Censorship, free speech and anonymity; on the forum and in real life

[chillzero]

I want to address a serious topic here that relates to many of the members specifically in this forum. I shall point out a few things right now:
- It has been discussed among the mod team on a few occasions, and some matters raised to the JREF for attention
- I have evidence of the truth of several matters I mention here
- I will try not to name names so do not try to draw them out of me
- Anyone wishing to anonymously add information can do so through me in complete confidence (obviously I prefer if any evidence can be included)

Rules for this thread:
- If I deem it necessary to counter anyone lying about their own participation in these matters, I will then name names
- If this thread becomes at all disruptive, I hold the right to lock it, or set it on moderated status without notice
- I will be strict about content:- off topic or uncivil content will be removed without notice and may be deleted (not sent to AAH where it's still visible)
- Please refrain from making your own accusations against anyone, unless you have evidence, and can do so without flame baiting
- I want this thread to remain completely on topic and civil. I feel it is an important matter that you all need to be aware of.

Now - to the matters at hand.
In the past year or more that I've been a moderator, I have been made aware of the baser side of some people's natures, and it is beginning to surprise me less, although always disappoints me when a person undertakes an action to intimidate others into silence. We in the mod team strive to strike a balance where people can feel able to express their opinions and discuss topics with as much freedom as possible under the Membership Agreement; which I feel is reasonably open. We are always angered to see anyone resort to bully tactics and intimidation. We completely disagree that some members should feel unable to post due to pressure from, or personal avoidance of attracting attention from, any other member. Obviously we can address this if it occurs on the forum. However, the reason I need you all to pay attention to this thread is that these bully tactics are not always restricted to the forum.

Some people who use this forum do not take well to having their opinion challenged, and their claims refuted. They will then endeavour to find the real world identity of members who have successfully challenged them. Sometimes they will start reporting people repeatedly, demanding that we remove allegedly libellous comments, or put a stop to what they perceive as personal attacks (which on investigation are clearly just embarrassing debunkings which they want removed). We all saw this in the case of George of the Corn Gods. Unfortunately, he is not the only person to stoop to these tactics. Nor is he the only person to make threats of legal action against other members when the mod team disagree with their interpretation of posts. I have been involved with several members via PM discussing events in their real lives which I initially found shocking, and now find alarming in that they were not one-off events, or even from one single member.

Some of your fellow members have been phoned at their homes and subjected to aggressive calls.
Some of your fellow members have received threats of physical violence against them.
Some of your fellow members have had letters sent to their homes threatening legal action for slander and/or libel.
Some of your fellow members have had demands for retribution made to their employers, regarding forum activity outside work hours.
Some of your fellow countrymen have been phoned up out of the blue by complete strangers trying to track down forum members for malicious purposes.

In summary, sometimes I see mockery here over people's anonymity, as if it makes them cowards for hiding behind an internet persona. I say, please keep that anonymity and treasure it. If your points are clear and correct, they will stand on their own without anyone needing to know who you are.

You are not the only anonymous person - the person reading your post is also anonymous, and they may be one of the people I mention above. So please be aware that your tone may have repercussions you don't expect. If you offend someone, you may become the next target. Please work with the mod team on these matters, we will do our best to advise and support you in complete confidence. At the very least, please let us know of any legal threats, so we can alert the JREF to potential problems.

Please do not use the forum to retaliate.

Thank you for your attention.

umm….
"Sleep well, and don't have nightmares."
(Nick Ross, Crimewatch)

[Praktik]

ISome of your fellow members have been phoned at their homes and subjected to aggressive calls.
Some of your fellow members have received threats of physical violence against them.
Some of your fellow members have had letters sent to their homes threatening legal action for slander and/or libel.
Some of your fellow members have had demands for retribution made to their employers, regarding forum activity outside work hours.
Some of your fellow countrymen have been phoned up out of the blue by complete strangers trying to track down forum members for malicious purposes.

Holy cow! Newer member here and one who does not participate for long periods at a time, but I'm actually very surprised that debates ended up with such real world consequences.

Getting a lawyer to write up a letter because you feel libelled by an internet post?

That's pretty astounding.

I guess I've been insulated - though I will say that one of my periods of non-participation here was kicked off after feeling a little too much frustration at the way I was treated in the politics room.

Maybe we should be more active in enforcing periods of exile for the worst offenders? Just cooling it for a while works wonders..;)

[gtc]

It isn't entirely clear what sort of discussion you were hoping to start but I have a comment about this part:

Some of your fellow members have had letters sent to their homes threatening legal action for slander and/or libel.

I believe that material posted on the internet could be found to be defamatory and having an anonymous username would not provide much protection.

[chillzero]

It isn't entirely clear what sort of discussion you were hoping to start but I have a comment about this part:



I believe that material posted on the internet could be found to be defamatory and having an anonymous username would not provide much protection.

gtc,
I think you have taken a different approach to this than I intended. I do not mean to imply that anonymity is a complete protection. I just want people to be aware that there are potential consequences to things they post. Their anonymity may not protect them, but I would like everyone to maintain as much of it as possible for as long possible. Why make it easier for some nutcase to track you down and try to hurt you?

[Darat]

As the internet becomes more and more part of everybody's life it becomes more like every other area of life. People have for a very long time been using bully-boy tactics to try and silence people so it isn't really surprising that we see the small minded and nasty folk using the same tactics in the internet world.

(Conversely there is also the rather curious attitude that pervades the web that issues of legality are by some miraculous act somehow held in abeyance because it's "on the web".)

(As Admin: ) We will of course always do what we can to not allow such intimidation to be used here but we can of course do nothing about what happens in the real-world.

[technoextreme]

Some of your fellow members have been phoned at their homes and subjected to aggressive calls.
Some of your fellow members have received threats of physical violence against them.
Some of your fellow members have had letters sent to their homes threatening legal action for slander and/or libel.
Some of your fellow members have had demands for retribution made to their employers, regarding forum activity outside work hours.
Some of your fellow countrymen have been phoned up out of the blue by complete strangers trying to track down forum members for malicious purposes.

I would not be surprised that all of this was due to people who primarily post in the 9/11 forum. In fact Im fairly certain that some of these events are public if one were to search the forum.

[gtc]

gtc,
I think you have taken a different approach to this than I intended. I do not mean to imply that anonymity is a complete protection. I just want people to be aware that there are potential consequences to things they post. Their anonymity may not protect them, but I would like everyone to maintain as much of it as possible for as long possible. Why make it easier for some nutcase to track you down and try to hurt you?

That's true. Anonymity can give you some protection from the nutcases.

[chillzero]

I would not be surprised that all of this was due to people who primarily post in the 9/11 forum. In fact Im fairly certain that some of these events are public if one were to search the forum.

Yes.
We discussed behind the scenes where to place this, and agreed on the (pre-split) CT forum since this is where emotions appear to run highest in this regard. I may also post a link to this thread in the 911 section - I'm not sure how many of the guys 'venture out' of the box. :boxedin:

[Darat]

gtc,
I think you have taken a different approach to this than I intended. I do not mean to imply that anonymity is a complete protection. I just want people to be aware that there are potential consequences to things they post. Their anonymity may not protect them, but I would like everyone to maintain as much of it as possible for as long possible. Why make it easier for some nutcase to track you down and try to hurt you?

But you have to keep in mind that anonymity does not mean that you do not have to abide by the law - see my comment above! If you (in the legal sense) defame someone you are breaking the law whether you are anonymous or not.

(ETA: Hit reply too soon)

I have a disagreement with how you put the "I would like everyone to maintain as much of it as possible for as long possible." I don't agree with this as what I think we all have to be mindful of is not assuming that an anonymous user-name on a forum is truly anonymous and therefore in a sense it doesn't matter what we post (as long as it is legal).

I think what we should all be mindful of is that, just because this is the internet, it is no different than any other aspect of our life - what we say here can have repercussions, it is not without potential consequences (both negative and positive).

[sphenisc]

Can you quantify some of the "Some"s?

[chillzero]

Again, I am not making any claims about whether or not anonymity is true anonymity or not, or if it gives you licence to do what you like without thought for repercussions. But you cannot deny there is a difference between a member like Mark Roberts, and one like, say, gtc who I know nothing about.

I feel this is straying from the serious point I am trying to make.

To use a known example that has been publicly disucssed here before: when a member decided to threaten Mark Roberts, and announced they were coming to meet him and do some damage, they did not have to do much work to find out who he is, and where to find him. Whether it transpired or not is irrelevant. Whether the guy was insane or not is also irrelevant and not something that could be judged over the web. The point is that such a threat may have been delayed, or never undertaken if there was more effort involved in finding out who Gravy is.
Other threats have been followed up on, and that is the message I am trying to get across. Be aware that your words have consequences, and that you may need to face them someday.

[chillzero]

Can you quantify some of the "Some"s?

I will not. I fail to see the relevance. One member facing an attempt to intimidate them into silence is too many.

[sphenisc]

I will not. I fail to see the relevance. One member facing an attempt to intimidate them into silence is too many.

Fine, but if you're not willing to quantify the risk then you are less likely to persuade people to take it seriously.

[Almo]

Fine, but if you're not willing to quantify the risk then you are less likely to persuade people to take it seriously.

I disagree. Just the points listed in the OP are enough for me to take it seriously.

[jmercer]

For the record, anonymity on the internet is largely an illusion. In order to achieve complete anonymity, you have to only visit sites that:

A) Do not require registration information
B) Do not record your ip address and other information when you connect - something you won't really be able to tell from your end.

Good luck with B. :D

I'm not a lawyer, but I'm pretty sure that if someone wants to make a issue out of an internet interaction and is willing to pursue it legally, any organization (at least, in the US) can be forced by the courts to release whatever information they have on the identity of the person being sought. If all they get out of that is the IP(s) you've been using (like the record companies did when they were going after illegal download activity), they can then identify who your internet service provider is, contact them, and get the ISP to identify who you are in real life. (Again, this is how the record companies went after people during that ridiculous overreaction to music piracy they had.)

