So someone who may have committed harrassment on the internet is now receiving death threats. Uh, yeah, lesson learned. Right?

The solution to internet douchery is not more internet douchery.

Ahem, a little like the Victoria whatshertits fiasco that The Stranger propagated?

He should be investigated for distribution of child pornography. Let the law decide.

Dear Internet:

If you do anything that even MAY piss off /b/ et al, I beg of you, reconsider. I say this out of love for you.

Ask yourself this question: "Could this get back to Anonymous, and come bite me in the ass?" If the answer is yes, for fucks sake, hit cancel.

@4, that's different -- ask anyone who's met Will in Seattle.

@4, 6: That's different.

This is more of the mob action dwightmoodyforgetsthings imagined was happening to Violentacrez.

This is something that, again, I really don't have a problem with. The punishment, as with Violentacrez, fits the crime. Bullying bullies works, and @ 1 is wrong to say otherwise.

A little more info over on Slate (this is not a RickRoll, i swear): http://tinyurl.com/buedsmv

No justice like mob justice, right guys?

@10 Yes, until somebody is wrong, which often happens with mob justice.

He is awful, he did harass her and probably violated laws.

However, my reading of the story was that it was the bullying of her classmates, her own age, because of the photos, that drove her to suicide.

This is why we have a justice system. To investigate crimes, and parcel out blame.

Death threats are not cool.

Shaming is perfectly appropriate for a bully like this, though.

I wonder if Anonymous can find the people on SLOG, Usenet, Publicola, etc who have been harassing me for the last 6 years.

Do they have a consulting service?

Presumption of innocence? Until he confesses or we have some evidence beyond "Anonymous says so", we do not know if this is the guy.
@1 has it right.

@9 Thanks for that link. I hadn't seen that.

Good thing they didn't leave a napkin with a bartender and get falsely accused.

Oh, wait, no, that was The Stranger that messed that up.

never mind.

It took long enough for the Stranger to mention this case. Oh, yeah. She's not gay. Never mind.

@10: It's almost like people are democratically agreeing that bullies should not be tolerated.

You can buy off judges and juries, and you can buy expensive lawyers, but you can't buy off a mob. Totally deserved, and bravo to anonymous for putting on the white hat.

I have no problem with this. YAY Anonymous!

Love the in depth, never take the word of anonymous PEOPLE on the internet. To assume it's a single group of hive mind capabilities is giving the idea too much credit.

@4,6,7, and anyone else who has bagged on useless Slog dipshits WiS and Bailo.

Including myself.

We all taunt and call out the useless dipshits for their uselessness and stupidity. But is it bullying? Slog can be harsh at times. But that harshness is brought out in direct proportion to the stupidity of the posts from WiS and Bailo. The more banal and useless their posts, the more they are called out. WiS, for example, was pretty on-topic above. But he has a pretty huge track record for spreading utter bullshit he claims is fact.

Bailo at times seems to be losing it completely, and posts utterly random links to YouTube videos in a desperate bid for attention. Such as earlier this week. But at times he's a cogent, on-topic contributor.

My conclusion is that it is not bullying to point out to WiS and Bailo when they are straying wildly off-topic (Bailo) or spreading utter bullshit as fact (WiS).

They are both adults, and they both have had ample opportunity to form their respective world views and understand the consequences of their posts on Slog. So regular Slog readers know that when they veer into irrelevance (Bailo) or falsehoods (WiS) they each know they deserve whatever correction they receive via Slog.

The guilty party should have some judgment meted out upon him. Perhaps nothing as drastic as drinking a pint of bleach. Maybe BC could issue him an official "FELON" license plate. After he makes said license plate in prison.

@25 Your name and the tag at the bottom right of your comment speak the truth.

I want to like what Anonymous did - but they got his age wrong, his address wrong and the reason they gave for doing it turned out to be a hoax itself. (They said he had released autopsy pics of Todd - but those images are not her. Her body hasn't been given an autopsy) They are clearly on wobbly ground with their ID. I'm not actually completely opposed to doxxing these creeps, but this illustrates the dangers of doing so quite sharply.

@21, no it's almost like a bunch of people are deciding that they, and not the state, not the courts, should determine, without due process, who is guilty and what kind of punishment they deserve.

Whoever did it deserves consequences, but holy shit, you have to be really, really conservative to so happily reject the concept of "innocent until proven guilty."

It smells a lot like Red State in here.

@25 Bullying would be tracking down people from SLOG who annoy you and harassing them elsewhere.

Here on slog, we can choose to stop posting and leave if we want to. You can say that is also true for places like Facebook and email, but it isn't, not really.

@ 29, the follow-up article shows that Anonymous were barking up the right tree. I don't know if they jumped the gun before they had all the facts or not - they might have kept some of what they found out to themselves for their own reasons.

Personally, it's unrealistic to believe that the state can adequately protect the young from this kind of victimization. There needs to be actions like this to scare the assholes and bullies and make them think twice.

The conundrum is that this means the choices are limited to allowing young girls to be victimized, maybe scarred for life if not driven to suicide in the name of due process and fairness, or letting the flying monkeys loose on men who may or may not be guilty of despicable online bullying.

I'm going with the latter choice, shitty as it is, for a number of reasons. For one, the actions of online mobs are actually muted by a few things, compared to the bullies. For one, grown men are better equipped to handle it. For another, death threats are virtually never carried out. I know of no instance where that has, while on the other hand I know of many kids who are dead by their own hands because nobody would stand up for them.

It's not a pretty choice. I would like to believe that due process could do the job. But it looks like Anonymous is much more effective, and pragmatism sometimes has to rule of principle.

Er, rule over principle.

@25, @30
Er, hit post instead of edit. That "You" in @30 was the indefinite pronoun, which I try to avoid on the internet, especially in a reply.

In case it wasn't clear, I was agreeing with you dr awsome, and adding a bit more.

@31
Yeah, I always have mixed feelings about Anonymous. I don't trust mob action and the results of their actions frequently extend beyond the internet.

However, it is precisely because they are untrustworthy that they are ideal for putting out this kind of information. Their faithful followers and script kiddies may take it upon themselves to attack this guy immediately, but most people will not assume their word to be fact and wait for verification from other sources.

I kind of agree with Matt in Denver. What I've read about this case seems to suggest that the police are investigating her IRL bullies (which makes sense, we know which schools they went to) and haven't been following up on her cyber-stalker, despite the fact that he was distributing child porn. Maybe they would have eventually - but maybe not.

This is the thing about the Internet - Anonymous is, for better or worse, the closest there is to a cyber-police. Normally this kind of thing would make me fairly uncomfortable, but the Vice article does make me think they got the right guy, or at least a guy who was involved in equally reprehensible shit.