Is this online harassment?

The general gist...

I stumbled across a blog entry about a week ago that included a photograph of a classified ad an individual had placed. The author of the blog thought that the ad was a humorous illustration of his blog entry as related to "paranoid processess". It was implied that the individual who had placed the ad was a paranoid schizophrenic. The ad included the full name of the individual who had presumably placed it.

During the course of the conversation that ensued, another individual who commented on the blog saw fit to track down the personal homepage of the individual who had placed the ad as based on the name that was displayed in the photo of the ad. He then posted a link to that person's home page. Meanwhile, this individual has absolutely no idea that other people in some corner of the net have dragged in personal details of his life for the purpose of the amusement of others.

I found the whole thing to be so disturbing I asked that all references to that individual be removed from the postings by a site administrator. I've been assured they'll get back to me after the holidays.

What do you think? Is this harassment? Discrimination? Bias? What do you think might be the best course of action?

If you wish to read more on the background of this situation, you can read my request to the site administrators here: <a href=http://pods.zaadz.com/zaadz_support/discussions/view/220727#220727>http://pods.zaadz.com/zaadz_support/discussions/view/220727#220727</a>

wow, you go man, thanks for the education too.

I read everything emergency, and I'm not sure it was harassment. It wasn't about that guy and the guy who posted the site said, "For what it's worth here is a web address that I suspect goes hand in hand with the advert. I offer this without judgement." They were talking about thinking, not the person at all and the thinking in the advertisement was paranoid and did in fact illustrate what they were talking about and the guy's site backs that up. Harassment is when they're going after the guy, literally. I think people can say things about other people that aren't flattering or have nothing to do with the people, etc. and it isn't harassment, just not a conversation I'd particularly want to be part of? The guy's advertisement and web site were public, on the Web so kind of fair game for comment.

<blockquote>
I'm not so sure myself Perna. On the one hand, the entire purpose in posting that information was to elicit laughter. It was almost as if the blog author was saying, "Look at how messed up this guy is!". He was presented as a target of derision, not worthy of any basic respect.

In my numerous sojourns across the net I also seem to recall coming across some information stating that posting personal information about an individual without their consent in a manner that could bring them harm (and mental distress counts as harm) is considered the equivalent of online harassment. The homepage that was linked made no mention of any health history; it was, in fact, related to personal livelihood. So I see the damage in that -- someone trying to earn a living but perhaps being handicapped in that regard because someone else disclosed personal information.

At worst, these actions may well be a criminal offense. At best, they're just plain old unkindness. At no point did anyone else seem to connect with the idea that the individual was a human being. I'm truly distressed by the entire escapade. Maybe I set my standards too high -- some human beings are lacking by a long shot in compassion.

<blockquote>
Just an additional observation...

Perna: the guy who posted the site said, "For what it's worth here is a web address that I suspect goes hand in hand with the advert. I offer this without judgement."

I think it's worth asking, what was the purpose in posting that link to the guy's homepage? What was that individual intending to demonstrate or imply? That whatever was said or implied was acceptable because, after all, he was just a schizophrenic? That link certainly had nothing to do with the conversation at hand. So why post it and expose that individual to god only knows what?

I'm fairly certain a number of participants are still scratching their heads wondering what my objection was all about. After all, why shouldn't it be okay to make fun of other people you recognize as ill? It's possible, that if someone dug up some personal information on them during a time of personal crisis and held it out for the rest of the world to laugh at, they might begin to clue in.

What's truly ironic is that the community where this event took place, "compassion" is supposed to be key -- it's part of the terms of service. You can't even become a member until you've agreed to treat others with compassion and kindness. Apparently, that compassion doesn't extend to people who might be going through a schizophrenic episode.

<blockquote>
And one more thing (maybe)...

It's also worth noting that the blog author who linked the individual who posted the classified ad with the label of "paranoid schizophrenic" is not a doctor -- he's a yoga instructor. Maybe he's such a good yoga instructor he can make complicated medical diagnoses over the internet.

Okay, I'm saying I believe the guy who posted the advertisement that was shown is paranoid by what he says in the advertisement. It's not a "judgement" of the man, but they were talking about paranoid thought. Any common person who thinks that everywhere he goes in the world he is being watched and chased and takes out an advertisement to get people to stop watching him it is extremely likely he is paranoid and the advertisement, whether he is paranoid or not, is a very good example of paranoid thinking, which is the subject the people were discussing on that blog.

No one contacted the person (contact could have been harassment) or even discussed the person per se. I don't think the intent of the discussion had anything to do with that person.

I guess the bottom line for me is I don't think you can harass someone who is unaware of it? If some woman in the supermarket sees me and says to her friend or the cashier or someone out of my hearing that I'm ugly as sin :-) and my mother wears combat boots and I'm probably crazy as a result; that doesn't bother me or harass me because I don't know any of those people and am not part of the "situation".