Fine, but if you're not willing to quantify the risk then you are less likely to persuade people to take it seriously.

Regarding identifying people from the forums who have been harassed? Easy enough to do for the more public figures whom have already disclosed their encounters. :)

James Randi and The JREF have been dealing with these tactics against them for years, so they're the prime example; Mark Roberts has already been pointed out; Robert Lancaster has also recounted his fair share of incidents as well. (In fact, he was harassed just after TAM 6 by Sylvia Browne herself, who sic'ed casino security on him for having the temerity to show up at her show and actually ask a question. Go to www.stopsylviabrowne.com (http://www.stopsylviabrowne.com) to read the entire story. Believe me, it's well worth reading. :))

And let's not forget the recent George "E.T. Corn Gods" Simpson episode, where he named most of the moderators and some members (including a few that had never even interacted with him!) in a lawsuit against The JREF and the named co-defendants. The suit was eventually withdrawn by him (gee, I wonder why?) - but not before The JREF attorneys were involved and money was spent. I certainly didn't lose any sleep over it as one of the (privileged!) few named... but I took it seriously.

There have been some here who were (and are) outspoken against homeopathy that were forced to cease revealing the truth by bullying. And there are even more examples, but out of respect for their privacy, I won't disclose their names. They may choose to come forward here and tell their stories if they wish.

There's a reason we admire these folks - it's because they stand out and are brave enough to take the risks in order to speak the truth. But understanding the risks is kind of important. :)

[chillzero]

Fine, but if you're not willing to quantify the risk then you are less likely to persuade people to take it seriously.

Why?
Perhaps some of that comes down to whether you are willing to accept my word or not. However, it's not just my word. I explained in the OP that some of this has been discussed with the mod team. Also I made it clear in the OP that I won't be drawn on giving names. jmercer has touched on some of that (thank you for that post).

I disagree. Just the points listed in the OP are enough for me to take it seriously.

Thank you.

I should not be saying anything particularly surprising to most rational and sensible thinkers - if you upset people, they may seek revenge. If you use the web, you may attract nutcases. If you make a stand for or against anything you put yourself up for criticism, and if you criticise others they may not respond well.

All I am trying to emphasise here is that some members here are seeing actual real life impact from the mere fact that they stated an opinion on an internet forum that someone else disagreed with. I watch some members in threads goad others about 'hiding' behind an internet persona. I watch others laugh and mock various groups for their perceived insanity or likelihood to turn to violence. I think they should realise that mockery may not be the best way to address the situation. They may find, due to even relatively inocuous posts that happen to disagree with some of these people, that their employers are asked to terminate their employment, that licence boards are asked to revoke their ability to practice, that they may answer the phone or (hopefully not) the door to some of these people in real life. Some people have no sense of proportion, and it shouldn't be summarily dismissed.

[~enigma~]

that their employers are asked to terminate their employment.
No problem with your post but one point of contention. Can't speak for the others here but if my employer terminated my employment because I made fun of an idiot truther online under my screenname and not as a representative of my employer, I would say thank you I need a new job and shouldn't have been here in the first place.

[kookbreaker]

Getting a lawyer to write up a letter because you feel libelled by an internet post?


It not needed to use a lawyer. Many cranks are more than happy to type up what must seem to their eyes some sufficient legalese to threaten folks or submit to courts.

A fine exampe of this was USENET astrologer kook Pete Stapleton. (http://groups.google.com/group/alt.astrology/msg/ef18e151254b36ab)

[jmercer]

No problem with your post but one point of contention. Can't speak for the others here but if my employer terminated my employment because I made fun of an idiot truther online under my screenname and not as a representative of my employer, I would say thank you I need a new job and shouldn't have been here in the first place.

It takes me (on the average) 10 to 12 months to find a new job once I start looking... but for some strange reason, the bills keep coming in!

For some, it may be a trivial consideration. For others? In the words of Borat... "Not so much."

[Grizzly Bear]

All I am trying to emphasise here is that some members here are seeing actual real life impact from the mere fact that they stated an opinion on an internet forum that someone else disagreed with. I watch some members in threads goad others about 'hiding' behind an internet persona. I watch others laugh and mock various groups for their perceived insanity or likelihood to turn to violence. I think they should realise that mockery may not be the best way to address the situation. They may find, due to even relatively inocuous posts that happen to disagree with some of these people, that their employers are asked to terminate their employment, that licence boards are asked to revoke their ability to practice, that they may answer the phone or (hopefully not) the door to some of these people in real life. Some people have no sense of proportion, and it shouldn't be summarily dismissed.

Things like the events that you brought are the reason why I don't put any useful information in any of my forum profiles, or for that matter in myspace or facebook... Nor do I join sites which I seriously don't trust... This is the first I've heard of these happening to members of a forum I'm active at, but it doesn't seem to surprise me, since I get a number of the same threats on youtube by other internet nuts.

[Billdave2]

No problem with your post but one point of contention. Can't speak for the others here but if my employer terminated my employment because I made fun of an idiot truther online under my screenname and not as a representative of my employer, I would say thank you I need a new job and shouldn't have been here in the first place.

I suspect the local labor board would be very interested if that was the stateted reason for your termination.

[RedIbis]

Why?
Perhaps some of that comes down to whether you are willing to accept my word or not. However, it's not just my word. I explained in the OP that some of this has been discussed with the mod team. Also I made it clear in the OP that I won't be drawn on giving names. jmercer has touched on some of that (thank you for that post).



Thank you.

I should not be saying anything particularly surprising to most rational and sensible thinkers - if you upset people, they may seek revenge. If you use the web, you may attract nutcases. If you make a stand for or against anything you put yourself up for criticism, and if you criticise others they may not respond well.

All I am trying to emphasise here is that some members here are seeing actual real life impact from the mere fact that they stated an opinion on an internet forum that someone else disagreed with. I watch some members in threads goad others about 'hiding' behind an internet persona. I watch others laugh and mock various groups for their perceived insanity or likelihood to turn to violence. I think they should realise that mockery may not be the best way to address the situation. They may find, due to even relatively inocuous posts that happen to disagree with some of these people, that their employers are asked to terminate their employment, that licence boards are asked to revoke their ability to practice, that they may answer the phone or (hopefully not) the door to some of these people in real life. Some people have no sense of proportion, and it shouldn't be summarily dismissed.

If I can ask an honest question. I will understand if you choose not to answer. First, I think it sucks when anyone is contacted in his/her private life. I won't restate it because you already said it best, we should be debating the argument, not attacking an individual who has a right to his/her privacy.

To the point: is the irresponsible behavior coming from the "truther" side or is it evenly distributed to include the "skeptic" side, for lack of better terms?

I ask this because I think the tendency (and I might even include myself in this group) is to think that intrusions are coming from "truthers." However, we have seen irresponsible behavior in attacks against "truthers," as well, right?

[chillzero]

No problem with your post but one point of contention. Can't speak for the others here but if my employer terminated my employment because I made fun of an idiot truther online under my screenname and not as a representative of my employer, I would say thank you I need a new job and shouldn't have been here in the first place.

Oh, I'm with you on that about crappy employers.... however .... some people cannot afford to take the chance.

Anyway, even if your employer laughed it off and did nothing to you, do you really want your personal life dragged into the office like that? Want to be the work joke with the sicko stalker? More seriously for some - want your employer looking into when you use the forum?

[jmercer]

I suspect the local labor board would be very interested if that was the stateted reason for your termination.

Depends on what agreements you sign. I've worked for two non-profits that made me sign papers stating that if I did or said anything to embarrass them or harm their reputation on or off working hours, they could terminate me immediately with no recourse.

[chillzero]

If I can ask an honest question. I will understand if you choose not to answer. First, I think it sucks when anyone is contacted in his/her private life. I won't restate it because you already said it best, we should be debating the argument, not attacking an individual who has a right to his/her privacy.

To the point: is the irresponsible behavior coming from the "truther" side or is it evenly distributed to include the "skeptic" side, for lack of better terms?

I ask this because I think the tendency (and I might even include myself in this group) is to think that intrusions are coming from "truthers." However, we have seen irresponsible behavior in attacks against "truthers," as well, right?

I'm not getting drawn into any "they started it" or "they're worse than us" situaion, and any such discussion will be removed as off topic. I think it's an irrelevant distinction, and for that reason deliberately avoided any mention of groupings in my OP. People can and will draw hteir own conclusions regardless of what I say in this regard anyway. However, it doesn't change the overall message which side(s) do what.

[Myriad]

If I can ask an honest question. I will understand if you choose not to answer. First, I think it sucks when anyone is contacted in his/her private life. I won't restate it because you already said it best, we should be debating the argument, not attacking an individual who has a right to his/her privacy.

To the point: is the irresponsible behavior coming from the "truther" side or is it evenly distributed to include the "skeptic" side, for lack of better terms?

I ask this because I think the tendency (and I might even include myself in this group) is to think that intrusions are coming from "truthers." However, we have seen irresponsible behavior in attacks against "truthers," as well, right?


That's an interesting question, RedIbis, though I won't be surprised if the mod team declines to answer it. The principle here is that a degree of risk exists for everyone, regardless of past track records.

Most of the irresponsible real-world actions against Truthers that I've been made aware of have not been done by JREF forum members. But of course, what you post here is viewable by members and non-members alike.

Also, people will disagree on what is and is not irresponsible. I have twice alerted law enforcement authorities to posts that were made here (in both cases by Truthers, though that was incidental); one who claimed to be a member of a terrorist organization and another who clearly implied that he (or she) was planning violent action. In both cases, all I did was report to authorities what the person had posted -- essentially, repeating information that was already public. I made no accusations of my own, made no attempt to determine the poster's identity or contact them directly, and did not attempt any follow-up. However, I can see how some people might consider those reports an attempt to harass those individuals for speaking their minds. I don't think that's the case, but it underscores the general point about the possibility for posts to have real-world consequences.

Respectfully,
Myriad

[Brainster]

Some of us don't have the anonymity option; we've become too well known. The real problem isn't lack of anonymity, it's that some people abuse personal information once it becomes known. However, I can understand from a forum management standpoint that one way to reduce the frequency of these incidents is to maintain anonymity as much as possible.

