if I ever set foot on his property. Then he walked off. The other folks standing around just stared and couldn't believe I didn't get upset.

"It happens all the time" was all I could say.

PS - He got picked for jury duty; I got passed over. Being a violent jerk is more acceptable to society than working for the IRS.

Re:Yes, I'll call it an over-reaction

[retro128]

Wow, I guess some people _really_ don't want to pay taxes. No wonder they let you guys pack heat. Well if it makes you feel any better, I would most certainly not shoot at an IRS officer coming to my door...Though granted, I try to avoid activities that attract their attention in the first place.

Thanks for the reply. I wouldn't feel too bad about not being picked for jury duty. The system certainly gravitates towards the lowest common denominator, so that's probably why you were passed up in favor of your new friend.

Re:Yes, I'll call it an over-reaction

[BenEnglishAtHome]

Uh, no.

Heat-packing == Special Agent. I was an Officer.

Special Agents travel in groups and have extensive background work on the people they approach. I was one of those people who collects money, going out with no background on the people I was looking for and no backup. Special Agents get killed more often when things go sour (which is, in reality, virtually never). Officers, on the other hand, were *much* more likely to find themselves in a more low-level conflict simply because the nature of our jobs was such that we blundered into bad situations regularly.

I'm not in that work any more having left it many years ago. I should note that due to the availability of cell phones, networks that connect us to useful information sources, and changes in the law, Officers are *FAR* less likely to get into bad situations nowadays. Their job is a good deal more boring, too, but you take the bad with the good, I suppose.

How do you know?

[jythie]

Seriously.

I have heard plenty of women, including victims taking strength back, say similar to the above post.

It should also be noted that males are the victims of violence too, by both males and females (though police still tend to laugh in the face of female->male abuse victims so they are kinda underreported). Rates of males being victims are still higher the female so in some ways males are more at risk (granted when it comes to sexual assaults, female rates are MUCH higher, same with harassment rates, though I have known males who were sexually harassed in the workplace).

And while the previous poster was probably a bit more mocking then could be called for, I am seeing a disturbing amount of 'if you are not riding to this women's defense like a good white knight they you are insensitive!' group think. Which in some ways does more damage to the treatment of women in tech then the harassment. Just another way of looking down on them, treating them as 'lessers' that need protection and sympathy because the poor dears can not take care of themselves and need nice big strong men to protect them from the evil nasty other men.....

Did the blogger overreact? Hard to say. She felt threatened enough that she does not feel safe outside her home. However, if these types of comments are really that common within this community (I have never heard of any of these sites so I can't comment there) and most who receive such slander do not react that way, then it would, by community standards, be an overreaction. It isn't a case of 'thicker skin' but of weighing the realities of risk.

And finally, the statistics bit is a bit of a slippery slope. Ok, women are, statistically, smaller then males. But the same thing could be said of, say, black males to white males. So does that male white males easily victimized and they should feel constantly threatened and vigilant?

As for your acquaintance... each person must cope their own way with trauma, but that really does not sound like a healthy reaction. If she is thinking about that event every time she rolls down her window that is obsessing on a mental injury and is a class of coping that usually does some long term harm. While understandable, dwelling on an assault is NOT a solution...

*awaits the -1 flaimbait*

Re:How do you know?

[inviolet]

And finally, the statistics bit is a bit of a slippery slope. Ok, women are, statistically, smaller then males. But the same thing could be said of, say, black males to white males. So does that male white males easily victimized and they should feel constantly threatened and vigilant?

It's not specifically about raw size. Rather, it's about several things that contribute to brawling prowess: average deliverable impulse, average willingness to injure, average willingness to kill, average willingness to flee (which short-circuits the fight-for-your-life aggression). My sense is that women lose on all four counts to men. Whites probably lose on all four counts to blacks, too, on account of the difference in average testosterone level.

Re:How do you know?

[jythie]

I can not really comment on the other 3, but 'average willingness to injure' is defiantly on the female side. Women can be _vicious_ in a fight and I have generally found them to worry far less about hurting someone. I am almost tempted to say it could be tied into the social idea that since they are 'small and weak they couldn't possibly _really_ hurt someone' idea, but I have yet to meat a woman who actually believes this... generally they have a very good idea of how much damage they can do to another person.

Re:How do you know?

[The One and Only]

Ok, women are, statistically, smaller then males. But the same thing could be said of, say, black males to white males. So does that male white males easily victimized and they should feel constantly threatened and vigilant?

Women feel perfectly at ease around other women, it's only around men that they feel vigilant and threatened. I'll bet most white males feel more vigilant and threatened when they're around blacks.

Re:How do you know?

[amohat]

I think it could go either way, depending on who is in the minority, who has the guns, who controls the police, the government, the media, etc...and who has a very long track record of systematic abuse and oppression.

Re:How do you know?

[Watson Ladd]

Impulse just needs to be high enough to injure someone. And you do not need impulse to perform tai chi.

Re:How do you know?

[The One and Only]

I'm sure systematically oppressed racial minorities DO feel a desire to commit violence against the race that oppressed them, and I'm sure the majority race understands that.

Re:How do you know?

[mdwh2]

Rather, it's about several things that contribute to brawling prowess: average deliverable impulse, average willingness to injure, average willingness to kill, average willingness to flee (which short-circuits the fight-for-your-life aggression). My sense is that women lose on all four counts to men.