If someone goes to the library and gets a public phone book and looks me up and tells their friends my name and address, that's not harassment, the friends could have done that themselves and I don't think having a public site and someone referencing it, for any reason, is harassment. In both the ad and the web site instances, very little was said other than, "Hey, get a load of this", potentially uncouth but not "harmful" because it didn't go any further and the guy wasn't part of the situation.

mind you, if the person (the one who owned the wedsite) found out and read this discussion, as paranoid as they already are, i doubt it would help their peace of mind much?

<blockquote>
blah x: mind you, if the person (the one who owned the wedsite) found out and read this discussion, as paranoid as they already are, i doubt it would help their peace of mind much?

Exactly. The conversation isn't insulated because a link has been placed, linking that man's personal webpage to that discussion. Whether or not he sees it depends on how often he checks his site stats. I happen to check the stats on my own webpages and blogs at least once a day, and if they're linked back to a discussion forum -- I nearly always follow the link back.

Perna: If some woman in the supermarket sees me and says to her friend or the cashier or someone out of my hearing that I'm ugly as sin :-) and my mother wears combat boots and I'm probably crazy as a result; that doesn't bother me or harass me because I don't know any of those people and am not part of the "situation".

I think what's really different is that this has occurred in an online context . That individual's webpage featured his picture, his name, his contact information and his line of work. That's why I've asked that the information that personally identifies him be removed.

I'm thinking of a similar situation I read about a while back. A guy and a girl broke up and in the aftermath, the guy made a webpage and put a bunch of her nude pics on it. Now, even if she had never found that webpage, we can't say that damage wasn't done because it was -- at minimum to her reputation.

In this situation we have a fellow's webpage that personally identifies him along with the implication that he's a "paranoid schizophrenic". But none of us know if he is -- not you, not me, not the yoga instructor. We can't even say with any certainty if that individual actually placed the ad. It's all speculation. Meantime, this is the web -- it's not a conversation that might be overheard in a checkout line.

The last I checked, that blog entry had close to 2000 reads on it. How long will that information sit there?

<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.

<blockquote>
Does anyone know the name of lawyer in the state of California who might be an appropriate contact in this instance?

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
spiritual_emergency said:
I'm thinking of a similar situation I read about a while back. A guy and a girl broke up and in the aftermath, the guy made a webpage and put a bunch of her nude pics on it. Now, even if she had never found that webpage, we can't say that damage wasn't done because it was -- at minimum to her reputation.

</div></font></blockquote><font class="post">
But that is targeting that woman! The discussion that the people were doing on the philosophy webpage wasn't about the man at all, it was merely about "paranoid" and he and his public advertisement and public webpage were an example. If someone is talking about obese women and points me out, that's not talking about Me, that is talking about obesity. They didn't make any inferences about that particular man's paranoia, how he spent his life, etc. Didn't say, so-and-so is paranoid and therefore. . . Nothing was posted that the guy himself had not posted (unlike your nude pictures which were of someone else and not the guy's to post). I doubt it, but someone could have read the guy's webpage and decided to hire him or whatever he was hoping for! There was no trying to get "revenge" or ruin somebody's reputation; the guys were not after an individual, they were after an "idea"/their philosophical discussion which he illustrated. If your nude guy poster was talking about the greek ideal of beauty and posted a nude picture of a girl he found on the internet, that she had posted and then someone found her website, where she's looking for work as a model, that's not harassment, that's talking about "beauty" and modeling, etc. Discussing "paranoia" which, presumably no one wants to have is not harassment just because someone has/illustrates it. Pointing me out as "obese" is not harassment of me even if you do it to my face. "Lady, you are fat!" is not harassment; because, I am in fact, fat. "Perna, you are fat and I think fat people are gluttons so I'm going to make sure you don't get hired at my company" is harassment.

<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.

Spiritual Emergency,

Just to clarify upfront, I've been "scanning" as in not reading every line of your posts.

It would seem to me that your major concern is the reputation of the lady. If someone else is attaching mental health diagnoses to her name in a public forum, which is what the worldwide internet has become, then that would be more of a case of libel or slander imho.

Let me know if I've missed something.

Did you hear that Queen Elizabeth is now on You Tube?

EJ

<blockquote>
EJ711: If someone else is attaching mental health diagnoses to her name in a public forum, which is what the worldwide internet has become, then that would be more of a case of libel or slander imho.

Thank you for clarifying what I felt was going on. It's not a woman however, it is a man, and I can't help but feel that he has the right to live his life in peace.

<hr width=100% size=2>

What is ‘defamation’?

Defamation or "defamation of character," is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation.

If a person or the news media says or writes something about you that harms your reputation, or that keeps people from associating with you, defamation has occurred. Slander is oral defamation, and libel is written defamation.

What is ‘slander’?

Slander is a spoken defamation. Defamation or "defamation of character," is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation.

What is ‘libel’?

Libel is a written defamation. Defamation or "defamation of character," is spoken or written words that falsely and negatively reflect on a living person's reputation.

Generally, radio and television broadcasts that are defamatory are considered to be libel, rather than slander. The words the anchor or reporter speaks are usually written down before they are broadcast, and such scripts are valuable evidence of whether or not defamation has occurred.

