Hostile blog comments blamed for suicide.

Gregory K. Brown,  a specialist on suicide at the University of Pennsylvania, said that public humiliation could play a role in suicide because "hopelessness is often a major risk factor, and if you've been publicly humiliated and your reputation has been tarnished forever, you could see how someone could become hopeless." Such situations, he added, could contribute to feeling that life is unbearable...

...AgencySpy's writer said the strong reactions had not changed her view on anonymity in posts, which she said "allows for more compelling, insider content" because the writers need not fear retribution. She said she removes "threatening or highly explosive, such as racist, remarks"...

...But a colleague and friend of Mr. Tilley's, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said, "There's no way you or I will know why he did this, but it’s certainly not because of blogs."

People take themselves way too seriously in these forums, and they lose sight of the way they behave online. I have no problem with anonymity (notice that the article quotes the friend of Tilley anonymously). That said, you don't have to bite on every hook thrown in the water. Don't dish it out if you can't take it. Don't work out all your issues in public. Etc.

Take a deep breath, folks. 

Comments

[James]

What a sad story. Looking back, I've had to step away from the blog ledge a few times myself.

This whole business can really take a toll on your sense of well being if you let it, especially if you're trying to change big things. For every step ahead in blogland, it can feel like you've had to circle the whole block several times.

Early on in blogging, I was a full-throated extremist, challenging what I consider to be the dark-side with every weapon I could find. That may have helped drum up some readers and build a sense of purpose, but it's certainly no way to build a long term vision. And it definitely brings out counter-attackers. I've been physically threatened several times, and it really gave me pause.

So these days, I'm striving (imperfectly) for kinder, gentler blogging. That compromise comes with a cost, too, especially when opponents are spending a thousand times more to get their message out. Guerilla tactics, parody in particular, are really important to break through the vast right wing noise machine.

My father committed suicide as a result of depression that runs in my family. These days when the online environment becomes overly hostile, I more or less hide. That may not be the courageous path, but it's definitely a safe path.

[Fred Gregory]

Well here is an internet related suicide but that's about the only thing it has in common with the tragic story of Paul Tilley.

56 year former District Attorney caught in sting trolling for sex with 13 year old boy on the internet. Commits suicide when confronted by police. Family sues NBC and child advocacy group which initiated the Dateline program "To Catch A Predator ".

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

This from the guy who dished out "batshit crazy" to a woman with a brain tumor.

I'll go take that deep breath now.

[Ed Cone]

What I said was "Rachel Lea Hunter comes across as batshit crazy and completely unsuited for a seat on the state's high court."

Which was true, although I quickly apologized for the harshness of my language, and later apologized to her in person. I am far from perfect, but I do try to learn as I go along.

Here's the context: while running for a seat on the state supreme court, she had previously "compared a black candidate to a slave on a plantation, lied about a major endorsement, and referred to her opponent and his backers as 'the beast' and 'mafia.'"

"But in her latest campaign release, Hunter slithers further into the muck. She not only compares Justice Mark Martin to Nazi propagandist Joseph Goebbels, she runs a photo of Goebbels alongside a photo of Martin."

So, yeah, her campaign came across as crazy.

I also wrote: "I wish Rachel the best in her struggle to regain her health, and I imagine that most readers would share that sincere sentiment. But she can't avoid criticism while running for public office just because she's ill, especially when she seems to go out of her way to invite it."

[Elizabeth Wheaton]

Thought for all who feel that insults are a valid means of communication:

Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[Billy The Blogging Poet]

Elizabeth said, "Be kinder than necessary, for everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle."

So true. Now if I can only remember your advice before I open my big fat mouth the next time.

Why is it I can picture folks taking odds on how long it takes me to blow this one?

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Good Lord. "It's true, but I apologized and she deserved it."

Ed, I'll give you this. You really are the blogger-king of two things: the double standard and talking out of both sides of your mouth.

[Ed Cone]

She didn't deserve the personal insult, which is why I apologized for it.

Her campaign deserved all the criticism it got.

[meblogin]

Hi Doc,

You have made me curious in a very real way...

What could or should Ed have done differently than he did after his insult?

There are many that would have done nothing to right the wrong.

thanks,
meblogin

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

MeB, I believe I've answered that question somewhere (here?) once before. But I'm too tired to seach it out tonight.

But two words come to mind. "Unconditional apology". For even in critcizing a campaign, if you want to preach to others about "civil discourse" (as you ban them for having opinions in opposition to yours), you've got to be civil yourself. Ed's still trying to justify a despicable remark that cannot IN ANY WAY be justified.

So the wrong isn't really "righted".

