digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Death threats against bloggers are NOT "protected speech" (Kathy Sierra)

headrush.typepad.com — To where has the blogging community gone?

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Lechku, on 10/12/2007, -4/+82This is really scary, sick and wrong. The jerks who are responsible for this need to be held accountable and everybody should rally around Kathy in support.

    I love her blog--it provides all kinds of useful information, and I'm not even a software developer. Her blog is a good example of what being of service means and it would be a horrible thing for it to go away because this juvenile and messed up behavior goes unpunished.

    We should keep an eye out for ways to ways to support Kathy because this does not bode well any of us.
    • KAIZENfocus, on 10/12/2007, -2/+31I strongly agree. I love her blog as well and I am in sales, not even in a realted field to her blog. But I love it just the same.

      I hope her life can return to normal as soon as possible
    • SavageBlackCat, on 10/12/2007, -88/+9It sounds like she needs to put her big girl panties on and grow up.
    • trekkie, on 10/12/2007, -2/+33I've never heard of her blog until this post. I read the sick ***** of a post and then went back to look at her blog to see what weird thing she could have done to come remotely close to doing that.

      And I find some of the most cognative thinking on a real way to design products.

      Un real. It's idiotic ***** like this that will bring in the government, that's for sure. The wild west days are going to be numbered at this rate.
    • Insolent, on 10/12/2007, -74/+4Actually, this is pretty retarded. "The law is clear--to encourage or suggest someone's death is just as illegal as claiming you intend to do it yourself." Some people need to be reminded that they deserve to die and saying "the world will be a better place when you are dead" is hardly an actual threat. Plus, you can tell people to kill themselves all you want and that's not illegal. But yeah, the article is absolutely right. Free speech SHOULD be limited in certain cases to make people more comfortable... /sarcasm. f-ing dumb bitch.
    • robbh66, on 10/12/2007, -26/+14Interestingly enough all bloggers seem to think anything THEY say is free speech.

      I don't condone anyone making death-threats, but I also don't condone the blogosphere which seems to think that an opinion and a blogger account makes you important news.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -8/+20I'm sorry...what was said was wrong and all. But if I got this kind of heat...I would just apply for a conceal to carry license and go on with my life. I might even ask for a restraining order ...if I really felt there was a danger.

      The point is she is scared...and rightly so. But putting people away for what they say isn't the answer. Never is. No I don't take this lightly...such as just blowing off steam. They are seriously ill and need mental health treatment. I do think they are a threat and a danger to the general public at large, BUT we can't convict on what a person says they'll do or would like to do. I have said numerous times all the people I wish I could kill if it were legal...but it doesn't mean I will ever even come close to doing something like that. (This was said out of frustration however...nothing like this stuff)

      Kathy I'm sorry your going through this. Get a restraining order and a concealed hand gun. They can't sexually assault you with 6 lead nails in their skull. By the way, I am a woman with children that has been threatened and had my children threatened with death. Nothing is scarier than your kids or your mom being threatened. But, you can't run to the cops to help you. I couldn't anyway...so rely on yourself...you and your mom could go for your Conceal to Carry together. Make it a bonding experience...as weird as that sounds.
    • Fordi, on 10/12/2007, -6/+17Feh. I'm no advocate of death threats or the stupid misogyny involved here, but honestly, just ask for some extra security at the talk and show up. The best that can happen is nothing. The worst that can happen is the ***** who attempts any of this ***** will get caught. Being actively scared enough to cancel ***** and post about it just fuels these pinpricks' egos.
    • delong, on 10/12/2007, -6/+9@aukxsona

      Yes, we should punish people that engage in terroristic threatening speech towards others. We criminalize such behavior for the same reason we criminalize assault (threatening another with physical battery) - to protect individuals from the fear of violence, not just from actual violence. You can easily see how such threatening behavior disrupts a person's life. In a free society, such behavior is beyond the pale and the State rightly uses the full force of the law to punish such anti-social behavior that harms others.

      Note that terroristic threats as a sub-specie of true threat is not protected speech under the First Amendment.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -13/+8delong...

      How are we free if we can't say what we want to say? How is it a free society that suppresses some speech but allows other? WHO decides what is terroristic threatening and what is blowing off steam? Is there a clear definition? Can they bend the line to allow some people to get away with stuff and others to go down for nothing?

      This is a gray area at best and smells like a social problem. Social problems should have social cures...governments metering out social cures are not democracies. May be you should watch the Anti Communism Cartoon.

      When 14 yr olds are put away for 7 years because of a shove. When people are being imprisoned based on who their friends are. When newspaper reporters are being jailed for telling us the truth. When mothers lose their children because of allegations that aren't even proven true...*****!

      This country is not based on safety from one another. This country is based on freedom, to speak as you wish, to work as you wish, to pray as you wish, to vote as you wish, to own property..etc. How can you advocate losing more freedom when ALL of the above are under attack? Are you even American? This country also believes in innocent until proven guilty, no unreasonable search and seizure, equality of it's citizens, the right to defend oneself and ones property and rights. These are GOD GIVEN rights. (NO I don't believe in the god they choose...but hey it means the government doesn't grant them to you...you are born with them) So no government can take them. This also means no one may make testimony against himself.

      To limit even hate speech is unconstitutional. It can hurt your feeling and frighten you all it wants...but unless it does something to you...and no some psycho babble crap either... it isn't assault. She can not read their comments. She can block them. She can get an alarm system. She can ask for more security. She can get a gun.

      No the first answer everyone asks for is BAN it. Why should I lose my right to lose my temper and say I wish I could kill this stupid asshole...and even describe it for a minute until I gain my composure. Why under that law I should be serving about 60 life sentences. Any law that can be taken to the extreme will be. What you call free isn't freedom. It isn't freedom at all. It is enslavement under the guise of freedom. It is communistic. It is a lie. Freedom means I can call you any name in the book...but so can you do it to me right back. Freedom means if I am threatened by a raving lunatic, I am allowed and do without a second thought take all measures to protect myself. Freedom means telling your elected official they did a lousey job in colorful language and not having an NSA file. Freedom means being able to vote the way you want with a hard copy to prove you voted the way you wanted.