On average, though. Let's face it, I'm sure there are plenty here on Slashdot that lose out on all four counts to the "average" man ... so by the same reasoning, they should have more to fear (and indeed, plenty of us probably do).

Offtopic: who has the time to read blogs?

[B_tace]

Is it just me or some people have way too much time in their hands to read and respond to blogs.

Also, why in the heck ppl expect us to know "prominent bloggers" ? Are you kidding? I can barely know my local politician and the girl on American Idol, you think I am keeping track of some wanna be attention whore posting random stuff on the net? //whew, that was a good vent, thanks for reading

Turn lemons into lemonade...

[Ingolfke]

These death threats and insults are definitely mean and insenitive and although I'm not sure I'd have the same emotional response as Kathy she's entitled to feel scared I guess.

She'll probably turn this into a good thing though. I mean... bloggers, even good ones, are a dime-a-dozen these days. How many people had actually heard of, or were interested in following the details of the eTech conference? Now, by backing out, and discussing her situation she has expanded her fanbase and reach and will have a platform to discuss ethics and behavior in the "blogosphere". She will most likely have an opportunity to do television interviews, podcasts, guest blogs, articles, conferences, etc... playing her cards right and this could work out very well for her.

You're being too generous

[PCM2]

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

You don't have to be a vulnerable person to be a victim of crime. Anybody who receives death threats or threats of bodily harm has a right to take them seriously. I myself have received threats over the Internet that included very specific information about what I looked like and mentioned real-world places I was likely to frequent. I was within inches of notifying the authorities before a friend finally owned up that it was a practical joke. It wasn't a funny joke.

Awful things do happen in this world. A lot of them seem inexplicable to normal, rational people. Why would an audience member at a concert by the heavy metal band Damageplan choose to get up on stage and murder the guitar player of the band? It makes no sense. But when people are dealing with "celebrities," they sometimes get funny ideas in their heads about what is acceptable behavior and what is not. Some people think it's acceptable to post threatening, misogynist messages to forums. Others feel justified in crossing the line even further. Who are you or I to say someone is "vulnerable" just because they don't take their personal safety for granted?

We need a special term for this sort of thing.

[FlyingSquidStudios]

I suggest "nerd rage."

This is pretty old ...

[zoftie]

http://crazy.codetroop.com/randimg/imgs/computer_b omb.jpg

but what should we do about it?

[nanosquid]

Yes, that language is disturbing, and the guy may even mean it. But what's the point of debating whether it is "acceptable"? If we made these kinds of people shut up, they'd still harbor the same thoughts and still be dangerous. The only difference would be that they'd be even harder to catch because there is no public record.

For any of us, there are people around who might do us harm. That's just a fact of life, and we can't change that by limiting speech. Either you face that, or you have to construct your life to be anonymous. People make both choices. Sierra has chosen a public life, and that puts her at greater risk, but it also has a lot of benefits.

I think the current lines are pretty well drawn in the US: if people defame you, you can sue and have them correct it. If people make clear, specific, immediate threats, you can get protection. If people make non-specific threats, however, there is little that you can do, and that's because restraining those people wouldn't help much, but putting restraints on that kind of speech might be abused by people who want to silence legitimate speech. In different words, much as I sympathize, "I felt threatened" shouldn't be sufficient to restrain speech.

Re:but what should we do about it?

[PPH]

I think the current lines are pretty well drawn in the US: if people defame you, you can sue and have them correct it. If people make clear, specific, immediate threats, you can get protection. If people make non-specific threats, however, there is little that you can do, and that's because restraining those people wouldn't help much, but putting restraints on that kind of speech might be abused by people who want to silence legitimate speech. In different words, much as I sympathize, "I felt threatened" shouldn't be sufficient to restrain speech.

IANAL, but defamation (and libel) require evidence that the guilty party have some knowledge that their statements are not factual. That leaves the field prety wide open as far as free speech goes. On the other hand, the threat of harm is legally assault. It is not actually necessary to harm someone for it to meet that legal test (actual harm is called battery, as in assault and battery). The legal test of a threat is whether a "reasonable person" would be threatened, ruling out paranoid personalities from taking over the legal system.

I think the world (real as well as on line) would be far better off if free speech stopped just beyond my right to call somebody a moron and prevent me from doing anything or offering to do anything about it.

Re:but what should we do about it?

[nanosquid]

The legal test of a threat is whether a "reasonable person" would be threatened, ruling out paranoid personalities from taking over the legal system.

Well, it's not reasonable to be feel threatened by such threats. How many people post blogs like that each year? And how many people get killed by such bloggers? Now, compare that to the risk of crossing the street or getting into your car. It's not reasonable to be scared by threatening on-line speech.

I think the world (real as well as on line) would be far better off if free speech stopped just beyond my right to call somebody a moron and prevent me from doing anything or offering to do anything about it.

I don't think it would be better off, because "just beyond" is far too vague a definition; people could suppress inconvenient speech by simply tying up others in legislation forever.

IANAL, but defamation (and libel) require evidence that the guilty party have some knowledge that their statements are not factual.

I think it's quite obvious that the pictures and statements about sexual desires of the victim here were not factual and that the blogger should have known that. So, this may count as defamation. But it shouldn't count as a serious threat.

Re:but what should we do about it?

[PPH]

The legal test of a threat is whether a "reasonable person" would be threatened, ruling out paranoid personalities from taking over the legal system.

