Comments on Crossing a Line

• Posted by K.T. on July 10, 2006 at 7:00am EDT

• Are we sure that all involved are not in a kindergarten class instead of higher education?

• Posted by Zoe on July 10, 2006 at 7:30am EDT

• Unbelievable. Trolling on conservative sites for the explicit purpose of inciting strong emotions is not debate. Perhaps Frisch missed that course in high school.

  All she did was prove how unrestrained emotions can cloud a person's judgement - in this case, they clouded her judgement enough for her to lose her job. Whether she desired to "move on anyway" or not, this type of behavior serves no one, especially her.

  To think that this woman was teaching psychology (of all things) is truly disturbing. If she can't find better ways to occupy her personal time with more worthy pursuits, then perhaps she'd be better suited in a non-academic environment.

  This woman also had a history of stalking others with whom she disagreed with, in order to do what? Prove what? Good gravy...she needs an anger management class.

• Posted by KC on July 10, 2006 at 8:00am EDT

• First, I notice the author of the article completely fails to reproduce any of the professor's emails to the blogger. They were, indeed, horrible, and suggested the sexual molestation of his two year old child. What parent could not view that as threatening? Why didn't the author of this article interview Jeff Goldstein for his side of the story?
  As for the professor's claims to hurt feelings, why punish Jeff Goldstein for comments left on her site by some unhinged trolls?

• Psychology?
• Posted by JBM on July 10, 2006 at 8:00am EDT

• So this person was in the Psychology Department?

• Frisch
• Posted by Dennis on July 10, 2006 at 8:20am EDT

• This article grossly minimizes Frisch's conduct. First, it wasn't one comment, it was many over the course of several days. Second, any parent of a toddler reading her comments would indeed regard them as threatening even to the point of sexual assault. If I had received such messages, I would have contacted the police. Readers interested in the full details can find them at http://www.proteinwisdom.com/index.php/weblog/entry/more_from_the_tolerant_left/

  This raises a more general concern. What is it about blogs and similar web sites that so easily removes the inhibitions that lead to civil discourse in other settings? I can't imagine that even such a lunatic as Frisch would say such things to a speaker's face or that she would even contemplate writing them in a more formal setting like a journal or memo. As revolting as it was, Frisch's attacks differed only in magnitude from those of so many other blog posters (on the right as well as the left, I hasten to add). A reading of the random screeds on the Daily Kos will illustrate nicely. Do those who use insults rather than logic really think they're going to persuade the target or anyone else?

• Posted by K.T. on July 10, 2006 at 8:20am EDT

• KC - the article explicitly states "Goldstein could not be reached for comment." (which more often than not means attempts at communication were not returned.)

• Posted by Mark on July 10, 2006 at 8:45am EDT

• The interviewer did indeed leave out some interesting stuff about this Frisch business. If you wade through the garbage and connected links of her exchanges with Goldstein you find out several things:

  1. Frisch has a habit of trolling conservative bloggers. For example, she repeatedly made homophobic slurs toward at least one blogger---supposedly because she felt he was not sufficiently tolerant of her lesbianism.

  2. Frisch is also claiming that she didn't really say anything awful about Goldstein's child, and suggests that Goldstein might have altered the comments section to make her look "bad" (that ship has sailed, friends). This is foolish, since she has also apologized.

  Given her long history of this kind of behavior, I am at a loss. I am guessing she is reacting to extremist statements made by folks like Ann Coulter, etc. She probably became angry, and just let it develop and get worse.

  But further extremist statements---and most of all, an unwillingness to take responsibility for her own actions---does not help Dr. Frisch's position.

  It is ironic that a psychologist would act in this fashion, true. But the old fashioned rule of never writing anything you would not say face to face is perhaps applicable.

  I feel badly that Dr. Frisch has damaged both her credibility and her career for....what?

• Posted by gail on July 10, 2006 at 8:45am EDT

• The author of this article softens the impact of Frisch's comments considerably. Here are two examples:

  "Two year old boy. Sounds hot. You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby"

  "Give your pathetic progeny (I sure hope that mofo got good genes from his mama!) a big fat tongue-filled kiss from me! LOTS AND LOTS OF SALIVA from Auntie MOONBAT, if you don’t mind!