      THIS is not freedom. I don't seek to be free from strife...because all of life is strife. I don't seek to be free of suffering, because all of life is suffering. I seek to be free to be myself. I seek to be free from external forces deciding how my life, my responses and my families lives should be run. I seek to be free to own property, build huge companies, make billions...or be as poor as I allow. I want to be free as I was when I was born into this country.

      Don't rationalize your Free Society should be free of violence, perversion, bad words, complaints...when is it so completely free of everything that it is no longer a Free Society?
      you advocate suppressing free speech for safety???
    • badken, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13@aukxsona: "How are we free if we can't say what we want to say? How is it a free society that suppresses some speech but allows other? WHO decides what is terroristic threatening and what is blowing off steam? Is there a clear definition? Can they bend the line to allow some people to get away with stuff and others to go down for nothing?"

      The title of this article is correct. Death threats are not protected speech. Yes, there are limits, and the courts decide what those limits are.

      You can not get on an airplane and joke about blowing it up.
      You can not yell "FIRE!" in a crowded building.
      You can not incite violence toward someone because of their race or creed.

      Your right to freely swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. There are LIMITS to your freedoms.

      Sane, stable people do not threaten to kill someone, and they especially do not photoshop a picture into some gruesome image of sexual torture just to attack someone. I can see saying things you might want to take back in the heat of the moment, but the things that were done to this woman were way over the line. I do not want a sick person with sexual and/or revenge fantasies about me wandering the streets freely. They are a danger to themselves and to others, and that's all it takes to get locked up for a long time.
    • badnewsblair, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7@badken

      "Your right to freely swing your fist ends at the tip of my nose. There are LIMITS to your freedoms."

      I was just going to say that. One of my favorite teachers and perhaps one of the people I look up to the most used to tell me this way back in high school (all those years ago). It rings true here as well as throughout the Internet.

      I've said this before in the comments section of other stories. I'm so sick of people on the Internet saying whatever they want because they know they can get away with it. They can hide behind and use their Internet anonymity as a crutch for spouting off at the mouth. They think they can say anything they want to here, because there is no personal aspect to it. They use racial slurs and other language that would get their asses pounded into the street if they dared say it in public. Unfortunately, immaturity reigns supreme on the Internet.
    • FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3It's not a matter of getting away with anything. You do have the right to free speech, and that speech can be threatening. The old ending rights at the beginning of my nose statement works great for your right to swing your arms, but for speech, my right to free speech does not end at your ears. I can say whatever, I can even be slanderous. I can be sued for what I say, but I cannot go to jail for it. Any restriction of my right to free speech is unconstitutional. Lessening my right to say what I wish would be abridging my right, which is specifically forbidden according to the words of the first.

      I don't condone threatening the life of another person, but I also cannot endorse any restriction of my rights.
    • badnewsblair, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@ fathed

      Well put. You sound like a well spoken person with a good point. However, the old "The right to swing your fist..." phrase is figurative saying about one's intent. Not to be taken literally as someone swinging their fist.

      Sure. People have every right to say whatever they feel. But it's about being a part of a responsible, mature community. Just because you have the right to threaten someone "for the hell of it" or call someone a racial slur does NOT mean you have to exercise that right.

      http://www.digg.com/apple/NIN_releases_Garageband_files_for_their_newest_single_Survivalism

      (same discussion going on over here)
    • FatHed, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4I agree that just because you have the right to do something, it doesn't mean you should. Being a member mature responsible community does not include trying to lessen the rights of others because they are doing something you may not agree with. You have to be very careful when you try to regulate what is considered a threat, and what is not. In the past there have been court cases dealing with this issue, but in my opinion any restriction of the right to free speech is unconstitutional. Even though I am not a lawyer, I can read the constitution and see that what it says means that no restriction is constitutional. I cannot be a responsible American if I do not fight for my rights.
    • badnewsblair, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4We're on the same page obviously, but I'd just like to add that I'm not for regulating what people say. I just merely wish the maturity and responsibility level on the Internet was greater than that of a 12 year old going through puberty.

      Hiding behind your Internet anonymity and slinging offensive statements is just plain spineless and immature.

      But I guess things never change. We'll keep up the good fight in the meantime.
    • GatesofHell, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1@badken
      "You can not yell "FIRE!" in a crowded building."
      Can you yell "MOVIE!" in a fire station?
    • SteveMax, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1Yes, we all know that there are limits to free speech. If someone said "all f***ing Jews must die!", he'd probably be arrested. If someone went to the White House and said "Bush and all Christians should eat grass from the root", he'd probably go straight to Guantanamo. What makes those death threats any different than the ones Kathy received?
  • johnsee, on 10/12/2007, -3/+29She's an awesome blogger, and I always look forward to her new entries in my RSS feed. On the few occasions I've emailed her she's always been polite and helpful.

    I hope whoever is doing this is caught and sent to a very dark jail cell.
    • justnick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+19I have never heard of her before and I still want the people who made those comments to go to jail. Threatening someone like that is amazingly wrong on many levels. The people who threatened her need help.
  • ChrisMDP, on 10/12/2007, -2/+25I might point out that the webpage contains details of disturbing death threats - not one for the kids. Let's hope they catch them.
  • bIuebonics, on 10/12/2007, -47/+14am i the only one who thinks she's over reacting?
    • imperium2000, on 10/12/2007, -23/+9Yes, you're the only ***** head here...
    • captinherb, on 10/12/2007, -8/+16@imperium2000:

      Calm down. He didn't say he condoned what was posted, he just suggested that she is over reacting. Saying that she will never be the same and she won't leave the house, etc.. would point to an over reaction. I also don't condone it and think whoever did this are some world class ***** heads but you don't think public figures get death threats? I would think this would be mild compared to what some celebrities get. While she should report it to the police and take necessary safety steps she shouldn't let it completely control her life so much so that she can't even leave her yard, I don't think that would qualify as a healthy reaction.
    • MannyHills, on 10/12/2007, -21/+8I would agree completely. She's overreacting a whole lot by being that scared.
    • AshtonKe, on 10/12/2007, -4/+15Of course, it's easy to say she's over reacting, you're not the one being threatened. And, you think you're anonymous right now (you probably aren't, but for the most part we're all low profile enough for nobody to really take the time to try and trace us).