I'm kind of like you, MeB. I'm weary of the bait & switch routines and the double standards in these blogs . . . and in off-line converstations with a very-wise-someone today, I've realized that spending any time on this particular blog is a huge waste of my energy.

If anybody wants to chat, I have my own blog. And I can tell you that my Asheboro readers (a growing group - many of whom have been screwed by the same people I've been trying to bring to justice) are none too amused by the way one of their own has been treated by the GSO blogging/journalism "elite".

Of course, we're nobodies anyway.

[cm]

Re: Elizabeth's advice. The original quote is:

"Be kind, for everyone you meet is fighting a hard battle." (Plato)

One of my favorites, ever. Thanks for sharing it, Elizabeth. A good word, and well-suited to the post and the thread. :)

[eric]

Out of curiosity, I clicked through to Dr. Mary Johnson's blog. At the top of the page, I find this fine example of "civil discourse": NC Governor Mike Sleazeley Is A Coward And A Liar. Thank goodness we have someone like Dr. Johnson to remind us what a nasty man Ed Cone is.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Read the links, Eric. Look at the facts.

Governor Easley "IS" (a favorite parsing word of Democrats) a COWARD (ducking out in a fast car to escape the questions of reporters), and a LIAR (deflecting the responsibility of his inept and careless administration for the mess that is mental healthcare in this state).

82 people are dead. Eric. They died alone and forgotten by a state that was supposed to protect them. I know how alone and forgotten feels (and I'm quite sure Cara can speak to it).

Given the way Ed & company treated me when I dived into this online "community" (thinking "citizen journalism" might be something real), I find it HUGELY ironic that Ed (preceded by Sue) is bemoaning the suicide of a blogger that was likely brought on by the bad/thoughtless/cruel behavior of others.

I find his continued rationalization of the "batshit crazy" remark nauseating.

On the other hand, it is time to stop playing politics and parsing words to protect the dirty/greedy/oily politicians who have run Raleigh for years and WHO DO NOT GIVE A ROYAL DAMN about patients - or the people on the front lines trying to take care of them.

When are the journalists in this state and this (supposedly oh-so-concerned) blogpshere going to stop sucking up to (and/or excusing) this stuff . . . and call a bunch of LIARS & CHEATS, LIAR & CHEATS?

Rachel Hunter, for better or worse, was trying to do something about it. If that makes her "batshit crazy", well, I'll take batshit crazy any day. I have not seen the politicians Ed sucks up to do anything but waste billions of tax dollars in one healthcare scam after another.

Put that in your pulpit of fake indignation & sarcasm and smoke it.

[Ian McDowell]

Even if Rachel Hunter were mentally competent, her bizarre and vicious statements on the campaign trail would suggest that she was evil and utterly unfit for public office. And I somehow doubt that Dr. Johnson would retract her invective about Governor Easley if his own behavior turned out to be the result of brain damage rather than an innate character flaw.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

Ian, if Governor Easley is ever proven to have been "brain-damaged" at the time these decisions were made, I would certainly unconditionally retract my "invectives". Of course, taking that very remote possibility one step further (to a place I expect you did not think to go) if our Governor were indeed "brain-damaged" one could argue that he is unfit for office and should be removed/impeached.

Personally, I'd take that too if it would get him/his sycophants the hell out of Raleigh, so we could start to really clean up the messes made on his watch.

I'll note that, to this day, many Democrats seem to take great satisfaction in Ronald Reagan's tragic diagnosis of Alzheimer's - as if that somehow proved he was unfit for office before he left it. They haven't "retracted" or apologized for anything. In fact, some continue to cruelly revel in what that insidious disease did to a man of great vision and purpose. It's "funny" - good for a smug/superior chuckle at the donkey-kong fund-raisers.

Where our illustrious Governor is concerned, I would submit that "liar" and "coward" are descriptive terms of character that are very much based in fact. As the N&O links I cite show, Mr. Easley's memory problems are likely more related to covering his butt (which has been well-cushioned by his stint in "public service") and re-writing a history that does not bode very well for his "legacy".

On the other hand things like "batshit crazy", "mentally incompetent" and "evil" are simply hate speech.

That being said, I certainly know what "evil" is. I've been fighting it for ten years in a small North Carolina mill town. The badness went down on Mr. Hunt's watch. On Mr. Easley's watch. On Mr. Cooper's watch. On Mr. Edwards' watch. And right under the noses of journalists/blogger-kings Edward Cone & John Robinson.

I'm sure they all "wish me well". But wishing does not make it so and they know it.

I've wasted enough time on this thread . . . and this blog. Ed can find some other naive schmuck (which I certainly was to have ever bought into the "citizen journalism" shovel-full) to entertain his loyal like-minded readers.

