If you were recently the victim of an assault, and someone 40 feet away stepped toward you while you were getting in your car, you might slam the door, lock it and peel out of the parking lot without checking to see if the person needed help.

An overreaction, but I think justified.

I totally agree with your comment about a small segment of sickos who have a disproportionate impact.

People who leave comments or make threats fall into two categories. The first, bullies, can hide behind their computers and say things they’re too cowardly to say to someone in person.

The second group are those who are just flat out warped, and don’t have the same values as everyone else. Some are only warped to a small degree, others are somewhere past Pluto.

Fortunately, both groups are small segments of those who frequent the net, sphere, or whatever. But, as in the real world, they can cause pain all out of proportion to their numbers.

I agree that on Usenet and Fidonet there was a lot of helping going on, a lot of encouragement, and a lot of respect for differences of opinion.

I also experienced some situations where the pack mentality kicked in, and people who could browbeat others were able to prevail.

I’ve been on a bulletin board where hurtful, threatening comments were made at one of the few women who let their gender be known on the site. The justification was that she was violating the sense of community by behaving differently than the old guard. It wasn’t a pretty site, and a couple of us reamed out the offenders, who were temporarily banned, and who apologized.

If no one had stood up to them, would they have understood the impact their behaviour was having on the woman involved? I doubt it.

There has been a certain amount of glorification of the rough and tumble verbal exchanges that have taken place over the years, and I don’t buy into the myth that it was a good thing.

“Aggressive, nasty behaviour that’s intended to intimidate others is what the Internet (and bulletin boards, and Usenet) was built on”.

I’m not sure where in the online world you hung out to make such a statement.
(alt.syntax.tactical, maybe? :)

I was a Usenet participant during the early to mid nimeties, and also on one or two FidoNet echoes in the BBS world. Yes, I saw the behavior you are speaking of, but I was never in a forum where it dominated the mood. The Usenet *I* saw was the one where the most common single tagline was “Hope this helps”. And it was not sarcasm. The Internet and BBS comunities as I experienced them overwhelmingly consisted of people volunteering countless hours of time, expertise, skills and dedication in order to be helpful to others and make a contribution to the common good.

In some forums where I spent time I was a frequent poster of controversial and unpopular minority views. The worst I ever got in return was snide sarcastic putdowns. I also found a good bit of respect even among those who vigorusly disagreed with me. In many ways, it was a more civilized time.

Yes, flame wars existed, ast existed, and trolls existed. But they were widely regarded as aberations. In no way did they define or dominate the medium.

Of course, your mileage may vary.

Hope this helps,
-Steve

I very specifically said that she overreacted, and that it is completely justified. Maybe I was being too subtle, but my point was that an overreaction is a logical response to the situation she found herself in.

If someone posted stuff like that on my site, I’m sure I would be filled with rage and a persistent fear of the unknown capabilities of whoever was stalking me. It’s an invasion of your sense of safety, both for you and your family.

The way she named names of those who might be involved in some way with the online harassment suggests to me that she was acting out of anger and fear, which, again, I think is justified in her situation. Under less stress, she would probably have been more measured in her description of who played what role in the websites involved.

By describing the instances of harassment as I did, I wasn’t trying to downplay their seriousness or the emotional damage they caused to Kathy and her family. I was trying to indicate that any one instance in isolation would not have caused the average blogger (Kathy included) to get too worried. It was the compounding effect of a series of threats, demeaning comments and visual images that caused such a strong emotional impact.

And again, I think her reaction is completely understandable and justified, given that she felt unsafe as a result of the pattern and nature of the harassment.

The police think it’s a threat for a reason. If you don’t understand how scary that image is think of it if it were your mother after someone had been threatening to shut her up permanently for a week.

Minimizing the picture or the threats plays into the “Just get over it” school of tolerating hatred and violence. If you’re willing to stick by the “panties over her head comment maybe you ought to post the pic with the threats.

They are out right threats. Detailed, thought-out, persistent threats.

Whether done by a 15yo punk or a 38yo punk, they are still threats. Dangerous. And wrecking havoc in Sierra’s life.

The threats are criminal — or should be — and the people/person should be found and tried.

The comments go beyond bullying, as others have classified them.
Mike