      And at the same time, I'll bet you're male. Not that the internet is all male, but it sounds like a male response (my apologies if you aren't).

      It's generally easier for males to take threats than females, since males tend to be more testosterone filled, and willing to defend themselves, etc. etc. (And threat of violent rape simply plain out scares the ***** out of women. Men really don't have a similar fear, since the raping of men is relatively rare (comparitive to the rape of women), so it's not on our minds at all).

      But that being said, if someone started seeking me out like that, it would scare me too. Do I think she's overreacting? Hardly. She's a woman, being threatened with rape and horrific death, that's something most males can't quite comprehend (at least the rape part). And as a woman, she is probably afraid of being overpowered by some male (sorry to be politically incorrect, but most women are weaker than males. Their muscles are roughly equal in strength, if you compare equal amounts of muscle mass. But men's muscles tend to be larger, due to hormones. There are some women out there who are very strong, and some men that are weak, but for the most part, women tend to be weaker than men. Sorry, it's life). etc. etc.

      If the threats get closer (addresses posted, etc.) I'd filed for a concealed carry permit, etc. Even disturbed people tend to lose the will to fight if they're staring down a gun barrel (or receiving what comes out of it). (Although I strongly hope this blows over without any violence).
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -6/+3Ashton,
      Even though I don't think all women are afraid because of the rape scenario...the idea of a guy..being larger is scary. That alone. The rest is just fuel for the fire. I think she has a valid reason to be afraid...but I think she is handling it wrong. I don't think testosterone or lack of it has any part...I don't know if you have ever been around a pregnant angry woman or not yet...but they are FILLED with estrogen and SCARY! (Do not tick them off)

      I am female and say she is reacting wrongly. Her fear is not unfounded, but her reaction is baseless to protecting herself.
    • DreKor, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3How can you consider her reaction to be "baseless to protecting herself"? I assume that what you meant was that her actions in response to these threats do not actually make her safer. It seems to me that going to the police with this story is a good idea. She has a handful of names that are associate with these threats and the police seem to be taking her case seriously. As for being scared, she has every right to be. When threatening images of yourself start popping up on the internet, it's cause to worry. In short, she's doing the right thing for herself and everyone else by setting precedent for ending this kind of behavior. After all, the entire purpose to living in any society is to be free yourself from physical violence and other natural hardships in order to pursue higher goals than mere survival.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+1I never said she didn't have a right to be afraid. In fact I have continuously sympathized with her yet I am dugg into the ground.

      Yes I think her actions do nothing to help herself. She is victimizing herself with her fear...this is a common reaction to threats of violence. It's like the secondary crash in a car crash. It can often be more mentally damaging than the initial threat. Sitting at home scared to death all day will cause issues. Instead of hiding in fright...do something to secure yourself.

      The reason cops AREN'T the solution is they have limited resources and no one will guard her all night. The only way to be certain of safety is to get an alarm system, a gun, martial arts training, a safe room, a body guard, extra security etc... The only reason I say it is baseless...is that going to the cops is a good start, but this only tells who probably killed you once your dead. They don't actually stop criminals from committing crimes before they do...that isn't their job. They are there to find the jerks AFTER the crime is committed. This...while very disgusting should fall under free speech... To protect her self she should react pro actively...as in try to do it herself literally. This helps rid the fear and the depression of threats.

      She needs to empower herself. The only way to do that is to know she can protect herself by herself. By the way, you may digg me down all you want. I don't think any man has a clue about this. As a woman I do. As a woman that has experience in this realm I have a lot. The cops do not protect most people from future could be crimes...other wise child molesters would be locked up for life. They only find the bad guys. A woman should be secure in herself...that is the only way to prevent absolute terror in these types of situations.

      I don't say she has no right to feel afraid. She has every right. But she should move beyond it like a mature adult and arm herself with knowledge for self defense. THAT is the mature thing to do...not expect everyone else's rights to be stripped for your situation.
  • heavensblade23, on 10/12/2007, -0/+45I thought she was a political blogger at first...but no, she's a tech blogger. Who gets that worked up about tech issues that they're writing death threats?
    • futureb, on 10/12/2007, -4/+21every public figure gets death threats at one time or another. perhaps this is just a sign that bloggers are now public figures?
    • epilonious, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I'm guessing people who want attention and get pleasure from the idea of being agitating... but with no actual devices on her life. I'm also guessing that now that they got what they wanted (her to freak out publicly) and will quit bothering her lest they get caught... or they will continue doing it, get caught, and turn out to be generic losers who do something silly with their 15 minutes...
    • raccettura, on 10/12/2007, -17/+3Vista Fanboys
    • Atomic1fire, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3I could see bloggers as public figures
      you have the ones going and traveling to conventions to talk about stuff
      and you have the ones that are just viewed alot
    • MacParrot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5You must be new to digg
  • rocket2dmn, on 10/12/2007, -3/+31I hope diggers recognize the seriousness of such postings and refrain from making them here and elsewhere on the internet.
  • epilonious, on 10/12/2007, -16/+5INTERNET!
    • avihappy, on 10/12/2007, -4/+5What about it?
    • epilonious, on 10/12/2007, -13/+7it's serious business!
    • AshtonKe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Actually it is. It only provides an illusion of anonymity. With the proper motivation, you could probably be tracked down (I am not threatening you). Understand that the reason why most people aren't traced, is the lack of a proper motivation. Worse, if you own a website, chances are you have a Static IP, or are registered with some sort of service, and such information may be public (and her name is well known).
  • THX8612, on 10/12/2007, -0/+17Internets: -1 to your Humanity pool
  • brooklynboy, on 10/12/2007, -11/+17I think the threats are sick and vile. I also think that Kathy needs to do more research before overreacting and posting false information.

