There’s been an interesting discussion on Twitter this evening about if and when it’s justified to “drop docs” on another person that is basically anonymous while online.
The consensus seems to be that if someone defamed or threatened another person in a way that there could be no doubt of the threat, then the exposure of the offenders true name, etc. would be justified.
How much of that is subjective? For instance, I used the example of being referred to as a misogynist. Clearly, without any proof of that by the accuser, that’s defamation. Then again, in the online world, that term has been used so many times against men (and women) that happen to disagree with a certain group of online atheists and “skeptics” that most people allow that accusation to just roll off their shoulders.
Just because someone redefines a word to mean something that it clearly doesn’t, shouldn’t justify the defamation of another.
What is it that constitutes a threat? Well, of course making a personal declaration of physical harm against another person as well as to the persons property, and, well, even their reputation.
As we’ve seen this seems to be subjective in the minds of some. I’ve received “threats” on this blog. When I first started writing, there were several that stated “conservatives should all be killed”, “conservatives are evil and one day will be dealt with”. Not that it concerned me as I just deleted them and moved on. Responding in any way to these would only give license to others to taunt even more. To some however, statements like these are perceived as threats. I just view them as trollish behavior.
There’s always going to be those online that display stupidity but does it always rise to the level of requiring that their personal information be made public? I don’t think so and I believe all of us should be careful when considering releasing any Personal Identifiable Information of another person.