  Somehow, Jeffy boy, I think you get off on the possibility of Frenching your pathetic progeny, even if it is a boy. You seem like a VERY, VERY sick mofo to me, bro."

  I understand that she is now denying she made inappropriate sexual references about the child, but the original material has been preserved.

• Couldn't be reached
• Posted by Bic on July 10, 2006 at 8:50am EDT

• Jeff's suffered at least 3 DoS attacks since this whole affair began and has been franticly trying to get his site back up.

  As of right now I don't think there is any reason to connect the two events, just that it may explain why he did no respond to any questions that may have been sent his way.

• Posted by Brian , Asst Prof at Large Midwest U on July 10, 2006 at 9:05am EDT

• If someone were a member of the university brass or part of a P&T committee, they might look at her blog, the frequency of posts, and the evident energy she spends on it and think “um, there are only so many hours in the day, so how does she have time for research, teaching and service? Might this explain her low research output and teaching evals?” They wouldn’t need to consider the content or ideology of said blog. They might make the same evaluation of her file if they knew that she spent almost all of her time with an improvisational comedy group or it they saw her playing video games everyday at the university rec center. Maybe the committee should only read her file and make their decisions based on the papers in front of them. In reality, faculty (tenure-track and adjunct alike) are the public face of the university whether they like it or not; police are the public face of The Law whether they like it or not, which is why their off-duty behavior can get them fired. So, based on the IHE article and my brief perusal of her blog, I don’t have a lot of sympathy for her and I certainly don’t see this as an issue of academic freedom.

  BUT, I’d just like to point out that personal exposure (publishing the names, children’s names, home addresses, employers’ emails, etc.) is emerging as a favored tactic in contemporary blogo-political culture. The most recent example of this is probably Rocco DiPippo and David Horowitz encouraging their readers to find and publish the home addresses of NYT reporters who have published stories of which they disapprove. In university life, Michelle Malkin published the email addresses of UCSC protestors last spring. In the words of Horowitz, this is all “fair game.” Glenn Greenwald provides solid coverage and analysis of this phenomenon on his blog Unclaimed Territory and aptly compares it to the favored tactics of white supremicists. In my opinion, Goldstein chose to play in the gutter with these folks by making a death threat (albeit veiled, vague, etc.) against a political opponent’s 2-year old daughter. During my quick tour of her blog, I saw plenty of the idiotic verbiage that passes for political discourse on most blogs these days (“moonbat,” “wingnut,” “rightwingnut cases” “nutty whack jobs,” “pathetic bullies,” “miserable hypocrites” and “sedition-spewing scum” – all on the first page!). I know that digital politics and the blogosphere are in their infancy, and that there are bound to be growing pains along the way. I just expect a lot more from educators. At the same time, we educators need to recognize that some of our political opponents will do whatever they can to “win,” and that our presence on the internet is not as anonymous as we think it is.

• Deb Frish unhinged Academic
• Posted by Khankrumthebulgar on July 10, 2006 at 9:05am EDT

• What is truly alarming is how many Professors of our Universities agree with Deb Frish. That she felt it was okay to threaten to sexually molest a two year old and to shoot the two year old and his Father tells you far the Left has fallen. The Left is out of ideas and cannot compete in the marketplace of ideas.

  They have had their way for Decades and are no longer in charge. They cannot handle it. So they resort to threats to intimidate those with whom they disagree. This further drives away those who might listen to what they have to say. This is not an effective strategy. And it betrays the Liberal principles of inclusion and tolerance. They are betraying the very principles they espouse.

• for the record
• Posted by Deborah Frisch on July 10, 2006 at 9:25am EDT

• Jeff Goldstein's web site was down for two days after the incident. While I take responsibility for most of the horrid, inappropriate, mean-spirited, unprofessional comments attributed to me, I never wrote anything about French-kissing. That was added and falsely attributed to me.

• Posted by Ted Whileman on July 10, 2006 at 9:35am EDT

• Just setting the record straight, Brian. You're wrong on some facts.

  Michelle Malkin did not release any information on the students that they themselves did not put in a press release, and the aforementioned press release was already in the public domain, including several left-leaning websites.