    There have been arrests made online for EMAIL, thus there is a precedent set for this type of thing to be protected in court. Read on: http://news.com.com/2100-1023-210845.html

    Excerpt: "In 1996, Machado was accused of sending an email to a group of fellow students, most of whom were Asian, threatening to "...make it my life career to find and kill every one of you personally." The email, sent from a campus computer, allegedly was signed "Asian Hater."

    The verdict validated the prosecution's argument that sending threats via the Net is the same as doing it over a phone or through the regular mail.

    Initially, Machado was charged with ten counts of civil rights law violations, but his first trial ended in mistrial after the jury deadlocked. After the second jury found him guilty, Machado faced a year in federal prison and a $100,000 fine. "

    But here's the problem: Some of you want to have your cake and eat it too. You don't want the government to monitor or "spy" on your packets, but somehow you wish for them to be able to track down anonymous posters who threaten peoples lives simultaneously? Can't have it both ways.

    You're either going to take the position that the internet must be monitored, OR you're going to have to accept that with Internet independence comes independence from government protection.

    Having said that... I hope those bastards that threatened Kathy burn in hell.


    • justnick, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9Everything someone does on the Internet can be traced right now. This isn't an all or nothing thing. The Internet should be treated like every other form of communication. The police can not tap your phone line unless they show a judge sufficient evidence to support a warrant. The police can not read your mail unless a judge feels the evidence justifies a warrant. The Internet should be, and could be, treated the same way.
    • funk49, on 10/12/2007, -7/+0@justnick

      I can island hop through a few countries and you will NEVER be able to track me. Assuming that someone is sitting in Spain or wherever is wishful thinking...which is why people are nervous about these sort of things. Cops can't police the tubes.
    • truegodofwar, on 10/12/2007, -5/+1They can use tor to send the messages and become completely untraceable.
    • LakeshoreBaby, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Of course there has to be accountability on the internet, and the government must be responsible for this. The thing is the issue of probably cause. Randomly monitoring the internet for free intelligent people who are dangerous to the coming police state that will be declared after the next CIA orchestrated "terrorist attack" and blamed on Islamists/Iranians, is completely different that using resources to find someone who is making genuine terror threats against an innocent person AFTER probable cause has been established. The first is wrong. The second is valid.
  • EricWeaver, on 10/12/2007, -2/+17BrooklynBoy: you might cut her some slack. I'm not sure there's such a thing as a woman "overreacting" to sexually-themed death threats. We're not women, and we didn't receive them, so I'm not sure that as men we can say where that line is for her. It's an emotional thing to happen to someone...I'm not going to judge her legal knowledge after she's been shaken up like this.

    The IP address listed (62.37.152.243) is from a Spanish ISP, and siftee@yahoo.com has mentioned being in Barcelona...if that's the actual email address. Why this person feels the urge to be such a mean-spirited, misogynistic ass is beyond me.

    I'm hoping that he and "Rev ED" get outed online.

  • deanpence, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13> But here's the problem: Some of you want to have your cake and eat it too. You don't want the government to monitor or "spy" on your packets, but somehow you wish for them to be able to track down anonymous posters who threaten peoples lives simultaneously? Can't have it both ways.
    >
    > You're either going to take the position that the internet must be monitored, OR you're going to have to accept that with Internet independence comes independence from government protection.

    On the contrary, brooklynboy, this is exactly what the government does all the time. It can't prevent crime, but after one is committed, it can investigate (with coercive power) the crime to prosecute the criminal. If we were to follow your logic, then the government wouldn't be allowed or be able to investigate and prosecute murders unless they were able to monitor every second of everyone's life. However, a crime has already been committed here (at least it seems so), so *now* the government has the power to investigate, to use coercive power to find the criminal(s) ... and nothing else.

    If we were to accept your assertion that freedoms of speech and from unlawful/unjustified search and seizure require giving up the right to not to be coerced, then the US Constitution itself is a sham and we should all give in to Big Brother.
    • insomniacpyro, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Beat me to it. I don't know where people get this whole 'all in or all out' thing.
  • chaoskaizer, on 10/12/2007, -6/+0"Sorry. Give me a moment. I'm trying to get the server back up but the DiGG Homepage can be brutal. :-) And thanks for your interest. John"
    damn the site is down
  • randysouth, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8I'm perplexed. Was there anything in particular she wrote that set this guy off or is it just the random ravings of a sick person?
    • bestdamntech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Either way it's disgusting.
    • wjglenn, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Unfortunately, probably not. I read Kathy's blogs routinely and she's never been anything but professional to my knowledge. I have, however, seen other female colleagues in the tech writing/speaking community treated just awfully. I really don't know what to say about it other than that my thoughts are with Kathy and I really hope it doesn't dissuade her from continuing her blog. She's one of the most talented writers around.
  • CourtesyFlush, on 10/12/2007, -1/+11This sort of thing should have legal consequences. Death threats should not be tolerated in any way.

    My best advice would be to show no fear and tell the wimps who hide in the shadows while they make this type of ***** threat to bring it the hell on.

    A direct approach by calling an asshole's bluff while preparing for the worst is sometimes the best option. I would rather taunt an idiot into either doing something ineffectively stupid in order to get caught or being publicly shamed by yellow hearted inaction than to live in fear.

    It worked with me with open threats on the phone, it will work with dumbass goobers on teh intarwebs who should remember that it can be fairly unhealthy to blindly threaten people one doesn't know.

