The "free speech" excuse is bullshit. Freedom of expression does NOT cover threats, whatever the circumstances. It's not just a matter of minorities, I wouldn't find it more acceptable if feminists were sending death threats to Fundie anti-choice groups. You can vehemently disagree, you can harshly criticize each other, but sending threats is definitely crossing the yellow line, in ANY situation.

that's horrible. I have nothing else to say other than I'm truly sorry that there are so many human beings out there who would do these kinds of things to others who aren't looking for trouble but just expressing their opinion.

That's absolutely crazy. I think people many times feel more able to say things that are threatening and hateful when they use the computer because of the anonymity that it brings. And that is highly frightening and just exemplifies why there needs to be some sort of moderation on blogs (whether that be approving comments before they go up or taking them down at will). I'm definately a proponent of free speech, but I also want to cover my ass and make sure I'm not held liable for threats and libel when folks say damaging things about people on my blog. I also don't, as Kathy writes, want to be a part of perpetuating a culture that feels (or is) dangerous for women and people of color, but the problem with that statement is that I'd then have to opt out of living since most cultures are dangerous for marginalized groups in one way or another. So, I prefer to stay in the game and try to change it, despite my fears and setbacks. While simultaneously respecting and supporting those who choose (and I use the word lightly since in many ways this isn't a true choice) not to.

This happens so often. A woman makes some sort of contribution to a tech field, reactionary males treat her like a piece of meat, and whether she ends up giving up or fighting back, other women are discouraged. And then we wonder why there aren't so many women wanting to enter technology. It has to stop. We have to do something.

Anyone who thinks threats are covered by free speech should threaten the president or some other politico. They'll find out differently VERY quickly.

Anyone who thinks threats are covered by free speech should threaten the president or some other politico. They'll find out differently VERY quickly.

Anyone who thinks threats are covered by free speech should threaten the president or some other politico. They'll find out differently VERY quickly.

Vile, but nonetheless protected.

BRANDENBURG v. OHIO, 395 U.S. 444 (1969)
http://laws.findlaw.com/us/395/444.html

"Freedoms of speech and press do not permit a State to forbid advocacy of the use of force or of law violation except where such advocacy is directed to inciting or producing imminent lawless action and is likely to incite or produce such action. Whitney v. California, 274 U.S. 357 , overruled."

Isn't that a situation where I can advocate the killing all feminists and it's legal, while saying I'm going to kill a particular person is a threat and illegal?

also a distinction between "someone should," and "There she is," or "I'm going to," with specific intent.

Vile, but nonetheless protected.

Did you read the sorts of things she was being emailed? First of all, there were direct threats against her. Second of all, whether language is a threat against an individual isn't determined by something as formalistic as the verb tense and pronoun. Do you really think all a homicidal harasser has to do to protect himself is append "someone should" to all his threats?

Check out the point-missing, flat-out nasty response from Chris Locke, the guy who created one of the sites where the anonymous threats were posted.

He sounds like a really "Nice Guy."

Wow, that Chris Locke sounds like a total narcissist!

For those of us not in the loop, why would someone dislike Kathy Sierra so much? Is she somehow polemical, or are people just annoyed by her, or what?

How against the usual pattern! I know death threats are neither speech that should be protected nor acceptable no matter whom they're against, but it does nevertheless surprise me that she got them for being, well, as far as I can tell from skimming her blog, just a professional writing about her profession. Seems it's usually people who actually write feminist opinions or "[progressive cause]ist" opinions who get the death threats. Know what I mean?

So yeah, really surprising in that it breaks the pattern I've seen.

Disappointing, but, sadly, not shocking.

We (broadly speaking) really need to have a conversation about how the internet is to be viewed. Right now, it's seen as this sort of wild "anything goes" kind of place. Too many people feel like they're not repsonsible for their actions online- that the things they say or do while online "don't count" or "aren't real." Or, alternately, that they count and are real, but that they can't be traced back. That creates a feeling of power in people to lash out and be hateful towards people that they'd never dream of offline.

One thing that I find really shocking is how quickly people gloss over the threats that are made online. I think that the attitude that "things that are said online don't count as much as things that are said offline" is really dangerous. We have this idea that an e-mail we send doesn't have as much power as a letter, and I'm not sure that is or should be true.

It's just very disgusting.

This definitely seems to be worse for women, due to misogyny (and what I can only call cowardice), but it's not limited to them. I know male bloggers who have received death threats as well.

I read Katy regularly, and it is odd - in her particular case I think it's largely based on jealousy - her blog is one of the biggest business blogs, and very succesful, and there are some guys who really don't like succesful women. Add that to generalized hatred of "a listers" and you have a nice toxic stew.

Wow, that Chris Locke sounds like a total narcissist!

Based on his response post, I really have to agree. She names him, yes, along with several other people who were connected with the sites in question, and he interprets that as a specific accusation. It's alllll about him, apparently. Although I'm sure, given the show of support she appears to be getting, that he's getting a lot of accusatory emails from well-meaning defenders who may have come to the same conclusion (that he was the culprit), which does tend to make one defensive. However, his refusal to make any kind of apology for the role he did play makes him a jerk.

I hate to say this, but I keep wondering if I missed a link somewhere? I saw one hostile comment quoted in the post, and a couple of nasty screenshots. Maybe I'm just desensitized after reading similar posts about misogynist trolls by BB, Jessica, Amanda, and many others (complete with some truly shocking quotes from comments and emails they've received) but based on the other reactions I've seen to this post (along with the "serious trigger warning" on Feministe) I keep feeling like I missed something, somewhere.

I'm in no way suggesting what was done to this woman was remotely nice, or trying to start a "my trauma is bigger than your trauma" pissing contest, but she seems to have gotten off kind of easy, by comparison--she appears to be getting a lot of support from her peers, most of whom seem shocked that anyone would behave this way. We who frequent the feminist blogosphere sadly know better. I guess what I'm getting at is, while I regret the pain she's suffered in this regard, I rather envy the ignorance of anyone who thinks this sort of behavior is rare, infrequent, and perpetrated by only a handful of disturbed individuals. If only.
To her and her peers, the idea that people spew this kind of venom at women is shocking, horrifying, unbelievable.

To us, it's...Tuesday.

One of the things I’ve been seeing in the discussions on this issue is people pushing Kathy to continue with her blogging so “they don’t win�. I don’t think it’s for anyone to say what Kathy should do in response to the situation. The choice should be completely her’s.

The way patriarchy ‘wins’ is by taking away women’s choices. Let’s support, but not pressure, Kathy in her choices on this situation.

Having learned much that I value from Kathy’s blogging, I would certainly be very appreciative of her continued contributions if she chooses to return to blogging, but I would also entirely respect her choice to withdraw from that work if that is her choice. I remain grateful for the many wonderful things she has shared.

- - -

Tara Hunt has some relevant discussion on the matter, with some further background.

Ben Masel -

This has nothing to do with Brandenburg. Brandenburg was a case about Klansman mouthing off about Klan doctrine and wanting to overthrow the government.

The advocacy of a doctrine that promotes illegal activity or resistance is what's protected, not verbal acts, threats and abuse aimed at an individual. Those are not advocacy and not First Amendment protected any more than passing a note to a bank teller saying "Give me the money or I shoot you" is protected speech.

I don't believe death threats are protected. It's considered assault if the person has reasonable reason to fear they might be harmed. And I would say cancelling your speech is evidence of reasonable fear.

Danah Boyd, following on from the story from Kathy, has posted about her experiences with harrassment and threats in the technology sector: safe havens for hate speech are irresponsible.