Well, it's not reasonable to be feel threatened by such threats. How many people post blogs like that each year? And how many people get killed by such bloggers? Now, compare that to the risk of crossing the street or getting into your car. It's not reasonable to be scared by threatening on-line speech.

I have no idea how many of these threeats might be carried out. I've been threatened online and for all I know, that person may have approached me with the intention of doing me some harm, taken one look at me and, realizing the folly of the undertaking, run for his life. This may not be the outcome if the target is a weaker persom or a woman.

Even if the probability of actual physical violence is minimal, its not wise to dismiss the motivation of the sort of persom who might be making such a threat. At the outset, they may have no intention of following through, but this makes them a liar in the eyes of the on line community and at some point, they might attempt to salvage their reputation. It may not end up as a murder, but lesser forms of violence aren't excusable.

Re:but what should we do about it?

[PPH]

Don't be silly... if on-line threats were involved in any of the thousands of murders in the US, the press would be all over it.

Columbine High School.

More recently, they round up a handful of kids every year locally who make threats and get caught carrying weapons to school. Family law courts are also pretty proactive at confiscating weapons and issuing no contact orders when threats are made, on line or otherwise.

Most violence occurs between people known to each other and, although the local press has mentioned e-mails and on-line posts in a few cases as aggravating circumstances, electronic communications are getting so mainstream that they don't usually bother singling them out anymore.

Oh, get f-ing over it

[russotto]

Juvenile vitriolic statements like these aren't death threats. They're just noise. Merely wishing someone dead isn't a death threat, and I seriously doubt Ms. Sierra's claim that the law treats such wishes as such.

And her absolute shock at seeing vitriolic statements on a blog run by someone calling himself "Rageboy", or on one called "meankids.org", comes off as pretty silly. What'd you expect, calm and reasoned adult discussion?

Just because it happens doesn't make it right

[rockhome]

I have seen a lot of posts that boil down to acceptance just because it has happened before and will continue to happen. Sure, a lot of people have probably received some "unsavory" communications in past relating to something posted on USENET, a blog, or message board, but that doesn't make it right. The dissappointing thing that I find about a lot of message boards et. al. on the Internet is how terribly low the standard of discussion is. I won't claim that I've never used "colorful language", but I tend to do it in appropiate situations, around those known to me and I to them.

Why do we have to accept that people will result to lower forms of abuse rather than tactful, eloquent debate? The idea behind giving people free speach is that they will use it wisely, not that they will shout obscenities on a sidewalk. You wouldn't accept your neighbor shouting obscenties in the hallway, and you shouldn't accept it on a blog comment either.

The Interweb - Home of the idle threat kiddies

[Grashnak]

While I don't fault her for being concerned, I can't help but wonder if there is anyone out there who regularly participates in discussion groups or USENET that HASN'T been threatened by some idiot. Heck, I was getting death threats from people on the DIABLO boards years ago because (to my eternal embarassment) I took a sort of sick pleasure in pointing out when people were being stupid. Sure, I was kind of rude, but it always made me chuckle when some other anonymous geek would threaten to beat me up because of my posts. Yeah, like I was going to show up behind the Quickie mart for a "rumble". Sheesh.

Re:This is coming from a chick

[toddhisattva]

This, comment #18504355, is the kind of thing that makes me glad I am not an ISP.

It is the kind of thing police at all levels should investigate.

It is the kind of thing that makes ISPs need to keep records of who connected to what when. Ugh. Record-keeping.

Amazing that a discussion which began on such a low note could somehow become even lower, deep into the violently stupid.

I really hope whoever posted #...355 gets a visit from some very serious people.

Intellectual discussion is one thing . . .

[androidqueen]

. . . and threats are quite another. Intellectual censorship is a stupid and horrible thing, but it's appalling that these bloggers would allow and even encourage this kind of behavior, especially directed at a fellow blogger. Given that she apparently can't look to them for support, it's no surprise she's attempting to retire from public life.

"That's it"

[lewp]

My RSS reader has been lighting up with posts about this, and I was thinking threatening emails or phone calls with people saying specifically they were going to kill this chick. Maybe throwing in some personal details that show that the person isn't just a random bored 14 year old fucking with her. You know, stuff that normal people would consider actually calling the cops over. Finally, I read her post and it's nothing like that.

Look, it's the internet. If people haven't said they'd like to see you dead, or made some kind of artist's rendering of your demise, you just haven't been around long enough.

Is it cool? No. Is it worth "alerting teh internets", calling the cops, and being afraid to leave your yard? Fuck no. This almost reeks of publicity stunt, but I don't know anything about her, so I couldn't say for sure.

If this is what happens when a couple of bloggers (who apparently she doesn't like either) screw with her a little, I wonder what would happen if 4chan got ahold of her for some laughs? I'm sorry, but if you can't handle that stuff, you need to get off the net.

With as many people online as there are, some of them are bound to be assholes. If you can't square with that, you should stick to meatspace.

Not a new thing: sociopaths are everywhere

[dont_run]

Some psychiatrists estimate that 5-10% of the male population are sociopaths (about 2% for females). The Internet puts a lower bar for comments in general. That factor combined with the perception of anonymity makes those sociopaths more willing to come out of the closet, so to speak.

It's a real problem, but you can't really just arrest 5% of the male population, right? Suppressing comments or removing anonymity is like throwing the baby away with the bath water. I don't think we should give up anonymity, and I don't agree we should stop blogging.

