Expanding On Sue's Thoughts On "Online Harassment"

In a post that seemed to be themed my way (as I am online making criminal allegations against two "non-profit" hospital administrators), Sue waxed poetic on "online harassment". I don't have a lot of time this morning, so I'll just re-post my response here:

Sue, a few thoughts from the trenches (where lunches are no longer served).

I can think of one case (again, right under our local journalists noses) in which “the lawyers” should “dissect” the criminal behavior that has been brought to their attention (by a blogger who’d just like to see the system work) . . . rather than flat-out ignore it. I’ve asked for reasonable things to happen. I do not understand, if “no one is above the law” why it’s so hard.

All of the excuses about “potentially libelous” material (ala John Robinson) fall flat as a stone when someone actually LOOKS at the evidence. But hey, we can’t have that. Might disrupt the “whack-job” and “she’s a meanie” themes.

And if one wants to crack down on cyber-stalking, I’d like to make a suggestion. Perhaps there could be a “crack-down” on some of these “Mommy chat rooms” - where anonymous women with an ax to grind do so into the backs of good doctors & nurses (who cannot defend themselves due to privacy laws). One such chat room was brought to my attention in Jacksonville . . . and the things these women said about people I know to be conscientious & dedicated doctors made my skin crawl.

As the victim of that kind of vindictive/entitled and mean-spirited behavior in Asheboro (from a poison-pen wielding dentist who had me boxing shadows from all sides - and whose libelous letter to the hospital CEO actually helped set into motion the series of events that led to my termination), I’d love to see more accountability written into our laws for people who pick up the pen not to right a wrong, but to simply get revenge.

Two things to add (especially as they pertain to what happened to me): (1) Truth is absolute protection in a Court of Law. And (2) except in specifically protected circumstances, when you communicate "privileged" information to a third party, you WAVE privilege. Although most doctors will still honor privilege (unless they're getting sued), confidentiality and privacy is no longer in play . . . especially if you've made false allegations that have caused another harm.

These are just off-the-top-of-my-head-thoughts for Sue to ponder as she suggests (indirectly) that the cops should come after me. As always, she seems rather selective in her outrage - and it never extends towards helping Dr. Mary Johnson out (i.e. sending the cops after the guys who actually put their hands on a Bible and swore out a false Oath).

That's still about our Converge South-Elizabeth Edwards tiff of several years ago. I so got over it.

Sue did not. And that's the real reason we don't do lunch.