  Jeff Goldstein never threatened anyone's child, even in a veiled manner. Never happened. Rather, an anonymous commenter made a threatening remark on another website altogether, belonging to someone calling himself "Thersites." "Thersites" then sought to associate the remark with Goldstein by repeating it on the front page of his blog, claiming, without evidence, that the comment had been made by some unknown person who frequents Goldtein's site. Goldstein repudiated the comment (as did all of his frequent commenters) and offered to help "Thersites" discover the who made it.

• historical query
• Posted by Katha Pollitt on July 10, 2006 at 9:45am EDT

• Are there more crazy people now, or does it just seem that way because we have so much instant information? Blogging lets people express their worst selves instantly (e mail too), people write things they never would say face to face, or even in a (signed) paper letter. and it's all completely public, although it may not feel that way at the moment of composing and sending. This teacher sounds barking mad. What does violent-sex-murder fantasizing about her opponent's toddler have to do with politics?

• To be fair...
• Posted by HH on July 10, 2006 at 9:45am EDT

• Brian,
  Michelle Malkin did NOT publish anything that had previously been private. The UCSC protesters themsleves handed out flyers with their contact information on it. One would think so that they could be contacted.

  Michelle re-published this information on her website.
  This is far different than publishing contact information that was not previously made public.

• Pot - Kettle - Black - Khankrumthebulgar
• Posted by Brian on July 10, 2006 at 9:45am EDT

• Khankrumthebulgar -- Can you name any professors or university employees that have come out in favor of her? Don't paint "The Left" with such a big brush. Yes, she betrays the liberal principles of tolerance and inclusion. That's why, if you were to take a poll, you'd find little support for her within the professoriate or "The Left." Do you find it equally alarming that so many on The Right support the hate-mongering of Coulter, Malkin and Horowitz? Frish did not invent the gutter politics found in the 21st century blogosphere; she's merely aping, aiding, and abetting it.

• "Debate"?
• Posted by JohnAnnArbor on July 10, 2006 at 10:05am EDT

• The article says "Frisch is known for going on conservative sites she abhors and engaging in debate."

  Right. She doesn't engage in debate; let's make that clear. She went on to Jeff's site and started insulting everyone in sight as subhuman and unworthy of consideration. Her "arguments" were almost non-existant, and when she was challenged on anything, she refused to back anything up; instead, she hurled more insults and begged Jeff to ban her (presumably to get satisfaction from being banned by those nasty neo-cons). When that didn't work, she just kept escalating the insults, like a garden-variety middle-school bully, until she hit the range of going after his wife and child in the most disgusting of terms.

  She's an attention-seeker, like a toddler throwing a tantrum.

• comment
• Posted by Jack Hamilton on July 10, 2006 at 10:05am EDT

• To the professor that said malkin published private information about UCSC students that is about enough of this lie. The stuff she published was public information and was on the hand outs that were being passed out at the protest.Next this vile woman has no regrets about her comments about a two tear old child. She is now trying to blame it on the victim. The gentelman known as Jeff or the victim should sue her ass off. It is more than merited.

• Posted by dub on July 10, 2006 at 10:35am EDT

• Can you imagine the uproar if a conservative had said these types of things?

• What Brian Said...
• Posted by Scott , Library Director at A Midwestern Community College on July 10, 2006 at 10:35am EDT

• Thank you, Brian, for adding some sanity. You make some very valid points in your posts that both extremes ought to pay some attention to.

  The increasingly vitriolic tendencies of the blogosphere AND the apparent willingness of the extremes of either flavor to leap to attack those who disagree with them while ignoring their own side's abuses practically guarantees more of this kind of senseless, puerile activity in the name of political purity.

  But I can certainly understand how some people are driven to utilize inflammatory rhetoric. Conservatives should not be surprised when the tactics of Coulter, Hannity, O'Reilly, et. al. raise a similar response from those on the left. Folks on both sides of the fence ought to remember that as you sow, so shall you reap.

• Fair and Balanced
• Posted by Jeff on July 10, 2006 at 10:35am EDT

• While I do not condone Deborah's comments Mr. Goldstein and his fellow bloggers should realize that when you present viewpoints outside of the mainstream you are subject to attacks. This is a country based upon free speech afterall, no matter who distasteful it may be. If Deborah felt so strongly about her comments why did she resign and not try to put up a fight, althouh I understand having adjunct status does not give you many rights in academia. I think this is a case of both sides not understanding the principle of "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen."