I think we just need to speak out when it happens, and call the police whenever the bad behavior escalates to death threats. If IP addresses are enough for the RIAA to use against file sharers, it should be enough to go after the sociopaths.

I'm sorry for what happened to this particular blogger, but I wish she wouldn't just retract from public life. Be brave, Kathy. Don't give in to fear.

Assault Charges

[jerryodom]

Have dem der keyboard warriors brought up on assault charges. Bet they'll shut up quick.

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.

They hate Java that much?

[nschubach]

I knew Microsoft's viral marketing bloggers/wiki editors were going way out of their way trying to hype Vista and the 360, but this is rediculous! You can't kill Java by killing those that write books about it... can you?

Next person who says "blogosphere"

[altek]

gets a swift kick in the nuts. Or a roundhouse kick to the face.

Well, they deserve one anyway.

Been there, still here.

[TheTiminator]

I can relate to Kathy's situation. While I didn't receive death threats, I did receive a LOT of hostile emails. A little over 15 years ago I wrote an article for Computerworld, comparing Windows 95 versus OS/2. In my review, I gave Win 95 a half star lead over OS/2 due to compatibility issues with existing software products. (Yep, that was me!) The day after the article came out, I had over 900 emails in my inbox. Most were from irate OS/2 advocates who questioned my manhood, called me every name in the book, threatened to take me to court, etc.

Needless to say, after a couple thousand emails, with only a couple praising my article, I was a bit shook. That was the last article I wrote for CW.

However, none of the threats came through. And I'm writing again.

It IS scarry. When death threats or physical harm is threatened, then yes, the police/fbi should get involved. It is unfortunate that when someone is in the public eye, that a few individuals can ruin a good thing. The Java community has benefited greatly from Kathy's contributions. It's sad that we will not benefit from her knowledge and skill for quite some time, due to these events.

Re:It's a Tradeoff

[Quiet_Desperation]

Did they firs the ones who failed to protect him from that rogue pretzel?

Re:Being Anonymous...

[Gerzel]

Just remain anonymous?!

This is a fellow human being who is being harassed. Death threats and the like are harassment or worse weather they come from real mail or email. Insults and Flames people should have a thick skin about but there is a line.

As for her remaining Anonymous. She is an author, a technical author at that. Her blog probably helps spur sales of her books if it is popular, and she may be out financially for this.

Now while I don't see the Internet as a "Right" because it is something that you do have to pay for. However I do think it is something that one should have the freedom to obtain for legal use, a freedom stemming out of the right to free speech, the right for freedom of the press, and the right for freedom of assembly among others.

It boils down to the line between free speech that we must endure, insulting opinions, unwanted interest, and speech that is harassment threats which may be non-idle, slander, spam (in the online world).

Re:So what was specific to "women"

[dharbee]

"On the other hand, women who enjoy sex ("sluts") are ostracized and considered tainted."

You're absolutely right, now excuse me, it's time for "Sex in the City"

Clear mysognism

[alienmole]

Maybe you missed this comment by "Rev ED", given in a screenshot in Kathy's blog post:

If you didn't have legs, you would leave a trail like a garden slug.
If you didn't have a cunt, we would have a open season on you with high bag limits.

(That was apparently from the blog Unclebobism, which I see has now been suspended for violating terms of service.)

If you don't think these comments and many of the others are misogynistic, you need to examine your own attitudes.

Re:Clear mysognism

[alienmole]

So is it rebellion against your father that makes you a jerk towards everyone else? You should rethink that too.

Re:Clear mysognism

[asninn]

I think that to an extent, you missed the GP's points. Of course these comments are horrible and misogynistic (and in that regard, the GP's wrong), but I don't see how you extrapolate to the entire tech industry based on a handful of comments from one person.

In fact, given how abhorrent these comments are, I think the opposite is true: unless you really believe that all (or, at the VERY least, most) members of the tech industry identify with comments like that, the generalisation is not only simply wrong but also quite villainous.

I, for one, am not going to allow myself to get thrown into one pot with idiots like the one that made those comments.

Re:Clear mysognism

[alienmole]

I think that to an extent, you missed the GP's points. Of course these comments are horrible and misogynistic (and in that regard, the GP's wrong)

That was all I was saying. The post in question spent its first two paragraphs arguing that the comments were not misogynistic, which is adding insult to injury in this case.

but I don't see how you extrapolate to the entire tech industry based on a handful of comments from one person.

I wasn't taking a position on that point, but since you raise it: the reason the "tech industry" gets this reputation is that it is extremely male-dominated, much more so than many other fields today. I've seen severely misogynistic comments here on Slashdot, for example. I've never seen anything remotely similar directed against males. Amongst any given group of males, unfortunately, there are usually a surprising number who hold very negative attitudes towards women. My pop-psych take on this is that it's the same issue behind Islam's requirement that its women cover themselves in public: some men have difficulty dealing with their hard-wired desire for women, and use women as scapegoats for their own inability to come to terms with life in a civilized society, where we can't simply hit a woman over the head with a club and drag her back to our cave.

So I don't think it's inaccurate to say that the tech industry has this problem. It doesn't mean that it's true of every member of that industry. If we want to change that image, we need to make such attitudes unacceptable, and stop creating a "hostile work environment" for women in the industry, where they feel the need to hide their gender online, etc. Unfortunately, on the anonymous internet, policing the utterances of the more troglodytic males seems pretty much impossible.