Source: Defamation of Character

<hr width=100% size=2>

EJ711: Did you hear that Queen Elizabeth is now on You Tube?

And so, she is.

Spiritual Emergency,

Is there a way for you to contact the man who posted his personal information for all to see, and let him know how it is being used? At least then he can possibly delete it himself, or put pressure on the website where he unwisely posted it to take it down.

I think the root cause of the situation is an unwise decision by the man who posted such personal info.

EJ

<blockquote>
EJ711: I think the root cause of the situation is an unwise decision by the man who posted such personal info.

Yes and no. For example, if he did place that ad, is he also responsible for posting it on the internet? Maybe he placed it in some small town backwoods newspaper with no idea that it would ever end up on the net at some point.

Meanwhile, he goes on the net himself and creates a few webpages trying to promote himself or his product or whatever he does -- millions of other people do the same thing every day. Weeks, months or years later, someone links one thing to another and his reputation -- justly or unjustly -- suffers as a result. Again, bear in mind that we don't know if the ad is authentic or if the individual identified is truly "paranoid schizophrenic."

This situation is but one example of how things can go badly in an online environment -- not only for the individual who has been targeted but also for the individuals who have posted the information. I don't believe their actions were driven by maliciousness, nonetheless, damage has been done and they are also potentially at risk for harm (i.e. for all they know, the individual they identified has four lawyers in the family).

The rest of us can learn from this experience as well. Always be aware that you can control what you say in the online environment; you can seldom control who reads what you say.

Here's a little lesson right here in online safety. Go to your favorite search engine and type your name in, within quotations, like this: "John Doe". Investigate whatever comes up. Is any of it personally revealing? Could it harm you or another? There are numerous websites out there that can teach you more on personal safety in the online environment. If you're a novice, educate yourself. And if you're going to identify people by name on the internet, do be aware of the risks of that too.

Spiritual Emergency,

I'm glad the person in question has plenty of legal talent in his family.

Backwoods newspapers are not safe sources. Most of them are online also. People need to take responsibility for their actions.

EJ

<blockquote>
EJ711: Backwoods newspapers are not safe sources. Most of them are online also. People need to take responsibility for their actions.

A valid point, EJ. At the same time, where do we draw the line? Individuals undergoing the process of psychosis can sometimes do, say and think things that strike those around them as irrational. Yet, to the individual going through the experience, they are entirely real.

Individuals going through the process of psychosis also tend to express their experience in symbolic, metaphorical language. This too can be misunderstood by those around them. When we re-interpret the language of the ad into metaphor what we can hear is that this person is frightened, they don't feel safe wherever they go. That's a difficult place for a human being to be.

Assuming that the individual who posted the ad wasn't working for the CIA or some other such international organization wherein, one might actually be being watched all the time, I have no problem with the suggestion that it exemplifies a paranoid process. The problem comes with sharing the name of a living person in association with that ad.

As for who should be responsible, that's a good question? Not long ago I spent a bit of time with an individual who was clearly in a different state of consciousness than I was. He could see things I couldn't see, hear things I couldn't hear. He seemed to be in a different plane of reality all together. It was fairly obvious to me that he needed someone who was grounded in this level of reality to stay with him as a means of keeping him safe during that time.

In his case, the "altered state" was likely induced by drug use and once those passed out of his system he was fine. But while he was in that state I had no doubt that I had to be responsible for his care and well-being; he wasn't capable of it at that time.

So too, we have to ask ourselves in this instance -- who is responsible? I can take some responsibility. I can recognize that this man is a human being entitled to a bit of sensitivity, privacy and compassion. And I can hope that others who are capable of it can also take responsibility for their actions.

Of course, there's always the possibility that I'll be disappointed.

<blockquote>

The site administrators made their decision. They don't see anything wrong with what occurred. The thread has been locked and I've been told that it's slated to be removed.

http://pods.zaadz.com/zaadz_support/.../220727#222004

<blockquote>
The thread I initiated to address this issue has been removed by the site administrator(s). I used an entry in the blog I created there to share my closing (and departing) comments to the community.

If anyone wishes to read them, they can click on the link above.

<blockquote>

I received a piece of mail from the blog author a few minutes ago informing me that he had chosen to remove the two items that personally identified that individual.

I'm not sure what prompted his change of heart but I feel immensely relieved.

</font><blockquote><div id="quote"><font class="small">Quote:</font>
I received a piece of mail from the blog author a few minutes ago informing me that he had chosen to remove the two items that personally identified that individual.

I'm not sure what prompted his change of heart but I feel immensely relieved.


</div></font></blockquote><font class="post"> I feel relieved as well and I'm not even a part of it at all. I just hate to feel/think that others are being hurt in any way.
Good going on your part for sticking with it and pointing it out to the author, and it's good the author got rid of the personal info.

mandy

Spiritual Emergency,

I'm glad you triumphed in this regard.

I never saw it as harassment, b/c the blogger wasn't getting in the face of the person who exposed himself in a potentially harmful light. I still see it as more of an issue of self-harm. We all need to be careful about what and where we post on the internet.

EJ