• Hypocritical
• Posted by Stephen Downes on July 10, 2006 at 10:50am EDT

• If the right were secure in its position, they would not need to respond by emailing Frisch's employers. Frisch would be seen to be self-evidently wrong. By acting to silence her, they lend credibilty to her words. She is hitting a nerve, and while I would like to think it's guilt, it is rather probably nothing more that hypocrisy.

• Just WOW
• Posted by Steffen Caldwell , WOW on July 10, 2006 at 10:55am EDT

• It amazes me how a woman on the left can threaten to sexualy abuse and murder a child and get away with it! The left just want to forget this and can't understand how or why a person would get upset. Well it really shouldn't amaze me at all as hard as they have faught in the past for the right for women to kill their babies. So I guess the life of a child is not that important to a liberal. Go figure.

  I really hope charges are pressed against this "woman". She obviously has some serious problems and I hope that she can get the help that she needs.

  She should also consider herself very lucky that she didn't say or post those things about my child. She would not be very healthy for very long. I take a death threat against my child very seriously. In other words don't so it if you enjoy walking upright.

• Make a wish, Deborah Frisch
• Posted by Chuck on July 10, 2006 at 10:55am EDT

• Frisch's adolescent email antics and her crowing about them confirm the general level of idiocy and recklessness that characterize academic lefties nowadays.

  Who can possibly be surprised?

  In her own classes, I would reckon Frisch engaged in similar sorts of one-sided, insensitive, divisive, mean-spirited and sarcastic viciousness, as becomes an admitted ideologue.

  If Katha Pollitt marvels at people gone "crazy" in cyber-space she should go re-read her own inane, witless columns starting with the one where she chastized her own daughter who wanted to display Old Glory after 9/11.

  Verily, the lunacy and hypocrisy of the academic and media left knows no boundaries.

• Hey Fair and Balanced...
• Posted by Steffen Caldwell on July 10, 2006 at 11:05am EDT

• Fair and Balanced Posted
  While I do not condone Deborah’s comments Mr. Goldstein and his fellow bloggers should realize that when you present viewpoints outside of the mainstream you are subject to attacks. This is a country based upon free speech afterall, no matter who distasteful it may be. If Deborah felt so strongly about her comments why did she resign and not try to put up a fight, althouh I understand having adjunct status does not give you many rights in academia. I think this is a case of both sides not understanding the principle of “If you can’t take the heat, get out of the kitchen.”

  Yes one of the strongest foundations of our country is in fact free speach. Sadly you have blirred the line between free speach and death threats. Funny how I don't see our founding fathers thinking death threats and threats of sexual abuse would fall under free speach. Maybe for a liberal who makes up the rules as he/she/it goes along but not for those of us who posess common sense. Something I feel you have either forgotten of are ignoring with your words.

  Now if the victim in this case couldn't "take the heat" like you put it why are there more and more attacks on his domain? Is the left trying to sweep this under the carpet also? I hope you try because I know for a fact that there are copies of the domain that were saved before the attacks started. So sorry to burst yer bubble but it just won't work.

  You also need to rememeber that the true victim is only 2 years old. Is the left so out of arguments that they have to attack our children now? I hope not because there will be many hurt liberals in this country if that is true.

• Posted by David , Frisch is Sick on July 10, 2006 at 11:05am EDT

• "My goal was to hurt Jeff’s feelings, to make him feel disgusted and verbally assaulted the way I felt when his friends made sexual references to me."

  This quote shows that this lady is not right in the head. Ms. Frisch wanted hurt Mr. Goldstein because blog commenters hurt her.

  Sick.

• Posted by Brian on July 10, 2006 at 11:35am EDT

• RE: Malkin. She knew that listing the names, phone numbers, and email addresses of those students under the banners “UC Santa Cruz Hates Our Troops” (see her site archives/004973) and “Seditious Santa Cruz vs. America” (archives/004974) would cause them problems. It’s not a huge leap to conclude that she listed that information PRECISELY to cause them problems. Sure enough, the students received multiple death threats. It’s telling that many folks are quick to defend Malkin, and that some of those same people (Jack?) are shocked and outraged by Frish. Both are engaging in the same thuggish tactics. Both are incapable of participating in adult political discussion. Both think that chirping “moonbat” or “wingnut” constitutes healthy debate. Both cheapen and degrade civil society. Here’s the key difference: one got fired and will quickly fade from our collective radar screen. The other has one of the most trafficked blogs in the U.S. and repeatedly appears on major media outlets.

