« Shorter Amanda: You know that apology where I said I never meant to offend anyone's religious beliefs? | Main | Please drink irresponsibly »

February 14, 2007

The risks of being a blogger [updated ... twice]

I was well aware of what I might be getting into when I started this blog back in late-summer 2004. I had been a regular in discussion boards under a pseudonym for a few years before that and learned if you say things others disagree with occassionally there will be those cup-and-saucer-short-of-a-full-place-setting creatures who view the anonymity of the 'net as license to vent the most vile writings possible against the people they disagree with.

It's the unfortunate part of engaging in public discourse with people you don't meet face to face.

There's nary a blogger I know that hasn't received hate email (or hate in the comment section). Including me.

So I'm not surprised that Amanda (and, as it seems, McEwan) have received such vile email. I would be surprised if they have never received such before. And I am annoyed that it is becoming a cynical way for Amanda-and-friends to attempt to blame anyone that criticized/mocked/made-fun-of her during her short stint as Pastor Edwards official blogger as being responsible for the email.

What should these two womyn do with their hate email? If these particular ones seem threatening then they need to turn them over to the police immediately. Most police departments have a unit dealing with computer crime. Get in touch with the detectives in the unit, learn their names and follow up. Publish some of them along with the header information and report the abuse to the ISP holding the IP address.

Hate email is unacceptable. Whether directed toward Amanda or Michelle Malkin. Period. No matter to whom or concerning any subject. It is the coward's way ... whether done in earnest or as "fake" email to create controversy.

As unacceptable as it is, it will happen. If you don't want to endure such and be responsible for taking the necessary steps to counter it, then don't blog.

This is my only post on this subject and it really shouldn't have to be said in the first place. However, the sudden focus on hate email is an effort to deflect that St. Amanda has never taken responsibility that she, and she alone, lost her job with the Edwards' campaign. St. Amanda, like an unrecovered alcoholic, couldn’t help but continue to engage in exactly the same offensive anti-Christian bigotry that Edwards publicly told her he would not tolerate; but no where in her pity party did she acknowlege that. Indeed, she blames Donahue, not herself, when she blew the second chance that Edwards gave her., the man who gave her a second chance.

In fact, he’s made no bones about the fact that his intent is to “silence” me, as if he—a perfect stranger—should have a right to curtail my freedom of speech. Why? Because I’m a woman? Because I’m pro-choice? Because I’m not religious? All of the above, it seems.
St. Amanda couldn't put down the bottle, even for a plum job. So she frames it erroneously (and insulting to anyone with reading comp skills) as a First Amendment issue (along with tactily calling Edwards a member in good standing of the womyn-oppressive Patriarchy).

But even rank-hypocrits and bigots like Amanda don't deserve hate email. That is beyond the pale.

UPDATE: I misinterpreted the "he" in her post as Edwards. Anotherreading shows, indeed, that she means "Donahue". I've edited the above (but leaving the strike out portion so you can see HOW I've corrected it.) [as I do not have internet access from work, this is, at 12:20p PST the first time I've had to check the post and make the corrections]

UPDATE2: Iowahawk gets a copy of Amanda's resume.

More discussion:
Dan Collins at Protein Wisdom
Patterico
Ace

Technorati: , ,

Posted by Darleen at February 14, 2007 06:37 AM

Comments

It has always seemed to me that freedom of speech meant that you were free to express yourself any way you wished, but that other people were free to judge you by what you said.

If someone has the courage to publish his opinions, he should also have the courage to take responsibility for them.

Posted by: Dana at February 14, 2007 08:01 AM

The portion of the post you quoted above is CLEARLY discussing Donahue, not Edwards. Make your point, but do it without misrepresentation, willya?

Posted by: rudderless at February 14, 2007 08:20 AM

The portion of the post you quoted above is CLEARLY discussing Donahue, not Edwards

I'll second that. It was so amazing I raced over to Pandagon to see it for myself.

Posted by: Daryl Herbert at February 14, 2007 09:56 AM

Yeah, I checked the Pandagon link too. Completely wrong interpretation of what she said. You should really edit your post ASAP and maybe get someone to proof what you write before posting.

Posted by: JerryL at February 14, 2007 12:04 PM

I found your site about a week ago and I am very glad that I did.

I couldn't agree with you more about the fact that Amanda has the right to say whatever it is that she wants to say, but she should know that others have the same right. As bloggers who use our real names, what we say can really come back to haunt us.

Posted by: Jamila Akil at February 14, 2007 02:27 PM

JerryL, don't know if you meant it, but your comment: "...and maybe get someone to proof what you write before posting." was just a little snarky.

Posted by: CoRev at February 15, 2007 01:30 PM

The way you have the edit in there is confusing -- at first I though you were making a rather inappropriate joke. I thought it had originally read:

"Indeed, she blames Donahue, not herself, when she blew the man who gave her a second chance."

Totally broke from the tone of the post of course. You might want to put the delete first, in the position it originally had in the sentence.

I had a brief correspondence with Amanda a few months ago RE the Duke "girl who cried rape" case. In about five words she proved to me just how little integrity she has.

She's free to say whatever she likes, but others are free to have opinions about her. Physical threats cross the line, of course, but if by "hate mail" you mean somebody calling her naughty names or something... eh, whatever. I guess I'm saying there that a blanket condemnation of "hate mail" goes a little to far, as that's a pretty broad category.

Posted by: Stephen Rider at February 16, 2007 07:48 AM