[Billdave2]

Depends on what agreements you sign. I've worked for two non-profits that made me sign papers stating that if I did or said anything to embarrass them or harm their reputation on or off working hours, they could terminate me immediately with no recourse.

I work in a right to work state (which ironically also means right to fire) and as a saleried employee can be terminated at any time. The difference is if it is without cause, I get to collect unemployeemnet immediatly. I would think in the case you are talking about (embarassing a non-profit) I would make them publically state that I embarassed them by not believing in 9/11 conspiracy. :D

I agree with the OP. I have no desire to deal with arguments online to come into my actual life. If I wanted to actually argue I would go to a bar.

[16.5]

RedIbis:

I think if you read the thread you would see that the most notorious person referenced was neither a Truther or "Debunker."

That being said, there is a fairly silly group of Twoofers out there (the CIT) who usually respond to another devastating deconstruction of their ridiculous theory by calling us a "super secret anonymous armchair" debunker.

Which of course is simply an ad hom fallacy (attacking the "anonymous" person rather than the argument). The CIT is notorious for doing that, and given the anger control issues of certain of their members, you'll forgive me if I don't tell anyone who i am if I can avoid it.

[RedIbis]

I'm not getting drawn into any "they started it" or "they're worse than us" situaion, and any such discussion will be removed as off topic. I think it's an irrelevant distinction, and for that reason deliberately avoided any mention of groupings in my OP. People can and will draw hteir own conclusions regardless of what I say in this regard anyway. However, it doesn't change the overall message which side(s) do what.

Fair enough.

[RedIbis]

RedIbis:

you'll forgive me if I don't tell anyone who i am if I can avoid it.

You don't need my forgiveness. You won't find anyone here more interested in protecting my privacy, as well as anyone else's.

Part of the reason an internet based forum, such as jref, can be so productive is because posters have some level of anonymity(sp?). It's an odd form of digital democracy that allows many voices to be heard, regardless of perspective, social class, orign, etc etc.

[Hokulele]

I have only a couple of quibbles with the otherwise excellent OP.

You are not the only anonymous person - the person reading your post is also anonymous, and they may be one of the people I mention above. So please be aware that your tone may have repercussions you don't expect. If you offend someone, you may become the next target. Please work with the mod team on these matters, we will do our best to advise and support you in complete confidence. At the very least, please let us know of any legal threats, so we can alert the JREF to potential problems.


This paragraph gives me a little bit of concern. Although I don't think I have been involved in anything like this in the CT areas, I can think of one or two people in R&P who may have taken, erm, exception to a few of my comments.

My concern is that the forum makes it clear that anything posted is the opinion of the poster, not of the JREF or anyone else. By stating that you wish people to alert the moderating team to potential legal threats with the intention of alerting the Foundation, it does seem to create a link where none should exist. Please note, IANAL, so this may already have been discussed and dealt with, in which case, disregard.

Please do not use the forum to retaliate.


I think you have set the moderating team up for some serious headaches with this comment. As you noted in the OP, there are many people who see any kind of disagreement as retaliation. By explicitly stating that you do not wish to see the forum used this way, those people will most likely be even more inclined to report any type of negative response as "retaliation", causing even more work for the team.

[sphenisc]

Fine, but if you're not willing to quantify the risk then you are less likely to persuade people to take it seriously.
Why?


Inertia, people tend to continue with the habits they already have unless a good reason is provided to change them. If a risk is unquantified then individuals are likely to attempt to estimate the risk based on their previous experience. The people who have been careless about their anonymity in the past without experiencing any ill effect will be inclined to rate the risk as "quite low", yet this the very group whose behaviour you wish to alter. [The others will either already be careful about remaining anonymous from "education", personal inclination or previous (bad) experience.]
If the you wish to persuade people that their evaluation of risk based on personal experience is wrong, then providing basic statistics which support the claim that the risk is worthy of consideration is more likely to be successful than simply saying "Some".


Perhaps some of that comes down to whether you are willing to accept my word or not. However, it's not just my word. I explained in the OP that some of this has been discussed with the mod team.

Why would you expect anyone on this Forum to take your or the Mod Team's word for it? Nullius in Verba
Secondly, an unwillingness to provide values or even ranges is likely to raise the thought in your average sceptic that they may not support the conclusions drawn - otherwise why withhold them?


Also I made it clear in the OP that I won't be drawn on giving names. jmercer has touched on some of that (thank you for that post).


No names were asked for.




Thank you.

I should not be saying anything particularly surprising to most rational and sensible thinkers - if you upset people, they may seek revenge. If you use the web, you may attract nutcases. If you make a stand for or against anything you put yourself up for criticism, and if you criticise others they may not respond well.


I'm not surprised by the "may", I'd simply like to know "how likely".



All I am trying to emphasise here is that some members here are seeing actual real life impact from the mere fact that they stated an opinion on an internet forum that someone else disagreed with. I watch some members in threads goad others about 'hiding' behind an internet persona. I watch others laugh and mock various groups for their perceived insanity or likelihood to turn to violence. I think they should realise that mockery may not be the best way to address the situation. They may find, due to even relatively inocuous posts that happen to disagree with some of these people, that their employers are asked to terminate their employment, that licence boards are asked to revoke their ability to practice, that they may answer the phone or (hopefully not) the door to some of these people in real life.

All I want is to know is "How many".


Some people have no sense of proportion, and it shouldn't be summarily dismissed.

Some people do have a sense of proportions, and we don't like being summarily dismissed. :)

[chillzero]

I have only a couple of quibbles with the otherwise excellent OP.




This paragraph gives me a little bit of concern. Although I don't think I have been involved in anything like this in the CT areas, I can think of one or two people in R&P who may have taken, erm, exception to a few of my comments.

My concern is that the forum makes it clear that anything posted is the opinion of the poster, not of the JREF or anyone else. By stating that you wish people to alert the moderating team to potential legal threats with the intention of alerting the Foundation, it does seem to create a link where none should exist. Please note, IANAL, so this may already have been discussed and dealt with, in which case, disregard.

You are correct - anything posted is the opinion of the poster, not of the JREF or anyone else. However, we do not wish people to flounder under threats without support. We also feel that the JREF should be alerted to potential legal action if possible. Who would have realised that George of the Corn Gods would have acted as he did. He used the forum as somewhere to source his bones of contention, and as a medium to pursue his agenda. It's those sorts of situations I mean. Also, I have been alerted to such matters by members who wish to keep us informed in case the 'attacking' member happens to start making their vendetta more public on the forum. We appreciate being kept in the loop. We try to support and advise when any member feels threatened, or wants advice on how/if they should or more often should not respond via the forum.


I think you have set the moderating team up for some serious headaches with this comment. As you noted in the OP, there are many people who see any kind of disagreement as retaliation. By explicitly stating that you do not wish to see the forum used this way, those people will most likely be even more inclined to report any type of negative response as "retaliation", causing even more work for the team.

You may be correct. I don't know - I guess we'll find out in time. However, we see these kinds of posts and reports already.

[chillzero]

Inertia, people tend to continue with the habits they already have unless a good reason is provided to change them. If a risk is unquantified then individuals are likely to attempt to estimate the risk based on their previous experience. The people who have been careless about their anonymity in the past without experiencing any ill effect will be inclined to rate the risk as "quite low", yet this the very group whose behaviour you wish to alter. [The others will either already be careful about remaining anonymous from "education", personal inclination or previous (bad) experience.]
If the you wish to persuade people that their evaluation of risk based on personal experience is wrong, then providing basic statistics which support the claim that the risk is worthy of consideration is more likely to be successful than simply saying "Some".

I can only do so much. People will either take the advice on board, or they won't. Another part of this thread is to let them know how to respond should it occur.


Why would you expect anyone on this Forum to take your or the Mod Team's word for it? Nullius in Verba
Secondly, an unwillingness to provide values or even ranges is likely to raise the thought in your average sceptic that they may not support the conclusions drawn - otherwise why withhold them?

That's all fair enough. I would hope that people feel I've been honest and straightforward enough in the past that I can be trusted to advise them to the best of my ability. I disagree with you as to the relevance of the finer details.

No names were asked for.





I'm not surprised by the "may", I'd simply like to know "how likely".



All I want is to know is "How many".


I am unconvinced of the relevance of my giving out some numbers as opposed to not doing so. As I said earlier, one person feeling threatened to silence is too many. I also cannot quantify members who have not contacted me personally.

Some people do have a sense of proportions, and we don't like being summarily dismissed. :)

I didn't think my response was a summary dismissal. I tried to address your point fully. I'm sorry you feel otherwise.

To clarify - the people I meant who have no sense of proportions are the sort of people who feel that someone who disagrees with their viewpoint on a forum deserves to be harassed, disciplined, fired, or physically attacked for that.

[T.A.M.]

You don't need my forgiveness. You won't find anyone here more interested in protecting my privacy, as well as anyone else's.

Part of the reason an internet based forum, such as jref, can be so productive is because posters have some level of anonymity(sp?). It's an odd form of digital democracy that allows many voices to be heard, regardless of perspective, social class, orign, etc etc.

Well said.

I keep my anonymity for a number of reasons, but certainly one of them relates to the threats I have seen levied against Mark Roberts and others. It also has to do with protecting my family and my practice.

I also agree that one should never assume that the degree of anonymity afforded here on the JREF is to be used as license to say what you want about whom you want.

TAM:)

[jmercer]

Why would you expect anyone on this Forum to take your or the Mod Team's word for it? Nullius in Verba

Why would we not expect this? Are we particularly untrustworthy in your eyes?

Secondly, an unwillingness to provide values or even ranges is likely to raise the thought in your average sceptic that they may not support the conclusions drawn - otherwise why withhold them?

"Unwillingess" suggests that such information has been gathered, but is behing withheld... a bit of a strawman there.