Bye-bye.

[Banned Bubba Buddy]

What I said was "Rachel Lea Hunter comes across as batshit crazy and completely unsuited for a seat on the state's high court."

Which was true, although I quickly apologized for the harshness of my language, and later apologized to her in person. I am far from perfect, but I do try to learn as I go along.* Stumbling Ed trying to present a fair and balance opinion like the Fox network ---

Well, here is an excerpt from Ms. Hunter's book about you and other particularly bad shills from the mainstream media:

Another reporter is Ed Cone of the Greensboro News & Record. He also has his own blogging site. He is a friend of John Hood of the John Locke Foundation/Carolina Journal. Remember that the beast controls both sides? Its has its foot in each camp. John Hood from the right, Ed Cone from the left.

Ed Cone long ago abandoned any pretense of journalistic integrity and ethics, even going beyond all bounds for defaming a public figure as established in New York Times v. Sullivan,[1] in that he acted with actual malice. His task was to portray me in the worst light imaginable. On one occasion, his comment that I was missing was seen by my campaign advisor, who suggested that Ed Cone call me at the office. He did and he reached me. I was where I was supposed to be.

However, this did not put an end to his attacks, which became even more vicious and vitriolic as the campaign went on. He called me “batshit crazy” and " nuts" after he had the gall to tell me earlier that he hoped people were decent in light of my brain tumor. He also characterized my tumor as a "tawdry campaign gimmick."

No, Mr. Cone, the brain tumor is very real and is hardly a tawdry campaign gimmick. I cannot remember what normal is like. I have lost my balance nerve, my hearing and my sense of taste and smell has been severely blunted. I cannot enjoy the simple pleasure of taking a walk because I experience a sense that something is not quite right, which I describe as “dizziness,” although others may describe it as a feeling of being on a ship at sea. However it is described, I seldom get up from my desk because of this.

I have occasional sharp pains in my head. The itchiness in my scalp comes and goes as does the numbness. My face is paralyzed on the right side. Not only can I never smile again, I have to drink everything through a straw and I have difficulty eating. When the numbness acts up, it feels as though I am drooling on the right side and I occasionally slur my words because of the facial paralysis. If I could give up everything I have just to return to normal, I would do it.

The tumor itself is not cancerous. However, this kind of tumor can be just as life-threatening. The bones of the skull have grown and fused together by the time of adulthood. The skull thus cannot expand; it is like a fixed case. Acoustic neuromas do not grow in the brain tissue itself; they grown on the auditory nerve. If left to grow, the brain cannot expand as it is within the enclosed skull and the tumor starts pushing portions of the brain out of the way and begins interfering with brain function. That was the cause of me crashing into walls, my inability to walk over uneven or rough ground, my right eye drying out and the other problems I experienced.

When the tumor grew back, the doctor said that I would have significant problems if something were not done. Those were his words, not mine. I did not make the tumor an issue during my 2004 campaign because the tumor had not been diagnosed yet.

However, after I found out about the tumor in January of 2005, I made it a part of my campaign. I am as well as I am going to ever be whenever I am seated and I only have difficulty hearing in crowded settings, like social events or crowded restaurants. My appearance would of course have no relevance to my ability to hear and decide cases. As a result, I did not feel that the tumor and my symptoms would significantly affect my duties as a justice in the event that I was elected. But I felt that the voters had a right to know about my condition and its possible effect on my ability to fulfill the duties of the office and that is why I made it a part of my campaign.

If I had not made it an issue, then my detractors would have accused me of hiding my medical condition. It was “damned if you do or damned if you don't.” And I explained that there were derogatory comments by a handful of ignorant fools. Their ugly remarks about my appearance made me decide to opt on the side of the truth and take away their negative statements and hopefully turn it into something positive. Its hard to argue with a woman with a brain tumor, but in their rage and hatred, they still managed. So I talked about the tumor and incorporated it into my campaign speech. This then was my "tawdry campaign gimmick."

In response to his other remarks such as my being “batshit crazy”, I ask what qualifications does he possess to make such a psychiatric diagnosis? What facts did he present to support his conclusion? How can he conclude whether I am fit or unfit for office? What legal skills does he have to make this assessment? To all these questions, the answer is none.

I, on the other hand, met many of the candidates running for office. I said to my campaign advisor that after seeing these people, I am as equally qualified, if not more so, than they. Six hundred thousand voters thought so too, Mr. Cone, and the result may even have been higher but for the actions of the beast." * Rachel Lea Hunter...Chapter 13

------------------------

Could not have said it better myself!