What about /.?

[Blink Tag]

I was a bit taken back when Scoble pointed the finger at Slashdot as one of the places that tolerates misogyny. Every time a story of a female scientist or technologist gets a mention here, inappropriate comments get posted, and modded up.

Let's take a stand as a community, here on this site. Let's not up-mod such things in the future.

And, I'm sorry to others I've sat silently by as I've seen them attacked using sexual taunts.

Shame on me. No more.

-- Robert Scoble

The civilized people...

[Dareth]

... are still using gopher!

Re:This is the cost of brainwashing, right now

[CapnRob]

You are, of course, insane. And your statement is, of course, hideously off-topic.

Please, go away, and figure out what the subject of the discussion is before injecting ludicrous absurdities into it.

Summary please

[Shanoyu]

I'm somehow missing why exactly Sierra is someone anyone would want to make death threats to. She co wrote some Java books? She likes emacs more than vi?

If I have it straight it seems to be like this

1. Female writes books, makes blog
2. Female happens to be mildly attractive
3. Unnamed individuals on intrawebs want to make fun of her because x?
4. Death threats
5. ?????
6. Litigation!

No, the cat does not "got my tongue."

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

Where are all the journalists?

1) Find out who the bloggers work for
2) Publish this to embarass the corporations
3) They get fired
4) ...
5) Profit!

The real world

[Brandybuck]

People don't talk like in the real world because they know there are consequences. If someone said to my mom what some have said to Kathy, I'd beat the living shit out of them! Most of you would as well. But once we get online and start posting anonymously, there are no consequences. We can say the most vile and violent things and people act like it's normal.

We will adapt though. The days of freewheeling indiscriminate anonymous posting is coming to an end. There are too many posts to moderate them all, but blogs can (and are) moderate the posters themselves, by requiring pre-registration. This isn't an infringement against free speech, it's common sense. If you want to say something vile and violent, do it on your own site.

Re:The real world

[munpfazy]

People don't talk like in the real world because they know there are consequences. If someone said to my mom what some have said to Kathy, I'd beat the living shit out of them! Most of you would as well. But once we get online and start posting anonymously, there are no consequences. We can say the most vile and violent things and people act like it's normal.

Hmmm. In my book, calmly stating that you're going to beat the living shit out of someone because of an insult earns a place rather higher up on the crazy-sociopath-worth-avoiding list than making totally implausible, exaggerated threats in an anonymous forum.

Re:The real world

[Brandybuck]

Hmmm. In my book, calmly stating that you're going to beat the living shit out of someone because of an insult earns a place rather higher up on the crazy-sociopath-worth-avoiding list than making totally implausible, exaggerated threats in an anonymous forum.

Not all those threats are implausible or exaggerated. The police are taking the threats to Kathy seriously. Remember that she only posted the *tamest* of them.

As for my warning, I'm hardly abnormal in this regard. I would suggest that you get out into the real world and viciously insult someone's mother to their face. See what happens. It doesn't matter if you end up winning the lawsuit against the biker after you told him his mother used to be a fluffer on a horse farm, your face will still be smashed in. This isn't kindergarten where you can hide behind your teacher's skirts after you insult another kid. This is real life where words do indeed have consequences.

If history has taught us anything, it's that human beings are not paragons of restraint. We are imperfect beings. You deliberately provoke us and we will react. The world is not what you wish it to be, the world is what it is. I suggest you meditate on this truth.

Re:It's a Tradeoff

[Cervantes]

Why do you think George W Bush has bodyguards? To keep him away from the pretzels.

Re:This is the cost of brainwashing, right now

[Achromatic1978]

In Iraq they're voluntarily signing up for repeat tours.

That $30,000+ the army throws at you in cash looks pretty enticing when you're returning home to multiple mouths to feed/are a gangbanger, etc, etc. What's your point?

Look on the freeway. A year ago, every second or third car I saw had a yellow "Support Our Troops" ribbon. Now? I'd be lucky to see it on one in twenty. But yet, listening to you, people are clamboring over each other to put themselves in harms way for ... what, exactly?

Re:This is the cost of brainwashing, right now

[WheelDweller]

"Hideously off-topic"? Are we not talking about the level of hatred involved in blogging? You actually believe that people would make death threats based *solely* on the controversy of Java?

Pan out; look at the bigger picture. This is going on, everywhere.

The subject is subjective

[PalmKiller]

> "The Internet used to be a university. Then it became a shopping mall. But now, it's a war zone." It still is an educational tool to me...yes disagreements are the norm but the only internet war I know of is those kiddies playing FPS games.

Re:The subject is subjective

[PalmKiller]

Sorry I had html format on so it all ran together, this is better:

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

It still is an educational tool to me...yes disagreements are the norm but the only internet war I know of is those kiddies playing FPS games.

Grow up

[nurb432]

I dont care what it was for, but when you become 'famous' you get this sort of garbage. It just comes with the territory.

So its via a blog instead of some nut sending you hate mail .. Big deal. *IGNORE IT*

MOD PARENT UP (n/t)

[Lijemo]

"I'm not blaming the victim, but" ranks up there with "I'm not a racist/sexist, but" for intellectual dishonesty. Just because you claim it's not doesn't mean it isn't.