    Kathy needs to get out of victim mode and stop letting these idiots have their way with her life. It's what they want.
    • delong, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6It is a crime in most states - it's a terroristic threat. Because it is a threat made by telephone or wire across state lines it is probably also a violation of federal law. Terroristic threats are usually felonies, with serious jail time. Terroristic threats are very easily categorized as a "true threat" which is unprotected speech under the First Amendment, no intent to actual carry out the threat is required. True threats are essentially strict liability.
  • engtech, on 10/12/2007, -1/+26What is it with Digg commenters?

    @robbh66: "I don't condone anyone making death-threats, but I also don't condone the blogosphere which seems to think that an opinion and a blogger account makes you important news."

    She's an established tech author (7 books) and tech conference presenter who has her own Wikipedia entry and is considered Notable. Just because someone blogs doesn't make them a shut-in living in their parents' basement. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kathy_Sierra

    @savageblackcat: "It sounds like she needs to put her big girl panties on and grow up."

    By "big girl panties" do you mean the ones that were photoshopped on her face with the insinuation that she'd be raped? Is that what you would tell your mom/sister/girlfriend/daughter if someone posted something like that about them? Keep in mind that the originator of these threats wasn't "an anonymous dude on the Internet" but rather someone she at least peripherally knows from tech conferences.

  • chrisrs, on 10/12/2007, -2/+13Registered Digg user..
    http://digg.com/users/siftee/
    • galtroarc, on 10/12/2007, -3/+7@chrisrs
      Come on man..don't do that..this bloke might be a completely different person...and u r attempting to implicate him here based on a search with no idea if its the same guy...
      I'm sure you will find a "siftee" registered on any popular social site...
    • chrisrs, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12What are the chances it would be ANOTHER siftee who submits a link to a Barcelona networking site, i.e. the place where the person making the threat's IP is registered?
      It's the same guy.
  • galtroarc, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6This is sick...I have never read Kathy but this is just unacceptable whoever the target is...
  • vblvbl, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Kathy is a great thought leader in the realm of customer experience. It's awful that this kind of crap happens at all, much less to such a good person. I hope they catch the guy(s) and I hope that she can feel safe again.
  • K.Restoule, on 10/12/2007, -0/+9I'm constantly amazing by some people and their "free speech" rants. Here's a novel idea. Take responsibility for what you say. This was a death threat and the person who made it should be held responsible for what he/she said. This is not free speech, this is a crime.
    • MichelleMacP, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5This is awful - and the person threatening her should be found & prosecuted.

      It's not an "overreaction" for her to say she may never be the same - have your life threatened, have *visual* suggestions of rape, receive comments threatening torture - and you may look at things a bit different too.

      Simply buying a gun doesn't solve the problem. If she doesn't have one already, it is her right to feel safe enough in her own home without having to own a firearm. And a gun doesn't help you when you're asleep.

      It's easy to say what she should do, what anyone thinks they would do, but it's impossible to know until faced with the situation yourself.
  • cjhandley, on 10/12/2007, -6/+5"Hoping" someone dies, or saying someone "ought to" commit a crime IS constitutionally protected speech. See Brandenburg v. Ohio.

    It saddens me that the usual round of so-called "libertarians" on Digg are willing to throw out constitutional protections to feel as if they're protecting a woman.
    • K.Restoule, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6What does it say about us as a society when words in a book are more important than the right for a person to not live in fear?
    • WATYF, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4yeah... I'd have to agree. I read that and wondered what all the fuss was about. Anyone who's been on the net long has probably had some kind of serious harassment sent their way (I know I have). And until someone comes out and says, "I'm going to kill you", it's just another asshole being... well... an asshole. Granted, I very well may have missed something, and she did say that this was only a "sample" of what was sent to her, but she didn't post anything where someone said, "I'm going to kill you". Saying, "I hope you die" isn't a death threat... it's just another childish imbecile venting their repressed insecurities and passive aggression.

      If anything, it proves that they're just cowards. Usually, if someone has to fall back on some third-party, indirect way of mentioning death (i.e. "I hope *someone* does xyz to you") then that implies that they don't have the gonads to actually do anything, since they can't even bring themselves to make the threat in first-person. While I understand not being totally "OK" with being harassed like that, I think the rampant fear and need for psychiatry and tranquilizers just to "get by" is an overreaction (and probably just feeding right in to what these type of people (i.e. cowards) want.

      Anyway... that was just my initial reaction after reading it...
    • badken, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6"The U.S. Supreme Court reversed Brandenburg's conviction, holding that government cannot constitutionally punish abstract advocacy of force or law violation."

      Brandenburg is in no way the same thing as this situation. The court held that the government can not punish *abstract* advocacy. The threats posted in these blogs, and the photoshopped picture were directed at a specific individual, with specific acts being threatened. AND from what I understand, some the people making the threats were known to the victim.

      This was no anonymous, abstract hate speech.
    • fantasticjon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@cj

      Did you read the article? They didn't just say "I hope you die." They made specific threats and made an poor quality, yet graphic image from her picture.

      This has nothing to do with the Internet and nothing to do with free speech. Threats are not free speech. Imagine of someone took your photo and photoshopped it like that and printed it out and nailed it to telephone poles around town. Would that be protected under the constitution?
    • WATYF, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Specific or not, I still didn't see any direct threats (i.e. first-person). Saying, "I hope you die" or "I hope you get hit by a bus" (more specific) or "I hope your house burns down" are still not threats. Specificity is not the criteria... it's whether or not the person actually says that they are *going* to do it, rather than if they just say, "I hope something bad happens to you". And the photoshopped thing was just dumb. If someone doctored up a picture of me with underwear on my head, frankly, I'd probably just laugh. I'm not really sure how that was even "death" related. Like I said, these people are being complete idiots... but calling these direct threats of death is just not accurate.
  • spamdragon, on 10/12/2007, -3/+6This sick stuff should not be sanctioned by the blogging community as free speech. Threatening is a criminal act and those responsible must be brought to account for their acts.

