<blockquote>
Just a quick thanks to those who are taking part in this conversation -- it's helping me to identify exactly what is most disturbing and therefore, the most effective action to take.

To draw on my example above of the guy and girl... If the pictures he posted to the webpage didn't include her face or her name, it would minimize whatever damage might occur to her reputation. But if the webpage did include information that personally identified her, then, the damage is done.

In the case of the situation I've cited, if the conversation had revolved around "schizophrenics" or "schizophrenia" -- those are general terms. Any ensuing discussion might reveal a depth of bias or lack of knowledge on the part of the participant, and they might even perpetuate the ever continuing saga of stigma and mental illness but it would still remain within the realm of "non-specific". In this instance however, an individual was personally identified -- his face, his name, his contact information and his line of work was shared with god only knows how many people around the world. That's where the real damage has occurred.

Harassment might be the wrong word to use in this instance; the correct word might be libel.