It sounds like, in all of your occurrences of mortal danger, you either knew who was attacking you or had someone who's job it was to protect you. How does that make you qualified to judge whether not a person who is concerned about anonymous threats of violence -- possibly coming from "A-list bloggers" or their acquaintances, people that she might actually come into contact with -- is overreacting?

If I weren't out of mod points, I'd mod this up myself.

Why, now?

[retro128]

I've seen a lot of posts on this thread addressing the threatening posts themselves, but what I don't understand is what this lady write that prompted people to start putting up these threats. Granted, I hadn't heard of Kathy Serra until I read the article, but what could a tech blogger write that gets this type of reaction out of people? It looks like it started relatively recently... Anyone care to enlighten me as to what's going on here?

Re:This is the cost of brainwashing, right now

[WheelDweller]

You're missing the point; Iraq, while it's no 'vacation' destination like Germany, is *SO* very different from the one the "media" paints. Besides- in times of war, _shouldn't_ there be a reward for keeping already-trained soldiers in the field? It's a job, and a noble one, no matter what your TV tells you. What your TV *doesn't* tell you is also telling.

3300 "deaths in the Iraq war" also includes accidents state-side. Car wrecks, heart attacks, dog-bites, whatever. The number is actually 10-15% smaller. After 5 years of occupation, only 3,300? We usually lose this much, just getting started.

At the same time, how many people have died in Afganistan. Aren't we fighting there, too? Isn't that the tactical avenue, directly in response to 9/11? Ask your news man how many losses have happened there. The news takes no joy in the sucess in Afganistan, so it won't tell you.

Remember when the Dow broke 11,000 for the first time under Clinton? Parades; the "media" was just shivering with joy. Every broadcast and all cable-news outlets ran the story. The other day we broke 12,000, and Fox, not ABC/CBS/NBC reported it on-air. A handful of newspapers mentioned it.

This is why I call it propoganda. They don't care about America, they want the socialists installed. You might call'em Democrats, Progressives, but it's the same people.

And on the subject of these people, why support them? Because child molesting is good? (Remember they support NAMBLA) Do they love freedom? (Not when they idolize Stalin, openly, a guy who starved 11,000,000 in the Ukraine in 1937...Castro who runs a police-state, and Chavez just another leader who kills thousands of his own).

It's not that Democrats are wrong, it's that liberals are wrong. Historically wrong. They perpetrate hoaxes using guilt to grow their power:

The coming Ice Age, Acid Rain, Overpopulation, the Ozone Hole, now (man-made) climate change...all designed with help from the media to make you vote for them.

Did we overpopulate? Did Acid Rain kill our children? Did we have any power in solving the Ozone Hole? Did we get plagued with Killer Bees? No, but we've put a lot of people with policies you're going to hate, into power.

Take a history class- there *is* a cost to not watching the news, and watching it from several different sources. Ask questions, and don't rely on bloggers who have an agenda and PhotoShopped photos. If you're not paying attention, you'll wake up in a Communist state.

Bold statement? Did you know under Hilary's healthcare, a patient visting a doctor out of their plan AND the doctor in question would be held on federal charges.

Think about it; don't take things at face value.

Speaking of death threats...

[dn15]

I'm gonna kill the next person who uses the term "blogosphere".

Need some examples?

[reed]

Need some examples of the vile comments people will make? Just drop your /. comment threshold down to -1 ...

Not entirely in jest

[Simon Garlick]

The Internet was always a war zone. Then the corporations started turning it into a shopping mall. Now we're taking it back.

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.

Big Deal...

[RexRhino]

You have total anonymity on the internet (at least if you want it), and so it is easy for some random idiot to make a threat with virtually no possibility on it coming back to haunt them. Virtually none of these threats will never amount to anything. No one is going to be attacked or killed - If someone really intended to attack or kill someone, the LAST thing they would do is post a threat on the web.

When I worked screening email for musicians and bands, there were death threats made every single day. I read literally thousands of death threats over the years, and do you know how many turned out to be more than an angry person firing off an email? ZERO!!! None of them ever amounted to anything, out of THOUSANDS of death threats.

Death threats are everyday occurances for celebrities. If you are in the public attention, someone, somewhere, is going to throw an anonymous threat your way. So someone made a threat on your blog? So what - That is the price you pay for fame. Cancelling your speaking gigs and quitting blogging is just plain stupid. Even reporting them to the police is stupid in most cases, as the police are already overworked as it is trying to stop real crimes to be taking a statement about some angry anonymous person who they don't have the resources to track down. Not only that, a good chunk of threats are made under someone elses name in order to get them in trouble or discredit them - if the police ever did manage to track someone down, that person is probably just a victim themselves.

The modern reality is, that if you are on the net, and if you have a widely known public identity, a few people are going to make empty threats. There is no way to avoid it, short of a complete restructuring of how the internet works.

War Zone Indeed

[cppgenius]

The Internet has become a war zone indeed. What should we call it, Cyber Terrorism? http://www.cybertopcops.com/

It's all of this

[Yvanhoe]

Internet is now an university inside a shop mall inside a war zone inside a fundamentalist country.

Hire the RIAA

[lawaetf1]

No, seriously. It must cost at least $3,000 in law enforcement time and resources to investigate something like this. The RIAA is having great success running their own bounty hunter wing, just tack on a few IP addresses for them to subpoena at $3k a pop, then fine the perp $10k, profit.