Also, even though you've called for statistics, you've failed to explain why statistics are necessary to support a discussion of these events when there are public examples available. There can be no doubt that these actions take place, and therefore -for the purposes of this discussion - statistical likelihood is irrelevant.

No names were asked for.

Perhaps not - but they were given; and as such, provide direct evidence supporting the OP. If you wish to challenge what these examples represent, by all means, do so. However, there's no point in derailing the discussion by demanding figures to validate something that is essentially self-evident.

The public examples are available for anyone to review and determine the validity regarding the OP, and that (IMO) is sufficient for purposes of this dialog.


I'm not surprised by the "may", I'd simply like to know "how likely".

How likely are you to be struck by lightning, or attacked by a shark? The statistics are available, of course... however, all most people need to know is that it happens. With such knowledge, some become more cautious when in a thunderstorm or when swimming in the ocean.

The OP isn't about analyzing the frequency or likelyhood of these events - it's about bringing awareness to people that such events really happen, and discussing the potential impact of them on the victims when they do.

All I want is to know is "How many".

I got that. :) Feel free to start compiling the information. Since nobody is making a claim about frequency of the events then I suppose you should pursue it if you think it has a bearing on this discussion.

There's no requirement that anyone else to do it for you, though - and chillzero never suggested she had stats to provide, anyway.

Check the sources I've given - I'm sure any of them will be willing to tell you of the incidents they've had. You can also publicly ask the more private folks here to contribute to your data compilation, if they feel secure in doing so.

When you've got enough to reach a conclusion, then please comment on it. I'm sure that it will generate an excellent discussion.


Some people do have a sense of proportions

As I said - the discussion isn't about frequency - it's about the fact that it happens.

and we don't like being summarily dismissed. :)

And as soon as that happens, I'll be very sympathetic toward you about it. :D

[Mr.D]

To clarify - the people I meant who have no sense of proportions are the sort of people who feel that someone who disagrees with their viewpoint on a forum deserves to be harassed, disciplined, fired, or physically attacked for that.


It's probably worth noting that the apparent/relative anonymity of the internet works the other way around too. On occasion some of those people you mention (even going back to the pre-web internet) above have been emboldened by not having to face their target face-to-face in order to retaliate in real life.

And some of their targets have had to face real life consequences - court time and lawyers fees spent on nuisance lawsuits that are dropped or dismissed are nevertheless real time and real money.

9/11 conspiracy (my original entrance here) has for me devolved into a kind of silly diversion, and I generally treat my participation as such, but it is entirely worth keeping in the back of my mind that for some people, it (or bigfoot, homeopathy, NWO etc) is a serious - even life consuming subject.

So thank you chillzero for opening up this topic and letting me know that this forum is not immune from the nastiness - I have exactly zero desire to have my personal life affected in such a way, so I should reduce the probablity by not personalizing things too much.

[jj]

Some of your fellow members have been phoned at their homes and subjected to aggressive calls.
Some of your fellow members have received threats of physical violence against them.
Some of your fellow members have had letters sent to their homes threatening legal action for slander and/or libel.
Some of your fellow members have had demands for retribution made to their employers, regarding forum activity outside work hours.
Some of your fellow countrymen have been phoned up out of the blue by complete strangers trying to track down forum members for malicious purposes


For some of us, it's way, way to late to be anonymous, for me it was too late about 20 years before this forum existed.

But,yes, Chillzero has a good set of points:

I have recieved harrassing phone calls regarding skeptical statements and issues. You can add the "physical violence" in those calls.

I have not personally recieved a letter threatening legal action, but one of my prior employers has regarding statements I've made in my field of expertise. (The legal department's question to me was "what do you want us to do with this jerk" fortunately.)

Obviously, people have attempted to get my employer to do something, sometimes with success, and sometimes counter to their success.

I don't recall any of the last line from the OP.

On the other hand, you can add "being accused of fraud/malice/incompentence to one's professional organizations", being pushed, yelled at, and shoved at a technical conference, being told I was "neglecting my children" for not teaching them religion, and so on.

So,yeah, if you are anonymous, maybe you want to stay that way.

I do, however, see a very serious downside to allowing anonymous posters, in that people use that position to abuse, insult, libel, slander, etc, people, without what would otherwise be a substantial fear of embarrassment or worse.

I think if I were to start a skeptical forum (no way I would), or a professional audio forum (more likely, but still not very, they are out there already) I would require a public real name for every poster. I think it would keep things on a more civil level. At least one audio board i know of requires a verified real name, and it's the most flame-free I know of.

Anyone who has read rec.audio.opinion or the like knows what happens when people can post without responsibility. And, as I've said to many people from holocaust deniers to troofers to audio nutcases, freedom of speech is NOT freedom from responsibility.

[jj]

Why would you expect anyone on this Forum to take your or the Mod Team's word for it?

Why would you do otherwise?

Or, alternatively, do you dismiss learning from others' experiences?

[Grizzly Bear]

I do, however, see a very serious downside to allowing anonymous posters, in that people use that position to abuse, insult, libel, slander, etc, people, without what would otherwise be a substantial fear of embarrassment or worse.
I disagree with you on parts of that, I don't think that applies to every case mostly because of personal experience. When you're on a forum you assume an identity even if your real one is anonymous. Although being a member of a forum shouldn't really interfere with one's personal life sometimes actions can have the same effect as if you did it in person.

Not to say you're wrong either though... although I think your point manifests far more often than not...

[dudalb]

It's probably worth noting that the apparent/relative anonymity of the internet works the other way around too. On occasion some of those people you mention (even going back to the pre-web internet) above have been emboldened by not having to face their target face-to-face in order to retaliate in real life.

Which is why you have so much bad behavior on the Internet. The idea of "no consequences for what you say" is a double edged sword. It give people freedom, but also means you are going to have a awful lot of horrid behavior.

[leftysergeant]

Personnally, I would welcome any big name twoofer to sue me for defamation. I am a little troubled about how to identify myself to them so that they could find me before legal papers actually made it to the courts. It would be fun to own all of their posessions.

It does sttrike me that some of the threarts and stalkings are a violation of federal communications laws, and perhaps such behavior, rather than just being deleted, should be brought to the attention of Homeland Security. Some of the more hostile theorists also seem to have ties to groups associated with racially-motivated violence, such as National Alliance.

[gumboot]

I really shouldn't be surprised, but in all honestly I am a little shocked. Disagreement tends to be water off a duck's back to me, and it surprises me even in the "real" world when people take such things to heart as some sort of personal affront. It only seems even more odd when it's internet based.

Not for the first time, I'm somewhat glad I live in a small isolated country at the nether regions of the Pacific Ocean, with only a few million fellow kiwis around me.

I wouldn't say that this isolation completely insulates me, but us kiwis tend to be - how should I say it - less invested in our various opinions than Americans seem to be. And given the demographics of the forum, the most fierce debates tend to rage around topics that are dear to Americans and Europeans, and not those dear to New Zealanders. So I feel somewhat secure.

[gtc]

I'm not getting drawn into any "they started it" or "they're worse than us" situaion, and any such discussion will be removed as off topic. I think it's an irrelevant distinction, and for that reason deliberately avoided any mention of groupings in my OP. People can and will draw hteir own conclusions regardless of what I say in this regard anyway. However, it doesn't change the overall message which side(s) do what.

But now J Mercer has brought up specific examples, all of which had skeptics as the victims. It is a reasonable request to ask if it is all a one way street or not and refusing to allow discussion of examples from the other side gives the appearance of bias. Either such examples should be allowed to be presented or you should delete all posts that contain examples.

[jmercer]

But now J Mercer has brought up specific examples, all of which had skeptics as the victims. It is a reasonable request to ask if it is all a one way street or not and refusing to allow discussion of examples from the other side gives the appearance of bias. Either such examples should be allowed to be presented or you should delete all posts that contain examples.

Arrant nonsense.

Nobody is preventing anyone from providing examples or having discussions of any kind here, as long as it's verifiable and on-topic. Your call to excise evidence simply because other evidence hasn't been provided by others is an attempt at censorship, and it won't fly here.

This is an open thread - everyone who wishes to supply additional, pertinent examples of harassment of this nature is invited to do so, regardless of the victim's orientation. And discussions on the evidence presented is most certainly welcome. But you'd better be prepared to have proof of what you claim. :)

[SezMe]

We are always angered to see anyone resort to bully tactics and intimidation.
I'm unsure of what intimidation on an internet forum looks like. Since I know you want to avoid specifics and individuals, could you make up an exchange that you would consider an example of intimidation. I guess the reason I'm asking is that posts are just words on a screen; how can that be intimidating.

Mind you, I am not asking about real life. I understand the concerns you have raised and, like some others, quite taken aback to learn of the real life offshoots of what goes on here.

[applecorped]

Why is it arrant nonsense? You gave one sided examples and were asked to be balanced. Why would consider that point nonsense?

[Rika]

Because both examples he gave were public and talked all through seperate subfora
.

[applecorped]

The question was one of balance and the appearance of bias from a moderator. To be brushed off as nonsense by said moderator does nothing to dissuade the appearance of bias.

[jmercer]

Why is it arrant nonsense? You gave one sided examples and were asked to be balanced. Why would consider that point nonsense?

Because both examples he gave were public and talked all through seperate subfora
.

Rika is exactly correct. My examples are public and verified by multiple witnesses and (in some cases) documentation, which is why I chose them. (They are also common knowledge in this forum.) In addition, gtc implied unfairness by the comment of "refusing to allow discussion of examples from the other side gives the appearance of bias."

I said it then, and I will say it again now - that's arrant nonsense. Nobody is preventing anyone from presenting examples from "the other side", although there seems to be a great and deepening silence in that regard. I (and I'm sure others) eagerly await such examples.

Since you're so concerned about it, applecorped, are you (or anyone else) stepping up to the plate to provide these examples to us? I hope so, because the sound of crickets may be soothing... but it's also boring.

The question was one of balance and the appearance of bias from a moderator. To be brushed off as nonsense by said moderator does nothing to dissuade the appearance of bias.