  Ted – I was wrong about Goldstein; I was referring to Frish. I stand corrected. Thanks for the clarification.

  Katha – The scholars at the Pew Internet & American Life Project will offer more evidence-based answers to your query. Commenting here as an armchair sociologist, I think there’s an inevitable lag between technological developments (e.g. cell phones) and social norms (e.g. what constitutes rude cell phone behavior). With the advent of affordable printing technology in the early 19th century, newspapers called “penny presses” trafficked in some of the same incivility that we find on early 21st century blogs. The technology made it easier to be mean. I’m unsure about the accuracy of this comparison, though. Any historians (armchair or otherwise) want to weigh in on this?

  Thanks Scott!

• Posted by XTeacher on July 10, 2006 at 11:35am EDT

• Scott,

  When Limbaughhannityoreillymalkincoulter threatens someone's two-year-old, you would be justified in making the case for equivalency between it and Frisch.

  Unfortunately, when a species of whacko, right or left, feels (rather than thinks) that its beliefs are the only correct ones, those that stray are labeled heresy and are therefore propogated by a subhuman class. Said whackos then feel justified in the most vile and hateful attacks imaginable, both verbal and physical.

  I sincerely wish that the Left would be more proactive in denouncing its lunatic fringe. Because of Mr. Bush's war, the crackpots on the left have gone from being on the hairy edge of the kook fringe to a position of legitimacy in the national debate. I fear that this will prove to be the undoing of the progresssive movement, and the lunatics will play right into the right's narrative of them.

  What Dr. Frisch did was deeply wrong but not worthy of this big of a stink. If you cannot debate on fact, stay out of the debate. To lower oneself to a level of crassness to escalate the level of crassness shown by one's opponents is to engage in the rhetoric of the playground.

• Stephen, Stephen
• Posted by Ted Burton on July 10, 2006 at 11:35am EDT

• This isn't about 'the right being secure in its position', it's about basic human decency. It really doesn't matter what end of the political spectrum the woman is coming from, it's just plain unacceptable, and frankly, it's also extremely creepy that a psych professional should behave in such a manner.

  Or is that just so hard to comprehend?

• Posted by wendy on July 10, 2006 at 11:35am EDT

• In this comment thread Frisch states:

  "Jeff Goldstein’s web site was down for two days after the incident. While I take responsibility for most of the horrid, inappropriate, mean-spirited, unprofessional comments attributed to me, I never wrote anything about French-kissing. That was added and falsely attributed to me."

  Ms Frisch, IP addressess and other identifying information are recorded each and every time you post. Your vile comments were witnessed in real time by hundreds - myself included. Absolutely nothing was added or changed.

• Out of Bounds
• Posted by SWLiP on July 10, 2006 at 11:35am EDT

• The people on this thread who suggest that Deb Frisch was just exercising her right of free speech, or that she has been the victim of a right wing attack, have either not read her comments or have no inkling of what constitutes basic decency. We bloggers are used to all kinds of bile being hurled our way, but posting very specific, disgusting threats to somebody's child is way out of bounds. Indeed, what Deb Frisch posted on Protein Wisdom may be both civilly and criminally actionable, which explains her desperate campaign to disavow the "frenching" comment, which she did indeed write.

  That this woman was a professor of psychology, and that fellow academics are willing to defend her from having to suffer the consequences of her appalling remarks, speaks volumes about the current state of academia.

• Brian
• Posted by Amanda M on July 10, 2006 at 11:40am EDT

• Brian:

  Why don't you answer the posts which pointed out your factual errors earlier, rather than just coming back with more pontification? Malkin published PUBLIC contact information of student protestors who were encouraging people to contact them. It was a press release, for God's sake! They WANTED people to contact them! How does that make her a hate monger?

  But the left never deals in facts, just emotion...why don't you have the courage to respond to people's questions and comments? The country is tired of these tactics, which is why the left is having a very hard time winning elections...

• Scott,
• Posted by bgates on July 10, 2006 at 11:40am EDT

• If Frisch was driven to act by Ann Coulter, was Ann Coulter driven to act by an earlier leftist? Or are conservatives responsible for their actions, as well as the threats of sexual abuse hurled in response?