[Ed Cone]

I did not "characterize [Rachel's] tumor as a tawdry campaign gimmick," which doesn't even make sense.

What I said was: "I wish Rachel well in her health battle, and urged others to be kind about it during the campaign, but nonetheless recognized her use of the condition as a campaigning point as the tawdry trick that it was."

I did not publish that, by the way; it was in a personal email that the recipient chose to publish.

You left out my favorite part of the chapter: "Ed Cone is bought and paid for by the beast. He dutifully performed his assigned role of publishing anything at all that was unfavorable about me. I had to be stopped and the beast felt that if enough negative press could be generated, I would lose. It therefore enlisted the services of Mr. Cone."

Because only someone enlisted by the beast would think to question the actions of the Hunter campaign, or her qualifications for the state supreme court. And only the beast's paid minions could stop the juggernaut.

[Banned Bubba Twin]

Ed Cone said "I did not "characterize [Rachel's] tumor as a tawdry campaign gimmick," which doesn't even make sense.

What I said was: "I wish Rachel well in her health battle, and urged others to be kind about it during the campaign, but nonetheless recognized her use of the condition as a campaigning point as the tawdry trick that it was."

I did not publish that, by the way; it was in a personal email that the recipient chose to publish."

Well Ed, I just happened to have gotten my hands on that little email which Ms. "Batsit Crazy" Hunter had the foresight to publish on her website. Let's see what it said:

Q: September 27, 2006

Subject: ED Cone asks MJ

Rachel:

I don't recall saying he should talk to the media. Not really my issue. I've been more concerned with the longterm pattern of inappropriate and erratic behavior. The death threat thing doesn't look so great, either.

Hearing you, a candidate for the State Supreme Court, explain away Connie's conviction like a jailhouse lawyer is not an encouraging sign.

I would like to hear more info about Connie being "the man behind the 'Contract with America' and Newt Gingrich's 'Republican Revolution.'" Big claims, those.

Posted by: Ed Cone | Sep 27, 2006 at 07:14 AM

A: Mr. Cone:

I do not waste my time reading your hypocritical blog. However, the statements from your blog were brought to my attention and I read them, so I know about the comments made by you, Doug Clark and John Hood.

As I stated, what was done is done. Its not my responsibility to prove Connie's innocence. Since you are so convinced of the accuracy of the story and want to hear more about Newt Gingrich, why don't you see the country and travel to Georgia and Florida to get at the real facts of the cases and really learn who Connie is? You won't, of course, as you are too lazy and even if you did, you will not present a balanced picture because of your own pre-conceived notions. Its much easier just to cast aspersions.

Connie articulated the stories in greater detail to me, including the ones about Newt Gingrich, the Republican Revolution and Jesse Ventura. After hearing his depiction of real events, I am convinced that the charges were politically motivated by his enemies and that Connie did not commit the crimes to which he entered nolo pleas which were done for his own reasons. But why are incidents of 10 or 20 years ago relevant in any way? Is Connie on the ballot? What office is he running for?

What erratic behavior are you referring to? You still don't get it, do you? You can't see why things were done as they were done and you and the other "journalists" have unwittingly helped in the process. I have told you all along to just shut up and ignore me. Instead, you have given me tons of free publicity and boosted my name identification. Thanks.

As for the death threats, there is an individual with a psychopathic obsession with me residing in Cary. An attempt was made to intimidate Connie by "The Fixer." And other very ugly things have been said which I will not repeat, including threats to get me. After going through my surgeries, I do not fear death. However, I take sensible precautions as anyone would do if they were in my position.

You yourself said to me, "I hope people have not lost their humanity and decency." However, you are among those who made derogatory comments about me. You have shown yourself to be a phony and a hypocrite. You are a card-carrying member of the neo-con beast I talked so much about. Now others see that.

--------------------

I have good sources that tell me that you did make the "tawdry campaign gimmick" remark. Question is, why is Rachel Hunter and Connie Berry such an overwhelming concern to you? Our dollar is in the toilet; real estate and credit markets are in the tank; now there is a loss in jobs. The recession is here now regardless of how King George, Darth Cheney and their yesmen try to deny it.

So, even if Ms. Hunter and Mr. Berry are as deluded and evil as you claim them to be, what harm are they to America when these other problems seem to be more important? Why are you so filled with hatred towards them?

[Ed Cone]

I blogged about Rachel Hunter's campaigns to get elected to a judgeship in my home state.

I have no personal animosity toward her, or Connie; I don't know either one of them. "Evil" is your word, not mine.

The only reason we continue to talk about them in this thread is because you keep bringing it up.

Funny name, Banned Bubba Twin, since Connie got banned in some part for constantly trolling Bubba.