I’m all for free speech, and I’m also all for civility online — keeping disagreements with people on the civilized side of death threats — so I was appalled to read in apophenia this morning about the ugly campaign by some bloggers and trolls against a blogger I don’t know myself, Kathy Sierra, who apparently canceled her appearance at eTech. While I oppose laws limiting freedom of speech, I also believe that the remedy for outrageous irresponsibility and scurrilous misuse of the public sphere ought to be shaming. (I just noticed Ross Mayfield’s excellent post about this matter — he links to Rageboy’s response, among others.) The haters should be ashamed of themselves, and the rest of us should not hide our disgust with them:
As I type this, I am supposed to be in San Diego, delivering a workshop at the ETech conference. But I’m not. I’m at home, with the doors locked, terrified. For the last four weeks, I’ve been getting death threat comments on this blog. But that’s not what pushed me over the edge. What finally did it was some disturbing threats of violence and sex posted on two other blogs… blogs authored and/or owned by a group that includes prominent bloggers. People you’ve probably heard of. People like respected Cluetrain Manifesto co-author Chris Locke (aka Rageboy).
I’m all for free speech, and I’m also all for civility online — keeping disagreements with people on the civilized side of death threats — so I was appalled to read in apophenia this morning about the ugly campaign by some bloggers and trolls against a blogger I don’t know myself, Kathy Sierra, who apparently [...]
Comments
@ 13:09
Were the idiots behind the messages capable of being “shamed,” they would never have posted what they did in the first place. There is a vast difference between doing something shameful accidentally and doing something deliberately. This is the latter case.
@ 15:14
This ‘mob’ that’s now going after Chris Locke appears to be one of the old fashioned dumb ones. Does he deserve this kind of attention? Maybe so. But Kathy certainly doesn’t. She had a troll infestation. Her blog tools give her many options on how to control that, as do her wit and intelligence. But she chose instead to publically *spank* one of her highest profile critics WITHOUT providing any proof that he was doing anything other than calling her mildly unpleasant names. Not fair. Not cool. This was a disservice to the whole of the blogsphere. If you’re going to cry ‘Wolf!’, you need to show us the real wolf.
@ 13:31
Wow, terrorizing women really shows the world how “cool” and “edgy” you are…morons.
@ 06:51
Hi Sam,
3 points:
* I spent some time on the Mean Kids blog prior to it getting shut down. (Yes, it was mean. Big surprise. And yes, it was edgy. Sometimes brilliantly so.) The bottom line is that Chris Locke DID NOT make the threats that Kathy *inferred* he did, AND SHE KNEW THIS. Not cool. Not fair.
* Kathy’s an Internet pro and knows the landscape. Like the rest of us, she’s been flamed from the first day she started posting. Knowing this, what she did can be seen only as just another shitty way to sell something.
* In my book, censorship - particulary this ’soft’ kind that’s done through innuendo an intimidation - is a much larger issue than one person’s personal feelings about negative or threatening posts on a blog.
Again, not cool. Not fair. And I’m amazed that more people haven’t stood up for reason and rights in this conversation. I’m truly sorry if Kathy’s been hurt or inhibited in some fashion. But I won’t surrender - and I will protect - the right to be heard without censorship.
In the end, she was wrong to do this the way that she did. Regardless of how ugly the context.
Best,
Kevin
@ 13:06
Kevin, condemning people for their ridiculous, stupid, shortsighted, juvenile actions is not censporship. it’s condemnation. That’s what Howard is talking about in this blog post above.
If Chris Locke really didn’t have anything to do with this, and there is a witch hunt after him, then yes, that is wrong.
But, it’s my understanding that this terrorizing and threatening people bullshit happens to more than a few higher profile people in the web/internet community.
Satire and humor and trash talking for fun and amusement is one thing, emailing death threats to people is bullshit. Nobody deserves it. If you condone it, you are wrong, period.
@ 09:12
I posted a link to Chris Locke’s defense, and also strongly agree with this Salon post:
http://www.salon.com/opinion/feature/2007/03/31/sierra/
“When the free speech is directed in [Locke's] direction, it becomes character assassination?” wrote a poster with the screen name WendySharp. “That’s really rather beautiful hypocrisy in action.”"
Are people who condemn racism a “lynch mob?” That would be too ewww. But where does the defense of free speech include condemnation of those who use free speech to condemn scurillous behavior? I included a link to Chris Locke’s defense, because it seemed only fair. I don’t think anybody is claiming that others did not make ugly comments and death threats. I condemn such behavior and am unashamed of that condemnation. If someone want to uses free speech to pollute the public sphere, then I am free to point out that those actions are antisocial and destructive.