I have a friend who does stats research for a nationally known hospital and she laments that it's difficult for them to get adequate data for long-term treatment success rates as much of the info is still stored on paper, isn't shared, or is only available in digital format for the last five or ten years. But want to know the credit history of any social security number? You can have your answer in 5 minutes. Where there's the prospect of money there's efficiency, resources, and drive.

We all know that unless you're parked outside someone's house, stealing their wifi, running tor, or routed through a hacked machine there is ultimately limited anonymity on the Internet when you get down to it.

Wake up.

[Original Replica]

If you succumb to the astronomically slim chance of dying by the hand of The Criminals?

Since she wasn't just threatened with a possibly rhetorical "i could kill you" , but was threatened with specific acts of violent rape, I thought you just might be interested in the "astromically slim chances" you so easily blow off.

"One in six American women are victims of sexual assault, and one in 33 men." http://www.rainn.org/statistics/index.html

"Approximately thirteen million people (approximately 5% of the U.S. population) are victims of crime every year. Approximately one and a half million are victims of violent crime." http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/

She doesn't need to calm down. You need to wake up.

Re:Wake up.

[pNutz]

The discussion had meandered significantly from the original topic. We weren't talking specifically about someone who had received death threats, so you lose on that one.

And man, read your own statistics. 75% of sexual assaults are by an intimate, family member, friend, or relative, per your site you linked. Also from your link: less that one in one thousand people are victimized by sexual assault per year, a trend that continues to decline. Very positive numbers actually, brightens the future.

"Approximately one and a half million are victims of violent crime."
That's approximately 0.5% of the US Population. This doesn't take in the statistical weight of people who are involved in instigating violent crimes and how they are much more likely to be subject to them.

Pretty damn low, or unavoidable, so I'll take my chances. Now, calm down.

men can abuse men as well

[Joseph_Daniel_Zukige]

wedgies, purple nurples, ...

Teachers in the public school system have to develop at least a teflon coating, if not kevlar skin. I have some students that insist on trying to give me the purple nurple. Other students (male and female) ape the masturbation act because they know it gets a reaction. (I've been trying to figure out how to let them know that masturbation is not public behavior without encouraging them to think they've figured out a way to get attention, no success yet. Ignoring it seems to work best at the moment, but some day it's going to require a (yeach) lecture.)

I'm not defending those who threaten on the net, by the way. I'm trying to talk about how to build that kevlar skin. Near as I can tell, anyone who puts themselves in the public eye has simply got to be prepared. It's one of the evils of false royalism, vis-a-vis hollywood. (We think, just because they don't actually hold some official position, it's okay to treat them like royalty. But the result is the same -- they become the object of all sorts of attention that people should not foist on each other.)

Death Threats on Slashdot

[cyranoVR]

A few years ago, I started receiving death threats on my Slashdot journal. After several emails to Taco, which were ignored, he finally responding saying that there was nothing I should do and that I should just ignore them.

I wonder if he would give the same advice to Kathy Sierra?

Links:

http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=102543&cid=874 9281
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=102942&cid=879 0160
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=102942&cid=876 9738
http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=103078&cid=878 1756

Granted, no one photo-shopped pictures of me to have a noose next to my head, but a death threat is a death threat. Taco had the opportunity to take action, and he chose not to.

Re:Death Threats on Slashdot

[asninn]

Just out of curiosity, what should he have done? If you really took these serious, you should've taken it to the FBI, and if they had taken them serious, too, I suppose they could've asked Slashdot for the poster's (posters'?) IP addresses, and the email address used to sign up for the account used to make the last comment, and gone from there, but... since you only emailed Taco privately, what did you expect him to do?

I'm not generally a fan of Taco, but I think he was quite right here, myself: ignoring these is the best option. They were obviously made by a pimple-faced 13 year-old nerd in his parent's basement who needed a convenient outlet after getting stuffed into the rubbish bin by the schoolyard bullies again.

If threats like that are serious (that is, if you THINK they are serious), do report them to the FBI and let them handle it. If they're not... then ignoring the whole thing instead of giving the idiot who posted them power over you and your life is the best thing you do to. Don't let yourself get terrorised.

Re:Death Threats on Slashdot

[Alaria Phrozen]

If you feel strongly:

http://www.ic3.gov/

accountability for actions

Have your cake and eat it too

[iminplaya]

Then it became a shopping mall. But now, it's a war zone.

Why just settle for one when you can have both?

"Photoshopping" has existed for decades

[MMaestro]

"Photoshopping" images to mock/insult/degrade people have been around since the someone drew a mustache over someone's face in a photograph and redistributed it. You seriously cannot make yourself a notable figure in the world and not expect some level of negative feedback. Thats an unrealistic ideal and naive outlook on the world found only in cartoons.

NO ONE is safe. I've seen people on forums mock/insult/degrade Iraqi refugees, children who were born malformed/disabled/disadvantaged and soldiers disfigured from combat (regardless of which war). Show me ONE notable figure that can be talked about on the internet without being insulted/mocked/degraded for one week and I'll admit the long term use of internet to us /. geeks has simply "desensitized" us.

Re:It's a Tradeoff

[dcam]

Don't forget the pretzels.

The answer is ... misogyny!

[BorgCopyeditor]

She advocates being a woman in public. That's still too much for some people to put up with.

Re:The answer is ... misogyny!

[dougmc]

She advocates being a woman in public. That's still too much for some people to put up with.

But you're just guessing, aren't you? Or do you actually have some sort of inside information?