  Or perhaps both Coulter and Frisch are responsible for themselves?

• Psychology Today
• Posted by GoFigure on July 10, 2006 at 12:50pm EDT

• This would have been a far more interesting story had the faculty member been tenured and full time.

• Negative critique, anger, and post60s academic culture
• Posted by clare spark , Independent Scholar on July 10, 2006 at 12:50pm EDT

• I just woke up here on the west coast, have read all the comments and am in a state of shock. First, I can't believe the incident happened at all. Second, as others point out, the anonymity of the internet has encouraged the most revolting behavior in disputing those with whom we disagree.
  But I think there is something more to be said about the kind of social criticism that was part of populism in general, and never oriented to a positive program for change that would both insure economic growth and sufficient regulation and public programs to protect those for whom the system (not themselves) had failed.
  It is not fashionable any longer to quote Hofstadter favorably, but there is a paranoid style, and it is verbally violent. Read J. A. Hobson's study of imperialism and consider its theory of history: the finance capitalists (i.e. the Jews) run the world through their iron-fisted control of the mass media, and are the primary causes of war (Hobson). Hobson was an important influence on Lenin. Fast forward to the ways elite institutions responded to 1960s social movements: The academic programs that were founded supposedly to teach the history of women and minorities did not deviate from the victimology that was inherent in Hobson's views and in other populists. I am on several scholar-discussion lists where populism is vigorously defended, as if it actually offered a positive vision for the future rather than a nostalgic glance backwards at a utopia of small producers and small-town bonhomie that never existed.

• Posted by Jeff G on July 10, 2006 at 12:55pm EDT

• I received no email or phone call from anyone at Inside Higher Ed.

  A few corrections: 1) I don't believe I engage in "considerable mocking of liberal academics and ideas." I taught English for a number of years at a private university in Colorado, in fact, so I'm not unfamiliar with the academy.

  True, I have addressed issues of identity politics within the academy, but I've done so seriously. And for the record, I consider myself a classical liberal (I am about as far from a social conservative as one can be, for instance). so while I've written extensively on questions of progressive philosophical assumptions and how they lead to things like, say, free speech zones, I don't mock liberalism. Just the opposite in fact: I think progressivism is in opposition to classical liberalism -- particularly insofar as it promotes group identity over individualism.

  2) Frisch's apology was immediately followed by a walking back of that apology, and has now culminated in a desire to see rightwingers heads cracked open with baseball bats, and suggestions that I doctored her comments.

  But her comments were cut and pasted as she made them, and they are recorded in Google caches in pristine condition. The suggestion that I altered them, therefore, is potentially libelous.

  3) No one on my site harrassed Frisch, as a perusal of the various threads she appeared on will attest. And in my post, her school email was not included.

  4) Frisch is relying on sites like this one to suggest that she is a victim. Don't let her get away with it. Frisch was looking, by her own admission, to be banned from my site.
  Not only that, but she is trying to suggest she is guilty of nothing more than engaging in a "teachable moment" -- the presumptuous and self-importance of which is staggering.
  But it bears noting that, even in your article, Frisch, an adjunct instructor, refers to herself as a "professor" and compares herself to Ward Churchill. Her desire for academic and leftwing martyrdom drips from her every word and claim. But I won't be used as her dupe.

  I had been prepared to let this go (something I believe I made fairly clear after my site recovered from one of the 3 DoS attacks I was under this weekend), but now that Frisch has decided to try to parlay her infamy into victimized Truth Speaker status, I'm prepared to follow through and make it clear once and for all that Ms Frisch is a very sad case indeed. In fact, the only reason she's a "target" at all is that she has worked hard at setting herself up as one.

  That is to say, rather than blaming "rabid, crazy, right-wing nutcases" for her troubles (such as they are; I happen to thing she's quite enjoying the attention), she should take ownership of her own behavior, which throughout has been vile and manipulative.

  -- Jeff Goldstein
  proteinwisdom.com

• Posted by Bull**** on July 10, 2006 at 1:55pm EDT

• Frisch's comment that she never said anything about "French Kissing" the child is absolutely false and can be verified by looking at trackbacks of several blogs (as well as the Google cache). All of the blogs reporting this (both left and right) would have to be colluding for her story to be true.

