Yes, if the “threats” are credible, people do go to jail

A British woman has been told to expect a jail sentence after being convicted of the misogynist trolling of a feminist campaigner, adding new fuel to the debate over freedom of speech on social networks.

In the case that prompted Twitter to introduce a ‘report abuse’ button, 23-year-old Isabella Sorley and 25-year-old John Nimmo both pleaded guilty to sending menacing messages via a public electronic communications network. Sorley, who has numerous previous convictions for being drunk and disorderly, has been told she faces jail, while Nimmo is likely to receive a non-custodial sentence.

The pair had, separately, targeted Caroline Criado-Perez, who last year successfully campaigned for novelist Jane Austen to appear on English banknotes. Sorley tweeted: “I’ve only just got out of prison and would happily do more time to see you berried!!” and ‘Rape?! I’d do a lot worse things than rape you!!” — []

Despite what the social justice shriekers may claim, those that they are in the business of smearing (the non-Koolaid drinkers, the skeptics “not of the faith”) do not condone “threats” or “violence” of any kind. They don’t even condone “harassment” – in the genuine sense, which precludes criticism or mockery of stupid people saying stupid, concocted things (contra freethoughtblogs and skepchick who want latter punishable in re-education gulags).


Good natured banter of the kind PZ Myers encourages at freethoughtblogs

The unbelievers also agree that those that are in the habit of posting direct, violent personal threats to any individual, regardless of gender or ideology, need to be hunted down like rats and made to be accountable for their actions, regardless of their gender or ideology – and the subnormal idiots at freethoughtblogs / skepchick / atheism+ should have no exemption to this accountability. Violent threats are criminal behaviour and should be treated as such, right WowbaggerOM?

So, surprisingly, there is something that both ordinary people and shrieking, professional victim outrage bloggers can agree on – serious threats are not something that should be ignored by anyone. Where the disagreements arise are in defining serious and what actions to take after the fact.

The Becky Watson approach to reporting violent threats is now well documented. Tell a friend who then tells another friend. The FOAF then waits a few months until everyone has forgotten all about it and then hyperbolises it an “anecdote is evidence” exposition style “harassment rampant in [insert subculture] community” blog. Or, even better, sit on the threat yourself and wait until you’ve been caught doing something that’s like totally dumb, yeah, and… pull the “threat” out, and, OMG you’re oppressed because violent threats. If necessary add “I reported it to ‘authorities’ but they did nothing” as afterthought. Don’t forget Paypal and Patreon links.

The ordinary people approach is markedly different. First, if the threat really does give you the willies, do not respond to threat nor post responses in public. Second, capture all the relevant data you can in a forensically useful way (and if unsure, ask a geek friend – everyone has one). Third, follow instructions for abuse complaints from your ISP or web service provider. Generally, they will contact law enforcement on your behalf. If threat is particularly serious and you are concerned that your location is known, don’t wait and contact law enforcement yourself immediately. Probably not a bad idea to ask a friend if you can stay at their place for short time too. “It’s elementary Watson” – it shouldn’t have to be explained.

There are a couple of other things that are elementary to most ordinary folks too, yet elude the most basic understanding of the Myers / Watson baboons

  1. Anyone that actually does intend to rape and/or murder and/or feed you through a woodchipper is not very likely to advertise the fact first on the public access internet. In fact, your chances of receiving a genuine threat that will be acted upon are about the same as getting struck by lightning. Probably even less. Most grownups can sort the wheat from the chaff unassisted. And,
  2. If the threats are credible and have a genuine likelihood of actuation, reporting that threat and pursuing it to resolution is not just an option – it is a moral duty. Apart from the danger to yourself, you have no way of knowing how many others may also be endangered, nor what other dangers the future may hold from the source of the threat.

Again, both of these points are elementary no-brainers to anyone that is not an idiot or an attention whore.

All of this, once digested, makes for a really bad look for the entirety of the atheist and skeptic communities. All you do is need to look at the Skepchick –

Not only is it a bottomless pit, it also claims to only be a fraction of that bottomless pit, but not a single item is cited in any way to original source. These are the “threats” that Watson has been howling about for close to a decade. All of it, without exception, is completely denuded of context and meaning. Nor is any item in the dung pile worthy of characterisation as “serious” beyond being simply rude or vulgar. And this is just one site – the full number of professional victim sites out there are beyond easy estimation once you factor in Facebook and Tumblr…

But lets just focus on skepchick and freefromthoughtblogs and Melody “PTSD” Hensley here. How many claims of alleged “serious” threat have they made since the Elevatorgate fairytale? Beyond count. And how many have they reported promptly to law enforcement for investigation? …



That’s right. Zero. Nil. Nada. Zilch. Ne skolke.