Yes, it's a reasonable guess, given the given information. But as far as I know, it's just a guess.

And really, does she explicitly advocate being a woman in public or just merely do it herself? Woman web-loggers are hardly unique or even rare. Granted, most merely yammer on about their mood or their dog or what music they're listening to (just like the male web-loggers) but a few pick more serious topics, and they don't get death threats ...

No grey area

[PDExperiment626]

My question to everyone is: if Kathy Sierra were your daughter or wife, would you say she's over reacting? Personally, I can't see how there can be any grey area in this matter. If you write something that can be interpreted as a threat by anyone, then anyone in a position of authority has to assume a worst-case scenario. Saying death threats and threats of sexual violence can be safely interpreted as jokes is purely asinine. Personally, I think if you are so stupid as to write a joke in the form of a death threat (especially to someone you don't even know), you deserve no mercy. In the workplace, I believe people like this need to be fired flat-out and flagged to would-be employer's as a potential threat in the workplace.

Any tolerance one gives to this behaviour allows further digressions in the name of mis-interpreted humour, and my second question is: where do you draw the line if not right at the start? I'm sorry but lack of tact, professionalism, common courtesy and stupidity aren't valid excuses for making comments that hurt or scare others.

In regards to the people who complain that such strict ideas make them afraid to say anything in the workplace: if you don't know how to act professionally in a professional environment you really shouldn't be there. If you ask a co-worker out, do it outside of your workplace, and if you really don't know how to tell whether or not a statement is offensive or inappropriate... best just to shut up all together then.

Her behavior is typical victim mentality

[stry_cat]

Instead of running and hiding from these people she should stand strong. If she is really afraid for her life, she should take some self defense classes as well as some training with a firearm. Then she'll be prepared for most anything the morons can come up with.

I dunno

[Slashdot Parent]

I read the linked comments, and I can tell you that I've had much worse posted to me online.

I did not take it seriously.

If you look at what Kathy wrote, she also did not take threats like that seriously until they crossed a line. For her, that line was posting some detailed and threatening images of her.

Those links that you posted, all someone did was take 3 seconds to write "die fag die". That doesn't show much commitment to the cause--it sounds like more of a recommendation than a threat.

If you look at her site, there was more than a photo of her next to a noose. There were some pretty heavily-photoshopped images and it shows a lot more commitment and hatred. I don't think you can compare that to your links, and neither do I think what you linked to constitutes a death threat.

The Cost of One Asshole

[Rachel Lucid]

All it takes is ONE idiot to try and ruin you.

Hell, my ex made it IMPOSSIBLE for me to post on Livejournal for about a year after we'd split, because every time I posted there (no matter how short or what), he claimed it was "free time" I spent online avoiding him, as though now that I no longer spoke to him I somehow had a responsibility to be elbow-deep in work 24/7, and so every time I made even a *TINY* post, for the the next three weeks I'd be receiving emails and anyone who had the misfortune to know me online would receive pornographic spam from his account impersonating me.

To make matters worse, he somehow managed to know exactly when I logged onto certain forums, impersonated friends (to know when I'd made FO posts), and eventually I was stuck playing children's websites just to avoid one single asshole, albeit a persistent one. Technically I still pretty much am, except now I'm actually - guess what? - too busy to put up with him, because I eventually got off most of the internet just to be sane again and got into other things.

Unless you want to call me and every other person who's used the privacy filters on sites like this Drama Whores, you need to get your head out of the sand.

Your behavior is typical criminal mentality

[Rachel Lucid]

i.e. "Stop reacting to the bullies, they'll go away."

Knowing how to use a firearm doesn't save you from a car bomb, etc. etc.

Focus on how to prevent the crime by putting your crosshairs on the CRIMINAL, or else you're just feeding into the mentality that she deserves whatever she has coming just because she's female.

...Your Tooooone Will Change

[cmholm]

Hey dude, I think I saw your testicles. They're in your wife's purse next to her tampons.

It gets worse. My vasectomy was my doctor's last case for the day before a dinner date, which explained why - I swear to God - she wore a black lace gown with the surgical mask... at least, that's the story she went with.

Re:This is the cost of brainwashing, right now

[mink]

"The unreasonable hatred of Carl Rove and Donald Rumsfeld: these people have never killed anyone, never escaped from a wreck and hid it, have never set anyone or anything on fire"

Some people would probably point to Iraq in response to this. YMMV

Re:This is the cost of brainwashing, right now

[WheelDweller]

Nah, not really; remember Rove is a political, not DoD admin. My point behind the original post is how creepy it is that every DNC target becomes a person hated by 1/2 the populace, and yet they have no reason- they can't tell you why, but they've considered shooting them (in their minds).

Every response I've gotten is from one of these people, who misunderstand how TINY the losses have been in the war, why we're there, and why it's stupid to repeat Vietnam when we're making such progress.

The TV is not your friend; trust me. Time and again the modern media has shown to be propaganda, not reporting. ...the end result...and the original point...is that people in the blogosphere are getting the brunt of it. Even in innoculous Java-related blogs, the angst is still there, and carries over. This is far from the only report of death threats amongst non-celebrities, they're happening every day.

Re:This is the cost of brainwashing, right now

[mink]

Sorry you took that seriously. It was meant as a joke. I giess I need to start adding 14 lines of headers and using The Registers blinking bright read humor tag for stuff now.