I am not posting here as a moderator, but as a regular member. When I post as a moderator, I use mod boxes, as do all the moderators - otherwise, we are posting as private members, and we have the same exact rights to express our opinions here as you do. (The exception is in the Management sub-forum, where we are assumed to be posting as moderators unless we specify otherwise.)

No member is compelled in any way to present "the other side of an argument" in any thread, myself included. That task is for whomever chooses to take up the gauntlet of the other side of the argument at hand. In fact, I freely admit I don't know of any examples of "the other side" being harassed by skeptics. Please feel free to share some with us, as long as they're verifiable. :)

If such examples can't be found... well, then. Perhaps they simply don't exist.

[gtc]

The question was one of balance and the appearance of bias from a moderator. To be brushed off as nonsense by said moderator does nothing to dissuade the appearance of bias.

jmercer is clearly mistaken about my comment.

jmercer chose to provide examples that consisted only of skeptics as the victims, I have no problem with this and that is not evidence of bias. The perception of bias comes about from chillzero's threat to remove any discussion of counter examples which would leave the impression that skeptics are victims never perpetrators.

Clearly jmercer and chillzero are not on the same page as jmercer seems to think that counter examples would be acceptable if they were on topic (although God knows what on topic means in the context of this thread).

[jmercer]

jmercer is clearly mistaken about my comment.

jmercer chose to provide examples that consisted only of skeptics as the victims, I have no problem with this and that is not evidence of bias. The perception of bias comes about from chillzero's threat to remove any discussion of counter examples which would leave the impression that skeptics are victims never perpetrators.

Clearly jmercer and chillzero are not on the same page as jmercer seems to think that counter examples would be acceptable if they were on topic (although God knows what on topic means in the context of this thread).

If I'm mistaken, then I apologize.

Please quote the part of the OP that indicates to you that chillzero is threatening to remove any discussion of counter-examples.

[gtc]

No need to apologise, this is the bit that I am talking about:

To the point: is the irresponsible behavior coming from the "truther" side or is it evenly distributed to include the "skeptic" side, for lack of better terms?

I ask this because I think the tendency (and I might even include myself in this group) is to think that intrusions are coming from "truthers." However, we have seen irresponsible behavior in attacks against "truthers," as well, right?

I'm not getting drawn into any "they started it" or "they're worse than us" situaion, and any such discussion will be removed as off topic. I think it's an irrelevant distinction, and for that reason deliberately avoided any mention of groupings in my OP. People can and will draw hteir own conclusions regardless of what I say in this regard anyway. However, it doesn't change the overall message which side(s) do what.

Which seems pretty clear cut to me.

[Piggy]

Some of your fellow members have received threats of physical violence against them.

That ain't no problem for me. Anyone who finds their way to my door is welcome.

Chances are, I'm better armed. ;)

[Cl1mh4224rd]

I do, however, see a very serious downside to allowing anonymous posters, in that people use that position to abuse, insult, libel, slander, etc, people, without what would otherwise be a substantial fear of embarrassment or worse.

I think if I were to start a skeptical forum (no way I would), or a professional audio forum (more likely, but still not very, they are out there already) I would require a public real name for every poster. I think it would keep things on a more civil level. At least one audio board i know of requires a verified real name, and it's the most flame-free I know of.

Anyone who has read rec.audio.opinion or the like knows what happens when people can post without responsibility. And, as I've said to many people from holocaust deniers to troofers to audio nutcases, freedom of speech is NOT freedom from responsibility.


I don't know. I think you may be ignoring the distinction between general ***hattery and genuine "lunacy". Lack of anonymity may cure the former, but not the latter.

Which seems pretty clear cut to me.


The discussion she won't permit, as she clearly states, is of the "they started it" and "they're worse than us" variety. I see nothing in her post denying anyone the option of posting accounts of a "truther" being placed in a similar situation.

Of course, it should be up to that person to reveal such information, if it isn't already public. The staff here isn't going to reveal still-confidential information just to balance out the publicly available information that just happens to fall to one side.

I suspect that you were expecting them to bring up troyfromwv's antics...

[gumboot]

To be honest I'm perplexed by this thread. It seems like it's really just here to notify members to be careful of what they put on a forum. Sensible enough, but what's it doing in Conspiracy Theories? I understand the logic of warning people discussing a particularly emotional topic - 9/11 Conspiracy Theories - but that's an entirely separate subforum. Indeed, as has been demonstrated, the worst (known) cases of this sort of thing had nothing whatsoever to do with Conspiracy Theories. And I'm inclined to think that other areas - such as homeopathy and spirit readers and areas of that nature (whatever you call it) are probably more likely to find this sort of thing happening.

If the concern was that posters in the 9/11 subforum might not notice the thread in another subforum, wouldn't it have made more sense to post this thread in forum management or something similar, and link to it in the 9/11 subforum? After all, you've ended up putting it here and linking to it from the 9/11 subforum anyway...

[LashL]

Some people who use this forum do not take well to having their opinion challenged, and their claims refuted. They will then endeavour to find the real world identity of members who have successfully challenged them. Sometimes they will start reporting people repeatedly, demanding that we remove allegedly libellous comments, or put a stop to what they perceive as personal attacks (which on investigation are clearly just embarrassing debunkings which they want removed). We all saw this in the case of George of the Corn Gods. Unfortunately, he is not the only person to stoop to these tactics. Nor is he the only person to make threats of legal action against other members when the mod team disagree with their interpretation of posts. I have been involved with several members via PM discussing events in their real lives which I initially found shocking, and now find alarming in that they were not one-off events, or even from one single member.

Some of your fellow members have been phoned at their homes and subjected to aggressive calls.
Some of your fellow members have received threats of physical violence against them.
Some of your fellow members have had letters sent to their homes threatening legal action for slander and/or libel.
Some of your fellow members have had demands for retribution made to their employers, regarding forum activity outside work hours.
Some of your fellow countrymen have been phoned up out of the blue by complete strangers trying to track down forum members for malicious purposes.


Not very long ago, I would have been very surprised to learn that there were forum members here who could possibly be so thin-skinned, so petty, and so vindictive as to engage in the myriad behaviours listed above.

Recently, however, a forum member here has engaged in the behaviour bolded by me above.

This poster actually sought out my personal information, sought out my employer, and then wrote to my employer, asking my employer to reprimand me for posting something unflattering (but true) about him on the forum, on my own time, on a weekend, from my own home.

It appears that this particular forum member thinks that he should be immune from criticism on the forum, and he seems to think that if you do criticize him on the forum, it's fair game for him to intrude into your personal and professional life in an attempt to bully and intimidate you into silence.

So, this thread is a timely and welcome warning to all about:

1) the possible ramifications of voicing your opinions on the Internet (as baseless the complaints may be);
2) the importance of maintaining anonymity so that petty and vindictive posters cannot (a) post your personal information online in an effort to encourage others to harass you, and/or (b) try to interfere in your personal or professional life;
3) the propensity of certain posters to try to bully and intimidate others into silence in order to avoid criticism of themselves; and
4) the propensity of certain posters to misuse the JREF forum for their own purposes.

[BenBurch]

Because I am NOT anonymous, a decision I made 25 years ago when the Internet was very new, I absolutely HAVE had nuts show up at my door, phone my home, and attempt to get me fired from my job.

[jj]

N.B. In my experience, running to the person's employer is very nearly the first tactic that would-be internet creeps resort to.

[jj]

Because I am NOT anonymous, a decision I made 25 years ago when the Internet was very new, I absolutely HAVE had nuts show up at my door, phone my home, and attempt to get me fired from my job.

Yeah, ask me, somewhere, in a bar, what nutjobs who used to post here tried to pull a few years go.

[BenBurch]

Yeah, ask me, somewhere, in a bar, what nutjobs who used to post here tried to pull a few years go.

And people wonder why I keep loaded weapons handy here at all times.

[fullflavormenthol]

All I know is I and another poster received the implied threat of a libel suit only for pointing out the errors in the statements of a controversial author. Personally I didn't care if the author sued me, because I would love nothing more than for her to have to prove that my statements against her claims are false in a court of law. Than again my in laws are all lawyers. To the average person this would be a substantial threat even if they are in the right, having to spend the money to defend themselves for statements that are obviously not libel. Such threats are the cry of a weak argument regardless of who they come from.

There is an individual on the debunking side who is not part of this forum who engages in such personal attacks, like calling people at home; I don't stand by that. As long as people wish only to engage in the disconnected means of the internet and forums, I leave it to them to engage me that way. I prefer it, because it allows open and honest debate.

That being said, I understand what chillzero is getting at; and I agree.

[chillzero]

OK - thank you everyone for your input. Lots to respond to here.

It's probably worth noting that the apparent/relative anonymity of the internet works the other way around too. On occasion some of those people you mention (even going back to the pre-web internet) above have been emboldened by not having to face their target face-to-face in order to retaliate in real life.

I absolutely agree. And those who feel emboldened, need to be aware that it is still no guaranteed protection.

It truly is a double-edged sword. The anonymity gave me the courage to return here after feeling bullied enough to leave the forum for more than 6 months. I returned to face my bully, because I knew that I could not be shouted down, or stopped halfway through trying to make a point. I could get all my words down and posted without interference. I could never have done the same in real life - return to a club where a member had harrassed me into leaving and face them down. The other edge is that the anonymity made the bully more frightening to me - it was a real person somewhere in the same country. It gave them a sense of power to treat me however they wanted.


So thank you chillzero for opening up this topic and letting me know that this forum is not immune from the nastiness - I have exactly zero desire to have my personal life affected in such a way, so I should reduce the probablity by not personalizing things too much.

Thank you for saying so. That one post makes this thread a win for me.

For some of us, it's way, way to late to be anonymous, for me it was too late about 20 years before this forum existed.


jj thank you for sharing - some good points.

Personnally, I would welcome any big name twoofer to sue me for defamation. I am a little troubled about how to identify myself to them so that they could find me before legal papers actually made it to the courts. It would be fun to own all of their posessions.

You should maybe be careful what you wish for.