    I have only been a blogger for just under a year and I'm truly sad to see the rudeness, misogyny and violence that in the blogosphere passes as "free speech". I've already attracted two cyber stalkers when I was at Blogger and one almost made it to the small community I live in. He could have ended up on my doorstep. Luckily he chose the wrong place and the person he asked about me sensed he was nuts and called the RCMP.

    Imagine how frightening it is to be a woman who has been violently physically and sexually abused in the real world and then imagine what it is like to enter this scary cyber world where anything goes. Take a look at the statistics and become aware of how many sisters, girlfriends, wives, mothers and grandmothers have endured the same.

    Witnessing what some are saying about Kathy "over-reacting" above makes me to both cry and scream. You just don't get it - the misogyny has got to go.
    • DeflatorMouse, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5The misogyny has got to go? Death threats and personal attacks are only wrong when they're done against females?
  • AshtonKe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+7This is probably true, if you just "Hope someone may die." But when you start including details, pictures (photoshopped or otherwise), you are stepping well out of bounds of the precedent set in Brandenburg v. Ohio.

    And it's important to note that Freedom of Speech doesn't mean you don't have to own up to what you say. It means (this is philisophical crap) that you are free to speak your political/personal freedoms without fear of GOVERNMENT retribution. However, it is a well set precedent (can't look up cases now, sorry) that threats are not protected it at all. You own up to your words. If you lie, you can't say "Oh, freedom of speech," you still lied; so you face the consequences. If you threaten somebody, especially in this manner, you can't go "oh, free speech," no, that's a terroristic threat, across state lines even (bringing in more than local authorities), so now you'll face the consequences. Etc.
    • cjhandley, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1Going to jail or being arrested by the government is government intervention. Now, she could sue under defamation or harassment laws, sure, but it's hardly a criminal matter.
  • RickLeeFS, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6I've been active online since the mid-80s before there was a web and I've always used my real name everywhere. There's no better way to keep your base instincts in check. I have always advocated for the use of real identities, but I really feel bad for the girls. It's really different for a female online. Most of them wouldn't think of using a real name and I sure understand why. For people like Kathy Sierra who have a writing and speaking career, they don't have the option of hiding behind an anonymous ID. For guys, I think it's just a real wimpy thing to hide behind an ID.
  • roamzero, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I often wonder what kind of personality it takes to be motivated enough to take time out of the day to threaten a person's life simply because of someone's thoughts and opinions rubbing you the wrong way. You see this too much in today's society IMO. Someone goes against a status quo and invariably you hear about that person receiving death threats. It's hard to believe these types of people exist in today's society, I'd almost like to meet some of these people in person just to see what makes them tick.
  • crashutah, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5Scoble decided to stop blogging http://digg.com/tech_news/Famous_Blogger_Scoble_Taking_the_Week_Off_from_Blogging
  • LakeshoreBaby, on 10/12/2007, -5/+2Wow. I certainly hope that saying you hope someone dies is not illegal like she says. I've said that so many times to the bastards covering up 9/11 Truth in the media. It's just how I feel in the moment after seeing how the mainstream media purposefully tries to cover up the truth or demonize the people and stars who promote it. Three thousand people, children, women and men, died in 9/11, and hundreds of thousands of innocent Iraqis in the war, and absolutely nobody in power or the MSM seem to give a ***** about catching the mother ***** in our government who did this. It makes me sick to my stomach. I mean how can you not just want every last one of those mother ***** to die??? How can you not??? And what would be wrong with wanting that? It doesn't mean I would ever think of killing someone, or even terrorizing someone myself. But these feelings to want someone to ***** die are God given emotions. It's completely normal to want murdering asshole bastards and the whores who help cover up mass murder or sexual abuse or whatever to ***** suffer and drop dead after. And if you keep those feeling inside and never express them, you are only doing yourself harm. Expressing your emotions, and terrorizing/threatening someone are COMPLETELY different things. It's the intent that is implied that matters.
  • charmander, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8She writes tech books! I thought she would be some kind of political blogger or something. Do people really get so threatened by the presence of a woman in the tech field?
  • patience, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2Reminds me of the Yahoo news message boards (before they got rid of them).
    Those were the days.

    These days, you have to go liveleak or nothingtoxic for pure, disgusting flamewars.
  • there, on 10/12/2007, -3/+4
    Really sick people out there.

    What really scares me though is a fair chunk of the far right these days openly advocates genocide again Muslims and it's being tolerated by the moderate right. (e.g. Beck and Ayn Rand institute both seem to advocate killing tens of millions of innocent people via a preemptive nuclear strike)

    I'm not sure when the fascism came into fashion in America but I hope Republicans or Democrats do something about it soon. As far as I'm concerned there should be a prison sentence for any one in the public to advocate or actively pursuit the death of one person or a million.
    • sailor, on 10/12/2007, -3/+1That is the reason there are so many sick, twisted people out there...face it, there are people that need killin'...
  • nonconformist, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11When sexual threats are made, it is usually always by a moron with a small penis.
  • VinceNoir, on 10/12/2007, -8/+1GOD DAMN IT!!!! Whoever came up with that idea should... should... should... aaarrrgggh!!!! I can't even say what I would want to happen to them. Arrrrrrggghhh!!!!! SOMETHING BAD needs to happen! TO... to... to... arrrrrrghe!!!!!!! Grrrrraaaaaaggggghhhhrrrrrggg!!!! What's the point of having a discussion if you can't have a little friendly death threats among friends? Teh interweb is now teh suck. ;P
    • LakeshoreBaby, on 10/12/2007, -8/+2I hear you brotha. They are gonna use this to stop all expression of emotions on the internet. Friends or not. It's the intent behind the things that people that is important. Not what you say when you are *****. Here comes the police state. : (
  • manicbomber, on 10/12/2007, -10/+3I thought Digg was full of communists, with your "we are all atheists" and "everything should be free" comments, but this basically proves it. I mean, you are advocating limits to free speech?