• Amanda
• Posted by mrjim on July 10, 2006 at 1:56pm EDT

• Contact information on PRESS releases is placed there generally so that the PRESS can contact those who issued the release. It is either ignorant or disingenuous to claim that the students placed their contact information on the release so that the PUBLIC could contact them. No respectable media outlet would post such information on its website in the way that Malkin did. What Frisch did was wrong and what Malkin did was wrong.

• Re: Fair and Balanced
• Posted by JayI on July 10, 2006 at 2:00pm EDT

• Jeff,
  You said, "Mr. Goldstein and his fellow bloggers should realize that when you present viewpoints outside of the mainstream you are subject to attacks." This statement illustrates two things.
  First, that you and your ilk, who are immersed in the liberal academic world, believe that your views are "mainstream" to the exclusion of all others. If you were to delve a bit into the Real World outside of your bubble you would find that your convictions are far less "mainstream" than you believe.
  Second, your assertion that espousing any views outside of your bubble renders one "subject to attack." This concept is at the heart of liberals' responses to any refutation of their cherished beliefs, as evidenced by the vitriol which is generally prevalent on the "mainstream" liberal websites, and by Ms. Frisch in particular.
  It is my experience that when conservatives attack liberal comments, it is usually in response to the liberals posting something that is completely baseless and untrue, or themselves precipitating the attack with the inflammatory rhetoric that seems to be their preferred style. If somebody like Ms. Frisch wants a civil debate of the facts of the issues, conservatives will gladly do so. But when she and others like her deliberately go looking for a fight, they shouldn't get too upset when they find one.

• Trollin' on the river
• Posted by Larry at no-troll zone on July 10, 2006 at 2:00pm EDT

• Trolling is just trolling. But, with few exceptions, most blogs are just asking to be trolled, since, for the most part, they are read by people who will agree with most of what is said on the blog. Therefore, someone who takes an adverse position, will often be seen as a troll, and even more so, if they attempt to show something by taking an extreme position. A good troll will take in a very subtle way, such that people don’t even know if it is trolling. So, Zoe, whether “trolling” is a worth pursuit is anyone’s guess. It may be quite an intellectual activity. It may be just juvenile. It depends on the complexity of the argument.

  However, I don’t think that people should consider blog posts either way toward someone’s tenure, UNLESS, they specifically include their blogs as a scholarly activity. When you start considering blogs, you run into all sorts of problems such as 1) do later edits of posts count; 2) do comments on other blogs count; and 3) do embryonic ideas that might contain small mistakes or ideas subject to later refinement count against the candidate. If someone is spending too much time blogging, it will cut into their “real” publication time, and they can be judged on that. Not on the amount of posts they make.

  Dennis, I look at the free-wheeling nature of anonymous blogs as a good thing. We finally get to say what people are really thinking, and that a lot of the pretense of academia is quite similar to partisan politics. Perhaps worse. (Indeed, as a practical matter, in the few scholarly articles that I write, I have a habit of concealing anything that may be construed as a personal barb in footnotes.)

• Posted by sc on July 10, 2006 at 2:15pm EDT

• I absolutely adore the left's ability for tolerance. Did they not get their own memo?

• Free Speech
• Posted by M McBride on July 10, 2006 at 2:15pm EDT

• Why is it that some feel obligated when disagreed with, or criticized to point out the obvious and irrelevant fact that they have a right to free speech?

  This is not a free speech issue. Don't fool yourselves.

  I am not sure what to think; perhaps some misplaced sense of entitlement causes them to believe that free speech means speech free of criticism or contradiction? Is this a condition brought out by limited exposure to environs in which one encounters contrary viewpoints?

  The more likely cause is simply to obfuscate. When defending an untenable position, this is one of the only tactics left.

  The problem is that it is a disingenuous tactic; nothing more than smoke and mirrors designed to distract from the real issue.

  The real issue is that she did not stick to the debate, or even the person she was "debating". She directed some disgusting comments at a two year old child.

  No vague and unsupported references to right wing bloggers "do[ing] it too" will change that.

  No moral equivalencies, cries of tu quoque, no posturing about personal freedoms or attempts to paint her as a victim will change that.

  She expressed herself freely and seems positively baffled that others are allowed to express themselves in response.

  Accusations of doctoring posts, intermittent contrite words framed by more hostility and defiance are not helping.