It does sttrike me that some of the threarts and stalkings are a violation of federal communications laws, and perhaps such behavior, rather than just being deleted, should be brought to the attention of Homeland Security.

I agree.

I'm unsure of what intimidation on an internet forum looks like. Since I know you want to avoid specifics and individuals, could you make up an exchange that you would consider an example of intimidation. I guess the reason I'm asking is that posts are just words on a screen; how can that be intimidating.


Well, in my own case I was bullied by having every post I made in a thread picked apart and twisted to mean something else, and my beliefs mocked. To a n00b, that was very intimidating.

Other cases we see as mods include members who have had their personal information posted against their wishes; members who have threats made against them in posts of physical or legal actions; and the kind of abuse you see us remove to AAH at the lower end of the scale. Yes, they may be words on the web and something the mod team will remove, but you must agree that it is alarming at least to see personal information that you have not divulged be published by someone else, particularly if done with apparently malicious intent.

The perception of bias comes about from chillzero's threat to remove any discussion of counter examples which would leave the impression that skeptics are victims never perpetrators.

I made no such threat.
Cl1mh4224rd addressed this point very well:


The discussion she won't permit, as she clearly states, is of the "they started it" and "they're worse than us" variety. I see nothing in her post denying anyone the option of posting accounts of a "truther" being placed in a similar situation.

Of course, it should be up to that person to reveal such information, if it isn't already public. The staff here isn't going to reveal still-confidential information just to balance out the publicly available information that just happens to fall to one side.

I suspect that you were expecting them to bring up troyfromwv's antics...

Troy is a good counter example, if anyone really needs it. I overlooked it because nobody has ever contact me to say they felt threatened or harassed by Troy. I agree that his tactics have however been discussed, so can be used as an example.

gtc this may assist you with the matter of topic that you are struggling with: this thread is not for airing personal greivances with other members, although if people want to share their experiences in a calm and non-inflammatory manner that's ok. It's not for battling out which groups of people make the nastiest threats. The thread is to share concerns and possible solutions to the problem of being affected off-forum by what you write here.

To be honest I'm perplexed by this thread. It seems like it's really just here to notify members to be careful of what they put on a forum.
We agreed in the mod area that the majority of people affected by this kind of action post here in CT. I didn't want to bury it under 911 where I think fewer members read. I posted a link in the 911 section because as I stated in the link, I believe many 911 posters don't come out of that section, and I feel they need to see it also.

Yes, as shown by jmercer's example this occurs in the realms of homeopathy and so on as well. The more dangerous threats however seem to generate around the very emotional topic of 911 and related CTs. Where the thread is located is a minor matter, and can be remedied if required.

Not very long ago, I would have been very surprised to learn that there were forum members here who could possibly be so thin-skinned, so petty, and so vindictive as to engage in the myriad behaviours listed above.

Recently, however, a forum member here has engaged in the behaviour bolded by me above.

This poster actually sought out my personal information, sought out my employer, and then wrote to my employer, asking my employer to reprimand me for posting something unflattering (but true) about him on the forum, on my own time, on a weekend, from my own home.

It appears that this particular forum member thinks that he should be immune from criticism on the forum, and he seems to think that if you do criticize him on the forum, it's fair game for him to intrude into your personal and professional life in an attempt to bully and intimidate you into silence.

So, this thread is a timely and welcome warning to all about:

1) the possible ramifications of voicing your opinions on the Internet (as baseless the complaints may be);
2) the importance of maintaining anonymity so that petty and vindictive posters cannot (a) post your personal information online in an effort to encourage others to harass you, and/or (b) try to interfere in your personal or professional life;
3) the propensity of certain posters to try to bully and intimidate others into silence in order to avoid criticism of themselves; and
4) the propensity of certain posters to misuse the JREF forum for their own purposes.

LashL, thank you very much for this post, and I should really have placed something like those 4 points more clearly in the OP.

Because I am NOT anonymous, a decision I made 25 years ago when the Internet was very new, I absolutely HAVE had nuts show up at my door, phone my home, and attempt to get me fired from my job.

I hope that should other people make the same decision, they are at least doing so in an informed manner. People need to lose any naivety about the web - what you write can have ramifications.

All I know is I and another poster received the implied threat of a libel suit only for pointing out the errors in the statements of a controversial author. Personally I didn't care if the author sued me, because I would love nothing more than for her to have to prove that my statements against her claims are false in a court of law. Than again my in laws are all lawyers. To the average person this would be a substantial threat even if they are in the right, having to spend the money to defend themselves for statements that are obviously not libel. Such threats are the cry of a weak argument regardless of who they come from.

Thank you for sharing this.

[gtc]

I made no such threat.

Then why post that in response to redibis' post? It certainly came across as a statement that count erexamples were not welcome and I think redibis took in that way.

We agreed in the mod area that the majority of people affected by this kind of action post here in CT. I didn't want to bury it under 911 where I think fewer members read. I posted a link in the 911 section because as I stated in the link, I believe many 911 posters don't come out of that section, and I feel they need to see it also.

People get pinged all the time for posting forum management issues in the wrong forums. It seems inconsistent for the mods to be allowed to get around it. Particularly as few of the examples actually relate to CTs, let alone non-9/11 CTs.

[chillzero]

Then why post that in response to redibis' post? It certainly came across as a statement that count erexamples were not welcome

I posted that in response to RedIbis because that was the appropriate response. If you read any of my other posts you will see that both jmercer and I did in fact welcome examples; making no determination as to which side of any percieved fences those examples came from. This is not a 'them v us' thread - it should be a universal concern. As long as those examples can be provided without flame baiting, it is fine. Got any?

Your point would be better made if I had in fact censored any counter examples, or had removed the mention of Troy for example.

Your post is also not evidence of any "threat to remove any discussion of counter examples" despite your implication by this post that it is. It has been explained to you already, and I fail to see why you are having problems understanding it. What will not be allowed in this thread are off topic discussions such as "twoofers are the meanest", or "duh'bunkers started it".

Much as I want to be certain you understand this, so that you can contribute to the thread, I am concerned it is becoming a derail at this point. In any case, should I be misunderstanding somehow the point you are trying to make, the worst that will happen is that anything deemed off topic will be removed - and then you can defend it in the usual channels if necessary.

I think redibis took in that way.

I will not assume what RedIbis took from it from his short response, as my first encounters in this forum were what convinced me I'm not psychic.


People get pinged all the time for posting forum management issues in the wrong forums. It seems inconsistent for the mods to be allowed to get around it. Particularly as few of the examples actually relate to CTs, let alone non-9/11 CTs.

I am not 'getting around it'. If you review the forums you will see that there is precedent for threads to be started in what seem to be unusual locations for the discussion. It is allowed if reason enough has been provided for that placement, although sometimes the thread will be moved elsewhere after an initial 'bedding in' period to get the discussion underway. I have already justified why I placed the thread here. If you have further concerns about this you should discuss those in forum management.


Now - on topic - have you examples of real life repercussions arising from forum participation? Have you an opinion on how those matters should be addressed either by the members or the mod team, or maybe the JREF? Had you realised before this thread was published that there are members here facing legal or physical threats from other members? Do you have an opinion on how a person gets to that frame of mind?

(These questions are addressed to all readers)

[SezMe]

Well, in my own case I was bullied by having every post I made in a thread picked apart and twisted to mean something else, and my beliefs mocked. To a n00b, that was very intimidating.
Ha, we've had similar experiences. As a n00b I posted some stuff that resulted in me being handed my @$$. It was very intimidating, especially in light of the fact that this was the first forum I joined.

But, upon reflection, I realize that the intimidation was my own doing, not that of the other posters. I let them get my goat. IOW, I let them intimidate me. I think that is an important distinction.

Other cases we see as mods include members who have had their personal information posted against their wishes; members who have threats made against them in posts of physical or legal actions; and the kind of abuse you see us remove to AAH at the lower end of the scale. Yes, they may be words on the web and something the mod team will remove, but you must agree that it is alarming at least to see personal information that you have not divulged be published by someone else, particularly if done with apparently malicious intent.
Yes, I agree that such actions are alarming - at the very least. In fact, I would think that the intimidation factor is not the most important issue in such behavior. I think actions such as those you have cited should be acted upon as much worse than mere intimidation.

Chill, I think we have no basic disagreements.

[chillzero]

Ha, we've had similar experiences. As a n00b I posted some stuff that resulted in me being handed my @$$. It was very intimidating, especially in light of the fact that this was the first forum I joined.

But, upon reflection, I realize that the intimidation was my own doing, not that of the other posters. I let them get my goat. IOW, I let them intimidate me. I think that is an important distinction.

I agree, which is why I didn't count my experience as among the kind of thing highlilghted by the OP. And yes - I returned with a similar frame of mind and have not allowed myself to be so intimated since. I also took some lessons from that which are more on topic here - I learned how not to respond to someone in a way that makes them feel intimidated and how not to retaliate in a manner that's personalised. I realise from some personal communications with others, however, that there is no 'golden rule' for posting that will prevent someone from trying to sue you.

I won't say I don't make people want to retaliate, but that's more about challenging their ideas (or at least, I hope so!). I try to refrain from calling people names or getting personal with anyone I haven't established enough of a previous rapport with to know the boundaries.

Yes, I agree that such actions are alarming - at the very least. In fact, I would think that the intimidation factor is not the most important issue in such behavior. I think actions such as those you have cited should be acted upon as much worse than mere intimidation.

Chill, I think we have no basic disagreements.

I'm glad I was able to clarify that for you. :)

[gtc]

Can we split the forum management issues into the forum management area so that the discussion can be continued?

I still have no idea why this is in the CT thread.

[chillzero]

I see the one post, which I already responded to and advised if you want to discuss that to take it to management. Go ahead.

[Darat]

As Admin: Answering a question I've had via PM (with the Member's consent), to paraphrase:

"Do you ever contact the authorities about these issues?"

Yes, however since I am not a JREF employee it is always with the prior knowledge and approval of the JREF. I have contacted ISPs, crime enforcement authorities in the USA and other countries and even private companies. Very rarely have I heard back anything of substance from anyone I have contacted.