    GTFO.
    • acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Death and rape threats have never been "free speech".

      PS: I'm an atheist and I rather like Capitalism. Door's to your left.
  • metagrape, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1this is sad!! as wierd as the net gets, being threathened, directly or indirectly is dangerous..

    am sorry this is happening to Kathy..

  • bokchoy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5The guy who sat there spending his own time creating that image and having those words and images in his brain bringing him pleasure doesn't deserve anyones respect. Sadly, this is nothing new. Insecure men throughout history have always abused women given a location and anonymity(a closed door, an open proxy,etc.) We only heard about it because she is well known. We can all make a difference by not giving traffic to those that take things too far ie: threats of rape murder and intimidation for pleasure.

    Who really cares what those guys have to say anyways if this is how insecure they are...they obviously have issues beyond the nightly pr0n addiction...I for one wouldn't be following what they say or think too closely!
  • tvfischer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Those who did this are just pathetic... It is a real shame that people with so much time on their hands can find nothing better to do than insult and threaten others! They are pathetic and don't deserve the time of day but deserve to be put in a deep dark hole.
  • Pushkin, on 10/12/2007, -7/+2The threats are completely unacceptable.

    Some reactions gave me a "Bowling for Columbine" feel though:
    aukxsona: I would just apply for a conceal to carry license ... Get a restraining order and a concealed hand gun. They can't sexually assault you with 6 lead nails in their skull.
    AshtonKe: I'd filed for a concealed carry permit, etc. Even disturbed people tend to lose the will to fight if they're staring down a gun barrel (or receiving what comes out of it)

    ... I am glad I do not live the US
    • bubbazanetti, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5But that is the entire point...these jackasses doing the threatening are emboldened by the thought that they won't be caught or nobody will stop them.

      Self defensive measures have been a means for survival since the very first bacteria ate a smaller one.


      If a person doesn't have the right to protect themselves...then they will inevitably be victims.


      So get off your liberal high horse.
    • acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4@pushkin: Do you have better ideas that this woman could use to protect herself from people who've made death and rape threats against her? Do you expect her to not take such threats to her safety seriously? Is she supposed to wait until some internet crazy is kicking in her door before she takes any steps to make sure that those threats are never carried out? Is she supposed to trust that the police will actually show up quickly when she dials 911? Most American police departments set a goal of a 5 minute MINIMUM response time (actual response times are longer). 5+ minutes is an awfully long time to wait when somebody is actively trying to kill or rape you. Besides, the police aren't there to actively protect people....no cop is expected to take a bullet for you - that's not their job. The police are there to solve crimes, arrest the perpetrators, and maintain public order - NOT to be your bodyguards.

      That having been said, if a person cannot reasonably expect their police department to actively protect them from harm, this responsibility therefore rests on their own shoulders. The same goes for Ms. Sierra - it's HER responsibility to protect herself from these *****. That sucks, and I'm sure it'd be awfully nice if she could have a group of Marines posted around her home 24/7, but that's not the reality of the situation. Thus far I feel I've established that death and rape threats are not to be taken lightly, the police cannot be expected to provide bodyguard services, and that responsibility for self-defense rests with oneself.

      Given the level of misogyny found in those threats, it'd be a safe bet that the person making them is male. Since Ms. Sierra is obviously female, there's most likely an imbalance here: (most) men are (usually) larger and stronger than (most) women. If this holds true for this case, do you honestly expect Ms. Sierra to use a self-defense tool that requires her to be aggressive and in close quarters with her attacker (i.e. a knife, or a stun prod, or a baton or other striking object)? What if this person manages to take the weapon away from her, because he's stronger? Clearly, she needs a means of self-defense that will equalize the differences in size and strength, one that will put her on as equal footing as possible with her threatener and potential attacker and yet not require her to be within grappling distance to make effective use of. Furthermore, she needs a means of self-defense that will make the attacker STOP DEAD (and when it comes to rapists, special emphasis on the 'dead' part). Not something that will 'stun' them, or 'confuse' them, but something that will completely neutralize them as a threat to your safety, and usually that means something that will make them cease living.

      In the United States of America, these tools are called 'firearms'. Pushkin, if you have any better suggestions that fit the above requirements, now's the time to share 'em. Put up or shut up.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Wow...I didn't say stalk, maim, kill, torture, mock, and plan to explode their work place! I said get a conceal to carry permit and have it on at all times for protection...not retaliation.

      May be your confused...we carry guns to deter Columbine like instances...ex: if a teacher had a gun in that school...may be fewer kids would be dead, because the teacher would have shot the killers before too many died. This happened with an off duty cop in a mall with a deranged 18 yr old lately. The off duty cop saved a lot of lives...because he had a gun.

      I agree with the poster just above me. A gun is the only way to equalize a situation where the assaulter could be twice your size. I know I wouldn't feel safe, even with the little martial arts training I have, if faced in a situation with out a gun. I would probably do all I have suggested. Plus more.

      I wouldn't sit at home afraid though. I'd go to a friends or somewhere else to get away and collect my thoughts until I settled on a solution.
  • Red_Eye, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5This unfortunately is not uncommon, there have been a few podcasts that have abruptly ended due to threats and in some cases even some actions.
  • ishmal, on 10/12/2007, -2/+3Blogging is no longer "tech." Merely being on the Net does not make something technological or pithy.
  • willwander, on 10/12/2007, -5/+3Its a shame the poor girl got upset, but she did make herself very public, and if she claims to be some sort of tech guru she should have know better.

    Cranks, Flames, Rants, Trolls, pysco's, idiots, Diggers, you can be who you want to be on the web, and most people want to be something they cant be in real life, its what makes the web special.