So what to make of that? Either the baboon collective is derelict in its duty of community responsibility or…

… they’re just making shit up? No. Couldn’t possibly be.


I’ve babbled enough for this post. Without further ado or commentary, I’ll just leave this stuff here –




Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats [Polygon]



ADDENDUM 1 – more clearly annotated stuff. [edit: this comment assumed I created the image. I did not. As I stated with first batch of images – presented “as found”. Tweet URL added.]


Addendum 2Polygon’s unbiased and objective editorial policy in action. The comments sampled in main section above attracted a barrage of white knight “MRA” accusation and insult – despite neither being from a MRA nor indicating any MRA associated agenda. All the comments did was question why Sarkeesian was not providing details about her threat report to unnamed “authorities” beyond an inconsequential screencap of the kind that anybody else would dismiss as a 15 year old drive by idiot. These comments were deemed perfectly OK by Polygon moderators. However, asking if the “white knighting” has gotten the comment authors “laid lately?” earned a permanent ban quite literally within minutes. This reaction from Polygon plays fully into the greater picture of exactly how badly online gaming journalism has been corrupted by opportunistic SJW parasites. Good overview of this whole issue here and here [Youtube links. There are many, many more vids on the topic. Gamers, unlike atheists, have spines and know how to fight back.]

polygon_comment1Addendum 3

Date: Fri, 29 Aug 2014 14:40:52 +1000
From: franc <>
Subject: I was told to write this address to appeal a suspension.

Re: comments in “Sarkeesian driven out of home by online abuse and death threats”


Actually, I really don’t care about being banned. I know all I need to know. Your “moderators” (a term used very loosely, “cheerleaders” would be more accurate) have no problem with people hurling “MRA” around as a personally abusive pejorative and ad hominem in article discussions (which is in direct contravention your own comment policies just so as you know), but saying something like “has your white knighting gotten you laid lately?” in response to the ‘tards hurling the abuse earns an instantaneous ban. Well, not really instant, but it was definitely within 3 minutes, which is quite amazing (some would say obsessive/compulsive given that the longer comment substance was completely ignored, probably not even read).

That tells me a lot about Polygon, particularly in light of recent events exposing what an incestuous, insular, self-serving (and ultimately, yes, corrupt) clubhouse the gaming journalism world is. To criticise Sarkeesian, or worse, ask the kind of questions that really should be asked (essentially doing YOUR job in a world where ethics exist and reality is more than just a “nuisance” best avoided) is throwing a spanner into the delicately balanced clock mechanism where you all backslap each other in a closed loop for ego massage and profit.

I’m not actually a “gamer” myself (I still play original DooM), but it is fascinating to see what is happening in your world – allowing your industry to rot from the inside by pandering to the gender/victim feminist/social justice warrior 5th column that is doing the same thing anywhere it can slime its way in the door and there are enough gullible schmucks that can be bought for virtual nothing to dance around on a string for them. I have watched the same thing happen to atheism / skepticism for close to a decade now. It is hard to keep the vomit down. At least the gaming community seems to have something resembling a spine and there is a fair chance that some of your worst collaborators/apparatchiks may reap their karmic rewards by having to seek alternate employment due to permanent pariah status amongst gamers.

For the record, your Sarkeesian article reeks like a gelatin factory on a hot day. What did you do? Get Sarkeesian herself to write it? Whoever is responsible for seeing it into an article you deem fit for publication is an amoral harlot. It’s not “journalism”. It’s ideological advertorial – a billboard for Sarkeesian to advertise her new video. Either that or he (I’ll go out on a limb and assume “Colin Campbell” is a he) is an outright imbecile who believes anything he’s told to believe.

Here’s a free tip on the kinds of things that would constitute an actual article that is non-promotional and serves a useful function about handling online threats (contra Sarkeesian / Colin Campbell who are a great example of what NOT to do) –

Have a nice day,