[jmercer]

C'mon, folks. There's got to be at least ONE example of a non-skeptic being harassed! I know for a fact that skeptics are human, too... and as such, can be just as unreasonable as any other person...

[BenBurch]

C'mon, folks. There's got to be at least ONE example of a non-skeptic being harassed! I know for a fact that skeptics are human, too... and as such, can be just as unreasonable as any other person...

Does picketing Sylvia Brown count?

[jmercer]

Does picketing Sylvia Brown count?

Hmm... good question.

Slyvia is a public figure, and picketing her would be a public protest - I would think that would be covered by the First Amendment. She may feel harassed, but I'm not sure that exercising free speech in opposition to someone's public position or works is truly harassment. It's not like she would have legal recourse to stop such a protest, unless it was happening on private property.

If we do consider a protest harassment, then everyone who ever publicly claimed a conspiracy by the government (or Bush, or Cheney, or whoever) would then be guilty of harassment, too - since that's also covered by the First Amendment.

We might want to explore that a bit. :)

[chillzero]

She's also not a forum member .... that I know of ...... yet.

[Stellafane]

Great, great OP (enough to lure me out of my latest JREF retirement, even if only temporarily). Very important points to consider. If someone were really dedicated to finding out my true identity, they could probably piece it together from posts I've made in this forum. That's one reason I usually just start playing the "I'm just the village idiot" card whenever it looks like someone's about to go postal. It's all just a joke, son...now please put that gun down, OK?

Personally, I was once called at home by a Truther (not because of something I posted here, but due to a piece I wrote that was published elsewhere). The experience was more creepy than frightening, perhaps because the caller was a rather spacey sounding woman rather than some foul-mouthed ranting young man. But I've seen what the likes of a Killtown can do to disrupt someone's life. And lest we forget, Truthers have gone on record as saying those who write about 9/11 to defend the "official story" will be executed when they take over. It isn't hard to imagine one or two less tightly wrapped ones figuring "why wait?" and come looking for someone who embarassed them online.

[aggle-rithm]

jmercer is clearly mistaken about my comment.

jmercer chose to provide examples that consisted only of skeptics as the victims, I have no problem with this and that is not evidence of bias. The perception of bias comes about from chillzero's threat to remove any discussion of counter examples which would leave the impression that skeptics are victims never perpetrators.

Clearly jmercer and chillzero are not on the same page as jmercer seems to think that counter examples would be acceptable if they were on topic (although God knows what on topic means in the context of this thread).

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114864) can be found an example of a skeptic harassing a truther at his home.

I personally found it to be reprehensible, as did several posters in this thread.

However, I also think it is reprehensible for someone to demand, as a condition of answering a question on a forum, that the questioner reveal their identity.

[aggle-rithm]

Great, great OP (enough to lure me out of my latest JREF retirement, even if only temporarily). Very important points to consider. If someone were really dedicated to finding out my true identity, they could probably piece it together from posts I've made in this forum. That's one reason I usually just start playing the "I'm just the village idiot" card whenever it looks like someone's about to go postal. It's all just a joke, son...now please put that gun down, OK?

Personally, I was once called at home by a Truther (not because of something I posted here, but due to a piece I wrote that was published elsewhere). The experience was more creepy than frightening, perhaps because the caller was a rather spacey sounding woman rather than some foul-mouthed ranting young man. But I've seen what the likes of a Killtown can do to disrupt someone's life. And lest we forget, Truthers have gone on record as saying those who write about 9/11 to defend the "official story" will be executed when they take over. It isn't hard to imagine one or two less tightly wrapped ones figuring "why wait?" and come looking for someone who embarassed them online.

If a truther really cared to, he could easily determine my identity by careful study of my posts.

However, I feel safe because the truthers' research abilities tend to be pretty pathetic.

[aggle-rithm]

She's also not a forum member .... that I know of ...... yet.

Curses! You've discovered my true identity!!

(Turns into a bat and flies away)

[Loss Leader]

Fine, but if you're not willing to quantify the risk then you are less likely to persuade people to take it seriously.


I don't think one should only look at the chance that one will be the subject of harassment, but should also appreciate the degree of harassment that might occur. After all, I'm not likely to take seriously a 1/1000 chance that I'll break a nail but might stop to consider a 1/1000 chance that I'll break my legs.

As such, I would like to add a special warning just to the professionals who post on the forum: I have received evidence of harassment that includes complaints made to professional and licensing organizations.

It is one thing to have someone write your employer. It is another matter entirely to have someone write the bar association. In the one instance, I may lose my job. In the other, my career.

[jmercer]

Here (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=114864) can be found an example of a skeptic harassing a truther at his home.

Yay! Thanks! Interesting stuff, and totally new to me.

I also find this inappropriate and reprehensible. It doesn't matter to me which side does it, frankly - people who do this sort of thing need a sharp rap on the back of the head by reality, IMHO. But it certainly shows that the issue chill was presenting is a serious one. There are real-life repercussions to our actions, even in cyberspace or on the airwaves.

However, I also think it is reprehensible for someone to demand, as a condition of answering a question on a forum, that the questioner reveal their identity.

I couldn't agree more. Everyone knows that the validity and correctness (or invalidity/incorrectness) of a person's statement has nothing to do with their name or identity. They're either right, or they're not, and what they say should either stand on it's own merit or be repudiated by facts and discussion.

Any demand to reveal identity is nothing more-or-less than an intimidation tactic designed to silence the person making the statement.

[GreNME]

Hmm... good question.

Slyvia is a public figure, and picketing her would be a public protest - I would think that would be covered by the First Amendment. She may feel harassed, but I'm not sure that exercising free speech in opposition to someone's public position or works is truly harassment. It's not like she would have legal recourse to stop such a protest, unless it was happening on private property.

If we do consider a protest harassment, then everyone who ever publicly claimed a conspiracy by the government (or Bush, or Cheney, or whoever) would then be guilty of harassment, too - since that's also covered by the First Amendment.

We might want to explore that a bit. :)

This is correct, and any lawyers out there should be able to verify. Once you allow yourself to be put out there in a publication, on television/radio, in a movie, or interviewing regarding your involvement in any of those things you are placing yourself into the public sphere and subject to a certain level of protestation and disagreement. There is still a line that can be crossed into questionable or outright illegal behavior, but the initial movement into the public sphere is taken by those who wish to participate.

That distinction is a bit more fuzzy in terms of internet message boards and web pages, but even with that there exist lines that can be crossed. I can see why the JREF forum here would err on the side of caution and privacy with regard to the issue.

[Hokulele]

C'mon, folks. There's got to be at least ONE example of a non-skeptic being harassed! I know for a fact that skeptics are human, too... and as such, can be just as unreasonable as any other person...


Well, I didn't expect to be the one to bring up this particular batch of ugliness, but there was the whole issue with jackchit and whatever the UK version of Child Protective Services is called.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2487710#post2487710

To me, this was a very gray area in terms of harassment and what should or should not be done regarding information on the Internet.

I would be interested in hearing the opinion of moderators as moderators (as well as as posters) on this issue.

[jmercer]

Hok, are you referring to the child protective services thing, or the death threat toward Gravy?

Here's the thread about someone calling CPS on jackchit:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77281

From what I'm reading in the thread, it doesn't look like harassment to me. People seemed upset and concerned that his kids might be at risk, given the things he posted about the death of his wife (among other things he wrote). It doesn't appear to me like they were trying to intimidate him or silence him through this action.

Was it the "right" thing to do? I think that depends on your moral and ethical stance about doing nothing while perceiving that someone may be placing others in danger. My sig pretty much states my position on it. I have to say if someone perceives that a child (or children) may be at risk - if a person has made public statements that raise that concern - then the mature and appropriate thing to do is to notify the proper authorities and ask them to look into it. It's like noticing that a store's front door is open late at night (lights out), and calling the police to look into it. Might be something going on - might be nothing more than an incompetent employee. Either way, you leave it to the professionals to determine.

This is only my opinion as a member, of course.

Speaking as a moderator, it doesn't violate the rules based on content, but I would urge people to be cautious about intervening in other's lives based on internet posts.

[bonavada]

I share the concerns about anonimity expressed in the OP and by others. For that reason I've maintained an element of anonimity during my time here.
The advice given in the OP is as sound as it could be and can only be endorsed by the sensible among us.
A google of my nick here gives only a couple of pointers to the region I live in (Swansea UK) and a few other forums I participate in and that's it (hopefully)
Anyway my timid posting style and a reluctance by me to get involved in heated arguments helps sheild me from the kooks (I think)


As for the question of whether harrasment (between truthers and sceptics) is a one-way street it does seem that the truthers are the main culprits. However I can point to at least one very active current thread in the 9/11 forum where sceptics threaten to contact employers or prospective employers of a prominent truther (Rob Balsamo). I won't comment further on whether this type of action against him is justified but I will say that something of a very serious nature would have to happen for me to contemplate doing such a thing.

jus' my tuppence worth

BV

[chillzero]

Well, I didn't expect to be the one to bring up this particular batch of ugliness, but there was the whole issue with jackchit and whatever the UK version of Child Protective Services is called.

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?postid=2487710#post2487710

To me, this was a very gray area in terms of harassment and what should or should not be done regarding information on the Internet.

I would be interested in hearing the opinion of moderators as moderators (as well as as posters) on this issue.

I voiced my opinion in that thread at the time, and I still feel the same way.

Can I just point out that I am not advocating action in this case.

I am not endeared to this jackchit character from what I have read here, but I don't know him, and I don't know if anything posted by / about him is true.

My point was that I feel a public forum like this is completely the wrong place for this kind of discussion. Worst case scenario - those calling for social services involvement are correct, and the first thing we in the UK know about it is front page tabloid fodder about some maniac driving his kids off a cliff to protect them from the evil government forces that were being sent against him in his campaign to protect the world from 911 shills - which he found out about right here.

The information I see here makes me uncomfortable, but it could be wrong, it could be out of proportion, and it could be that he made the comments about his wife in some weird attempt to project a certain image of himself to his peers (fearless and worthy fighter for justice).

