<blockquote>
Perna: But that is targeting that woman!

I agree with you. Where I don't agree with you is that I think this man has been targeted as well. Here's why...

#1: There is no means possible for determining if the ad that was displayed is a bonafide ad as placed by the individual identified. That ad may have been a joke, it may have been an act of revenge, it may have been entirely sincere. We have no way of knowing. Whatever can be determined is pure speculation given our lack of insight into who placed the ad, why it was placed, and even, when it was placed.

#2: There is no means possible for any reader to determine if that individual is a "paranoid schizophrenic". None of the respondants thus far has identified themselves as a psychiatrist and even if they had, a diagnosis made over the internet as based on a classified ad would be a sloppy diagnosis at best.

#3: In spite of the speculative aspects of the above, a link has been placed to an individual's personal homepage associating that individual with the classified ad and the label of "paranoid schizophrenic". That webpage includes a photograph of that individual, their name, their contact information and their line of work.

If the original conversation had remained in the realm of the non-specific, (i.e., as related to "schizophrenics" or "schizophrenia") it might have perpetuated a generic form of stigma or revealed ignorance on behalf of the participants but it would not have produced the potential to negatively impact anyone specifically. In this case, the damage has been done because a specific individual has been identified and his personal information has been shared with a number of individuals across the world wide web along with the implication that he placed the ad and that he is a "paranoid schizophrenic".

Bear in mind that the original conversation is not related to paranoid schizophrenia whatsoever; the blog author wishes to demonstrate that individuals with religious beliefs are operating from a limited (and immature) belief structure. That's a different argument entirely and one that doesn't require dragging in the personal histories of individuals who may or may not be schizophrenic to make one's point.

Also consider that the personal webpage that was linked makes no mention of paranoid schizophrenia, but rather, is related to the man's personal livelihood.

Further consider that just because you have personal information published in a public format doesn't mean I have the right to use that information in whatever manner I choose. Knowing that you have a phone number and street address listed in the phone book is one thing; deliberately linking that personal information to potentially damaging information is another. Consider too, that an action doesn't need to have been motivated by malicious intent to be damaging; thoughtless or poorly considered actions can also produce harm.

Overall, we'd probably need a lawyer (or several) to weigh in on this conversation to determine if harassment (or libel) is legally taking place. Meantime, all that I've asked is that the information that personally identifies that individual be removed from that blog. The blog author and commentators can still have their "philosophical" debate but the removal of personally identifying information would at least protect that individual from any further harm.