A clarification- Surly Amy

8/21 Update: The post with Amy's address -- although it is easily found because she divulges her real name, the town she lives in, and affixes her address to her business -- has been edited to remove the address as per my request. Again, this was not a 'doc drop,' a threat, or anything similar. 


Following a recent post authored by 'Lousy Canuck' at Freethought Blogs (and another by Stephanie Zvan), I've been reading many nasty comments and receiving many nasty messages from fans of 'Surly Amy.' I am being painted as nothing more than a malicious person who is leading the charge of a bullying campaign. People are claiming that my intentions are to 'ruin the business of Amy' and that I filed a DMCA counter-claim to discover the real life info of 'Surly Amy' (for whatever end I do not know) to just name two things.

It's quite strange that people are claiming that my blogging efforts are intended to (and somehow can) bring financial ruin on 'Surly Amy.' Prior to the DMCA I received, I authored two blog posts offering criticism of 'Surly Amy's' ideas and in no way, shape or form, did I urge people to boycott her or launch some vast campaign to inflict damage upon her. People are going to buy her jewelry, I would think, regardless of what bloggers have to report on what she said about conference policies or following parody accounts on Twitter... I simply disagreed with what she said and offered criticism of her ideas just like almost every other blogger does on the internet when they disagree with something someone said. Amy is a public figure. She and others should expect this...and they should be able to withstand criticism of ideas.

It's even more bizarre that people claimed that I filed a counter DMCA in order to get the personal details of 'Surly Amy.' To dispel this myth amongst a forum community I chat with, I explained that her personal details are already public and can be easily found via her trademarks (one can look at a trademark registry and find the info). I posted those details rather than -- as I would now -- simply noting that the information was public (even though people can, as I said, easily find the info).

It has come to my attention that many people on Twitter (and even some in blog comments here who have never posted on my content) have chided me for posting the address of 'Surly Amy' and have said some really nasty things. I did not present the address with any malicious intent (I even noted it wasn't a threat) and regret that people believe that it was posted in that fashion.

Instead of inquiring as to why the address was posted or looking at the context surrounding the post, people jumped to a conclusion -- likely because they unjustifiably hold preset notions of me being a horrible person -- that it was done with malicious intent. It seems that people are trying really hard to weave a malicious narrative about me with no concern of what is actually the case or for my welfare. This is regrettable.

Although I am quite upset concerning the DMCA notice and, of course, still disagree with 'Surly Amy' on many issues, I mean -- as should be obvious and the fair assumption -- no ill-will, physical harm, or anything like that. It's a shame that the DMCA was even filed as all of this 'drama' could have been avoided if 'Surly Amy' or whomever sent the DMCA ignored the post or simply sent me an e-mail asking for the image to be removed or for better attribution (even though I offered attribution).

The drama continues on Freethought Blogs and the internet at large for no good reason. A narrative about me has already been established by 'Lousy Canuck' and people are defending the indefensible - sending DMCA requests which lead to censorship and create a chilling effect. This sort of behavior, I would think, should not taking place in the skeptic community.

Again, the address wasn't posted with malicious intent. It's public information and was posted because people were alleging that I has malicious intent in filing the counter-DMCA request. Although I strongly disagree with 'Surly Amy,' I mean no ill-will on her personal life or the personal life of whomever she may live with. It would have been nice for people to ask questions surrounding the posting of the address rather than jumping to conclusions of malicious intent.