    The web is slowly being censored/taxed/policed/owned by people claiming they alone have the moral right to set what is acceptable and to punish people who do not agree with them (does this sound familiar america?), anyway thankfully its a slow death.
    • acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2Death threats are not, nor have they ever been free and protected speech. Ask any police officer.
  • Darkside2984, on 10/12/2007, -1/+4Type in "Maddox" in Google and read what he does with threats. This chick is no pirate!
  • JavaApe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+4Maybe I'm old-fashioned, but I think a person should be responsible for the consequences of what they say. I'm a Montanan - and most folks are pretty polite in their speech, even the folks you'd expect to be crude. If you can't control your mouth, particularly around women and children, it's likely someone may give you a refresher course in manners. Honesty is also generally assumed -- if somebody claims they're going to do me harm, the game's on.

    In much of the world, folks are more "civilized" and words are assumed to be without power or effect. This seems odd to me, considering verbal threads precede physical violence in the vast majority of cases. I haven't read this girls blog previously, but she seems like an articulate, intelligent and generous human being. She shouldn't have to live in fear for her life because some misogynistic cretin wants to threaten her well-being, and free speech was never intended to allow this level of vulgar attack on another human being.

    Many years ago, I taught public schools in an area with very serious Latin gang problems. Because I speak fluent Spanish, many of my students were gang-involved. I remember taking one angry young man to the office, after he punched a 14 year-old girl in the face for giggles. He kept jerking away and feinting punches at me, calling me every name in the book. Then he said he'd make a call, and by the time I got home, my family would be dead, but that they'd make sure to take some extra time with my wife. What he didn't know was that, at the time, I'd been in martial arts for 14 years. So, here's a credible threat, from a violent young man, who has means and opportunity to carry it out.

    Ask yourselves -- is this protected speech? I very seriously considered killing the young man then and there, before he could make a phone call. I'm sure I could have made it look accidental. If I had to make the decision again, I probably would have killed him -- I was too young to know how likely it was that his threat would be carried out by his gang buddies. In my opinion, free speech needs to have limits. Call me ugly, stupid, ignorant or whatever, fine, that's free speech. I'm all grown up, and I can take it. Issue a credible threat of violence against me or mine, and I'll bury you along with your "free speech".
    • acceptab1euname, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Word - more people need to digg this up. A person's right to be physically safe and sound ENDS completely and immediately the instant they attempt to violate my or mine's rights to be physically safe. Do the 'civilized' folks honestly expect somebody who's been credibly threatened to *wait* until the person making the threat actually begins to carry it out before they take steps to protect themselves? If somebody makes a serious threat, it's pretty ***** clear what their intentions are -- they've just announced them to you. Thank God for "no duty to retreat" laws.

      Personally, I think that young man from your anecdote could have used a good headfirst "stumble and fall" down a few flights of stairs. Let him act like a 'gangster' from the comfort of an open casket. There is an ABSOLUTE DIFFERENCE between speaking freely without fear of government censorship and using speech to threaten the safety of another person. Death threats have NEVER been 'free speech'.
    • aukxsona, on 10/12/2007, -2/+2I don't agree. Let him talk all he wants. Cops never did anything about it before. They would always say we can't do anything except tell him to knock it off unless he specifies when, how, where, with what, and why he's plans to do X. Even this didn't get a restraining order! (In my personal issue)

      I had to get my ass beat a couple times before I got a restraining order...or a cop to take a threat seriously. Do these people have criminal records? Violent histories? If not the cops won't take him for real. They shouldn't automatically. But she should.

      I don't think it's a joke. I don't think they should do what they've done. I do think he should take it seriously and get a restraining order. This way if the person is 500 ft from her they are automatically arrested. No they don't go to jail for threats, but this means she is protected because of those threats. A little at least.
  • engtech, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3BBC on the story: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/technology/6499095.stm
  • bobfoster, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3Personally, I'm wondering whether the FBI might have jurisdiction in a case like this?
  • spamdragon, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2@deflatormouse
    This is my response to: "The misogyny has got to go? Death threats and personal attacks are only wrong when they're done against females?"

    Death threats are not now, nor have they ever been, free and protected speech. And IMO death threats and personal attacks are wrong, regardless of the gender of the person they are directed at. That being said, I would have to be in a state of denial not to take notice the prevalence of misogyny in the cyber world as evidenced by the sexual innuendos directed by males at female IT workers that I witness every day.

    Rampant misogyny is found in the "catch-me-if -you-can" zone of cyber space. Here I have witnessed many underdeveloped men (boys) who do use the banner of "free speech" to violate others. Worse of all I have witnessed "enablers" who minimize the abusive, threatening and sexually orientated words of their "brothers" thereby creating a comfort zone for them to continue abusing others in.

    Kathy's situation is a wake up call. Come out a state of denial and answer the call. B and C list bloggers threatened to violate her and take her life. That cannot be sanctioned or minimized. We bloggers need to say NO! to this NOW.
  • Tweekster, on 10/12/2007, -1/+3What blogging community?

    There is no "community" there are thousands of tiny groups of blogs and that is about it. Blogs are a means of expression, not the end that make up a community
  • flic, on 10/12/2007, -4/+0NOW THERE'S A KATHY SIERRA POLL! [via http://balloonballoon.blogspot.com]
  • Oigen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+1death threats should be punished. period.
  • amybro, on 10/12/2007, -0/+0Has anyone considered using the new IMBRA law as a precedent to regulating men's communication on blogs and the Internet in general? That is exactly what IMBRA does and it has been upheld by a federal judge. IMBRA does not permit American men to communicate, by email or any other means, with foreign women (can't even say "hello") unless he completes a lengthy form and submits very personal background information. Then she must (even if she does not want to) read it and sign that she read it and send it back before he can send her an email.

    So if IMBRA can set conditions for speech just to say "hi" to someone in a friendly way, why can't there be a law that somehow restricts men from making unfriendly and threatening communication on blogs?
  • Cogita, on 10/11/2007, -0/+0Wow! A bit arrogant, I think.
  • mikehartor, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Good. I'm surprised. http://coffeepages.blogspot.com
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.