How one anti-vax activist responds to evidence-based critiques of her beliefs: threats

Update January 20, 2013: The woman who left the threatening voicemail on the law professor's work phone has contacted the law professor via email, admitting to her actions and apologizing for them.  The law professor has written:

I accept the apology, and from my point of view, the affair is over. I thank you all for your support, and ask the rest of you to let it lie. 

I considered deleting the contents of this post, but decided to let it stand, with the update above.  I dislike removing posts.  But no further action is necessary.

There is a  Facebook group of lay pro-vaccine activists, called  The Anti-Vaccine Wall of Shame.  It has well over 300 international members, mostly from English-speaking countries.   On the whole, posts to the group consist of examples of particularly egregious examples of anti-vaccination counter-factuality, denial of reality, or flat dunderheadedness.

A woman named Hollie (who evidently lives in Illinois) is one of the administrators of a another Facebook page called Motherhood: The Truth. Its About page reads in part

Some of the topics you may see here (not in any specific order): intact penis care, circumcision, natural living, family and infant nutrition, GMO information, medical marijuana, herbs/ homeopathy, natural birth/home birth, breastfeeding, full term nursing, attachment parenting, gentle discipline, homeschooling/unschooling, foreskin restoration, human rights violations, car seat safety, politics, international matters, and more....We firmly believe that vaccines are very dangerous and it is our recommendation that any parent do EXTENSIVE research on the subject.

Hollie, in particular, is rather an extreme "intactivist" who regards all circumcision as wrong.  the ultra-Orthodox Jewish circumcision practice of   "metzitzah b’peh " as child abuse. Hollie has represented this practice as common among all Jews, not just the ultra-Orthodox. Keep that in mind for the rest of the story.

Some weeks ago, members of the Anti-Vaccine Wall of Shame (AVWOS) discovered Hollie's inaccurate, counter-factual Facebook claims about vaccines and began refuting them, both at the Motherhood: The Truth page and on the AVWOS page. A number of AVWOS members participated in the debunking and fact-asserting, including many who use their real names on Facebook and whose employment contact information is easily available.

In response to the pressure of facts from AVWOS members,  on January 11, Hollie posted the following pronouncement at Motherhood: The Truth:

A few weeks ago this page was very ANTI-VACCINATION. We believe that vaccines are poisons and that every parent deserves to be informed. Our mission was interrupted by a group of losers who are terrified that the anti-vaccine movement is gaining ground. In order to keep the integrity of the page, we removed vaccines as a topic here at Motherhood.

One of those "losers" includes an Israeli-born, US-educated law school professor, now employed at a prestigious California law school, who uses her real name in commenting on Facebook.  Keep in mind that this person had recently joined AVWOS, and while active, was far from the most vociferous in refuting Hollie's foolishness. 

Nevertheless, Hollie chose to target the Jewish professor, rather than the other public figures on AVWOS.  Hollie found the professor's listing on the law school's faculty roster,  and left the following rather alarming message:

Here's an edited transcript of Hollie's message (uhms, ers, obvious errors removed)

Thursday (I am not sure if the message was left on January 10, 2013 or January 17, 2013).

Hi Dorit, my name is Hollie. I was actually just calling because I wanted to let you know that I found out your address, where you live in South Bay with your husband, and I just wanted to let you know that I am going to be posting that very, very, very publicly on Facebook, if your group does not leave some of the anti-vaxxers alone. So just take this as a word of warning, Miss Professor of Law. You do know how these things work, these threats, work, right? I will be calling the police and reporting your for harassment. I will also be blowing up the internet, showing your address and all of that. I just wanted to let you know. If you don't leave us alone, we're going to be doing this to you. OK? GREAT! Have a good day.

Just in case Hollie's FB pronouncement goes away, here's a screen-shot. As always, click to embiggen.

I will donate $100.00 to your charity of choice if you can prove that a pro-vaccination advocate has threatened an anti-vaccination advocate in this way.

Elsewhere:

• Just the Vax Blog When the Truth Calls 
• The Poxes Blog You Know How Threats Go, Right?
• Facebook Group: I Harassed a Jewish Lawyer at Work and Now I'm On Tape 
• Harpocrates Speaks Blog Stop Criticizing Me Or I'll Blow Up The Internet!

Comments

[Tuxcomputers]

If I threaten an anti-vaxer and then provide you with the proof that I did will you still send me the $100?

... oh it's to a charity... dam....

[Liz Ditz]

Snort!

Seriously, no threatening for gain. I should have written, before this challenge

[M.J.]

"I will donate $100.00 to your charity of choice if you can prove that a pro-vaccination advocate has threatened an anti-vaccination advocate in this way."

Seriously? I am not an "anti-vaccination advocate" by any stretch of the imagination but I have had people threaten me many times because they don't like something I have said.

Among the more amusing examples were a threat to call child services because they were a mandated reporter and giving your children vitamins is child abuse and a challenge to a duel with swords because, well, I was never quite clear on what this person's problem was.

And, if memory serves, you yourself high-fived someone on twitter after they called me a "child abuser" and kept harassing me to the point that I had to block them.

The "skeptics" or "pro-vaccination advocates" (or whatever you want to call them) are, in my experience, the most obnoxious people when it comes to harassing and stalking people online. They seem to think that the "truth" gives them a right to constantly attack people online even after said people have asked to be left alone.

Here is a simple rule, if a person asks to be left alone either online or in the real world, then you leave them alone. There is no "yes but they don't know the truth" exception to this rule. If you disregard a person's request to be left alone then you are engaging in threatening behavior.

[Reuben Gaines]

"Here is a simple rule, if a person asks to be left alone either online or in the real world, then you leave them alone. There is no "yes but they don't know the truth" exception to this rule. If you disregard a person's request to be left alone then you are engaging in threatening behavior."

Too bad the world doesn't work that way. If you stand in the middle of a public square, and start spewing anti-vax, anti-science nonsense, and I stand next to you and ask you questions, or address your misinformation, this is not harassment, nor bullying. This is simply an equal exercise of free speech.

Now, if I wait until you're done speaking, then look up your name, address, and phone number, and call you at work to tell you that I'm issuing a threat, then that is harassment and bullying.

While in the public square, you can say "leave me alone" all you want, but you have no expectation of privacy or silence to let you speak nonsense. None.

"But my Facebook page is not a public square!" Oh, yes, it is. It very much is unless and until you make it private and not allow your nonsense to hit the public.

Deal with it. Grow a pair.

[Matt Zukowski]

Dear MJ

You are full of it.

No one threatened to call CPS. CPS was called. I don't know the rule in Cali but in Illinois you have to report suspected child abuse if you're a teacher, and there is NO distraction between University professor and grade school. Either way, you DON'T make revenge calls to people who are taking action to protect children.

Here's a puzzle for you. The American Lung Association found a little known federal law that required equal ad space to controversial issues. This required broadcasters to air adverts about the risks of smoking after a smoking advertisement free of charge. Should the ALA have left big tobacco alone, or should they be allowed to present their argument and let the public decide.

You seem to misunderstand that the internet is a global network. You have no reasonable expectation of privacy. If you create a page dedicated to the dangers of vaccination, I can create a page that outline the benefits. This isn't harassment, or stalking, or anything remotely criminal. Threatening to post someone's address VERY PUBLICLY if they don't give in to your demands is extortion, and this is a crime.

If your argument is so weak you have to censor your opposition, there is something wrong with your argument :P