No one has the full story here - perhaps not even Jackchit, who may have a warped view of his wife's reasons for taking his children away. I would suggest we stop personal speculation about this, and if anyone sees fit to contact authorities, then do so, privately. If not, then just drop it.

This case is a good example about both sides of the argument. Jackchit went far too far, and he let his opinions about a member here spill over into real life. The kinds of threats he made were clearly unacceptable, and inevitably led to his ban.

On the one hand I would have preferred members here had not followed his posts elsewhere and kept causing havoc here by generating all the scaremongering threads. That made life as a moderator difficult.

However, had there been serious threat to Gravy, I guess it is better someone was keeping an eye on the situation for advanced warning. I absolutely agree that when he claimed to be coming to America, to track down and harm Gravy, that the authorities should have been alerted - that was a credible threat.

On the other hand, this situation with child protection services was a bit over the top in my opinion, given the lack of evidence in the matter. I was astonished by the hysteria generated by some members. I agree children need to be protected, however, I was appalled by the vast leap of 'logic' some members took, and the actions they advocated. I am undecided about whether someone should have contact social services or not. What I am adamant about is that they should never have posted about it, and especially not on James Randi's forum.

[gumboot]

Actually I made the huge mistake of wading into a Israel-Palestine/Holocaust denial thread in the Politics sub forum when I had only just joined the forum. I got shredded by a particular individual and accused of being a holocaust denier and the usual assortment of things.

It was actually surprisingly upsetting, until I recovered enough to let it go past me. And to the poster's credit they backed down from their accusations when they saw I wasn't what they were accusing me off. In hindsight it was really my own fault for plunging into such a volatile subject in the way I did. The poster, in fact, later apologised, which I thought was very decent of them - it's rare that people online take ownership of what they've said like that.

I've since come to realise that such intense acidic conversation is just the normal exchange of thoughts in the Politics forum - especially on especially heated topics - and it doesn't bother me.

What on earth is my point?

There's been a lot made, at times, about how "mean" the discussions in the 9/11 CT forum are - particularly how new posters are treated. I think it might be a similar thing. To the regulars, the to-and-fro of the forum is normal, and non-threatening. But to someone unfamiliar with it, it can appear incredibly confrontational and personal.

[Hokulele]

Hok, are you referring to the child protective services thing, or the death threat toward Gravy?

Here's the thread about someone calling CPS on jackchit:

http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=77281



Whoops, I meant the CPS thing, not the Gravy thing (stupid search munging).

From what I'm reading in the thread, it doesn't look like harassment to me. People seemed upset and concerned that his kids might be at risk, given the things he posted about the death of his wife (among other things he wrote). It doesn't appear to me like they were trying to intimidate him or silence him through this action.


Well, although I do agree with you on how it may appear to you or me, the real question is how did it appear to him? Judging by his reaction, he did feel that he was being bullied or intimidated because of his beliefs. For a case like this, why would your opinion on the correctness of the actions carry more weight than his?

Was it the "right" thing to do? I think that depends on your moral and ethical stance about doing nothing while perceiving that someone may be placing others in danger. My sig pretty much states my position on it. I have to say if someone perceives that a child (or children) may be at risk - if a person has made public statements that raise that concern - then the mature and appropriate thing to do is to notify the proper authorities and ask them to look into it. It's like noticing that a store's front door is open late at night (lights out), and calling the police to look into it. Might be something going on - might be nothing more than an incompetent employee. Either way, you leave it to the professionals to determine.

This is only my opinion as a member, of course.


Ick, I knew this would be a can of worms. I completely agree in principle, but there is a hint of backlash involved here. To further your analogy, it would be like calling the police when you notice a store's front door is open because it was brought to your attention by the fact that someone you disagree with is standing next to it.

Speaking as a moderator, it doesn't violate the rules based on content, but I would urge people to be cautious about intervening in other's lives based on internet posts.


And I think this is exactly the point of chillzero's OP, which is why I brought up the issue. The way I saw it, jackchit mentioned something personal, which inspired people to do further research which impacted his life outside of a forum. For some people, this was a moral issue. It would not surprise me if others saw it as a bit of payback. Not being psychic (and not being willing to re-read the entire thread at the moment), I admit I cannot prove this.

Based on this, it could be easily argued that the CTists who inform someone's employer that they are posting using company time and resources are performing a moral service, rather than simply retaliating for opposition to their views.

Anyway, I am sure that we are in violent agreement in that anyone should be careful about diverging personal information on the Internet.

ETA: Cross-posted with chillzero. CZ, my thoughts precisely.

[chillzero]

I agree with your post, Hok, but wanted to pick out one item.


Based on this, it could be easily argued that the CTists who inform someone's employer that they are posting using company time and resources are performing a moral service, rather than simply retaliating for opposition to their views.

That point is fair enough. That's not what I have seen reported to employers, however. The examples before me were people who posted from home, in their own time. The reasons the employers were contacted were primarily to request action against the forum member for what they had posted, not when or where they posted it.

I merely mentioned the use of the forum from work because I know some people do so, and it may not go down so well if brought to an employer's attention.

[Hokulele]

That point is fair enough. That's not what I have seen reported to employers, however. The examples before me were people who posted from home, in their own time. The reasons the employers were contacted were primarily to request action against the forum member for what they had posted, not when or where they posted it.


Thanks for clarifying. I was trying to think of a hypothetical that was plausible without being overly dramatic. I didn't have a real world example in mind when writing that.

[jmercer]

Whoops, I meant the CPS thing, not the Gravy thing (stupid search munging).

I figured. :)

Well, although I do agree with you on how it may appear to you or me, the real question is how did it appear to him?

I'm not sure that's all that relevant, really.

Last position I held was with a non-profit organization that took care of the mentally ill and developmentally challenged. Some of the mentally ill were truly schizophrenic; they would recount word-for-word conversations with doctors who had told them that they would be released the very next day. They were upset when the staff told them that there was no record of a doctor's orders to release them... which made sense, because the doctors they cited didn't exist. Yet these poor, frustrated individuals felt they were victims of a system that had lost their release forms, or that were deliberately holding them against their will in spite of their "good mental health", and so forth. Their anger, frustration and depression over this was truly sad - but that doesn't mean it was relevant in regards to the actions of the staff that refused to release them.

I'm not dismissing the emotional and mental anguish that someone may feel if CPS was called on them. I'm just don't think their reaction should necessarily be a factor in making the decision to contact CPS.

Judging by his reaction, he did feel that he was being bullied or intimidated because of his beliefs. For a case like this, why would your opinion on the correctness of the actions carry more weight than his?

I'm sure he did, and I think I answered your question with my previous statement. If there's reason to fear that people (or kids) are endangered, someone's potential emotional distress can't be the priority. I never read the original things he wrote that alarmed so many people... but I think that it's clear he wasn't going to accept that anyone's concerns were linked in any way by whatever he wrote.

Either way, ensuring the safety of people takes priority over just about all other concerns, IMO.

Ick, I knew this would be a can of worms. I completely agree in principle, but there is a hint of backlash involved here. To further your analogy, it would be like calling the police when you notice a store's front door is open because it was brought to your attention by the fact that someone you disagree with is standing next to it.

*nods*

Let me put it this way - if it were someone I disagree with strongly - but I felt they were honest and trustworthy - I might not even call it in, trusting them to do (or not do) what was appropriate. If, on the other hand, it was someone I distrusted or held in low esteem, I might actually feel more urgency in reporting it.

And I think this is exactly the point of chillzero's OP, which is why I brought up the issue.

I completely agree, and I'm glad you did it.

The way I saw it, jackchit mentioned something personal, which inspired people to do further research which impacted his life outside of a forum. For some people, this was a moral issue. It would not surprise me if others saw it as a bit of payback. Not being psychic (and not being willing to re-read the entire thread at the moment), I admit I cannot prove this.

I'd be surprised if you were wrong, though. You don't have to be psychic to understand human nature. :)

Based on this, it could be easily argued that the CTists who inform someone's employer that they are posting using company time and resources are performing a moral service, rather than simply retaliating for opposition to their views.

They would have to have some reasonable evidence leading them to believe that the individual is abusing company resources. Contacting a private firm about speculative abuse of internal resources isn't justifiable, IMO.

I also think that the motivation and intention of an action taken matters. If it's a genuine concern that someone is abusing their position, that's one thing - if, on the other hand, it's to shut someone up, that's another thing entirely. :)

Anyway, I am sure that we are in violent agreement in that anyone should be careful about diverging personal information on the Internet.

Sounds like it to me...

[TheDaver]

So the combative, mentally challenged CT goons are acting like… a bunch of combative, mentally challenged CT goons.

This is thread-worthy?

Ban the offenders and be done with it.

[RedIbis]

So the combative, mentally challenged CT goons are acting like… a bunch of combative, mentally challenged CT goons.

This is thread-worthy?

Ban the offenders and be done with it.

I'm interested to see what others here make of this post. If anyone was curious why I asked the question, which seems to have generated a bit of dicussion, in post #22, this illustrates perfectly my concern.

[TheDaver]

I'm interested to see what others here make of this post. If anyone was curious why I asked the question, which seems to have generated a bit of dicussion, in post #22, this illustrates perfectly my concern.
That would depend on what’s being said to the employers, I guess. Some chafing on web forums is fine and even to be expected. But criminal actions are fair game.

[chillzero]

So the combative, mentally challenged CT goons are acting like… a bunch of combative, mentally challenged CT goons.

This is thread-worthy?

Perhaps you could read the discussions underway to see why it is thread worthy, and contribute a little more appropriately.

Ban the offenders and be done with it.

Those who break forum rules are actioned, suspended or banned. It's not always so clear cut, though, and the other point of the thread is that it is not always taking place on the forum.

[chillzero]

I'm interested to see what others here make of this post. If anyone was curious why I asked the question, which seems to have generated a bit of dicussion, in post #22, this illustrates perfectly my concern.

and as I mentioned earlier, this is not what this thread is about. Further such posts will probably be removed.