  It seems for all the education the Dr. has - she never learned the first rule of holes.

• 'Crossing the Line'?
• Posted by Steel on July 10, 2006 at 2:20pm EDT

• What a delightfully euphemistic way of describing what Ms. Frisch did.

  I suppose one could call what she is doing NOW - simply getting 'her facts' on the table?

  No.

  Ms. Frisch did much more than 'cross a line'- she saw fit to bring a child into an arena that is at least, wrong, if not unlawful, in intent.

  What she continues to do is revise history and paint herself as some sort of martyr.

  The reality of all of this is that Ms. Frisch is a pathetic creature indeed. She grows ever more so every time she opens her mouth. That alone, is testimony to the many failures of 'higher education.'

• Posted by Barbara O'Brien on July 10, 2006 at 3:20pm EDT

• For the past three days several bloggers and blog readers of "the Right" have taken it upon themselves that "the Left" apologize for what Deb Frisch wrote. As a liberal blogger of some standing among other liberal bloggers, I assure everyone that we on "the Left" had never heard of Deb Frisch and have no idea what her agenda is. As near as we can tell from sitemeter and Technorati, she averaged fewer than 100 page views a day until Thursday, and in the previous year or so had been linked to by only a dozen other blogs.

  In short, I don't know who Deb Frisch is, and I'm not claiming her as a colleague. As I posted on my blog, if someone on my blogroll writes something uncivilized, you may call my attention to it and ask for an apology. Otherwise, not.

  The Blogosphere can be rough, and for all their whining about how mean "the Left" is to them, "the Right" dishes it out as much if not more. At various times in the past right-wingers have targeted me with hate emails and my site by filling comments boxes with profanity. I have also received a few obscene phone calls. And this is for stating liberal opinions they don't like. I don't threaten people, nor do I allow my commenters to threaten people.

  Going on to any right-wing site, identifying oneself as a "liberal," and then insulting the rightie natives in any way, is a bit like rubbing yourself with raw hamburger and joining a pack of hyenas. No one with his/her head screwed on straight would do such a thing. Ms. Frisch's conduct reveals bad judgment and worse impulse control.

• amazing.
• Posted by dub on July 10, 2006 at 3:20pm EDT

• For anyone sticking up for this woman, you have need to read her commentary on Jeff's site.
  This reminds me of some of the unhinged instructors I had during my years at the acadamy.
  I remember one criminal law professor who would spout incessantly about criminals being capable of rehabilitation, but once when I had the temerity to disagree with him about the importance of the NSA to U.S. security he called me "naive" and suggested that I "read some books on the subject."
  The date was 9/10/01. What a clown.

• Posted by Fen on July 10, 2006 at 3:20pm EDT

• While I do not condone Deborah’s comments Mr. Goldstein and his fellow bloggers should realize that when you present viewpoints outside of the mainstream you are subject to attacks. This is a country based upon free speech afterall

  She threatened his child in an attempt to indimidate him into silence. Thats a direct threat on free speech and should not be tolerated.

  If Deborah felt so strongly about her comments why did she resign and not try to put up a fight

  She resigned to shortcut any serious consequence for her actions. She [rightly] fears this incident will affect her ability to be hired by another University. And Google will see that - she should not be allowed within 100 yards of a classroom.

• Answering Some Questions
• Posted by Scott Jaschik on July 10, 2006 at 3:20pm EDT

• I sent e-mail to Jeff Goldstein over the weekend. He notes that his site was down and I fear my e-mail was not received as a result. Because his site was down during the time this article was reported, and because there were disputes over which posts Frisch made, I did not quote her postings. However, this morning, as soon as I learned Protein Wisdom was active again, I added to my article links to:
  1. The Frisch posts (as summarized by Jeff Goldstein).
  2. A Jeff Goldstein statement about his feelings about the controversy.

  Scott Jaschik
  Inside Higher Ed

• Emotion, Logic, & Amanda
• Posted by Brian on July 10, 2006 at 3:20pm EDT

• Amanda – In my last post, I respond directly to the “but it’s in their own press release!” argument that the Malkinites are trotting out here. As for being overly emotional, reread Steffen Caldwell’s post (Just Wow) where he states that it’s a good thing that Frisch didn’t write about his own child because “She would not be healthy for very long.” So, using Amanda Logic, this kind of pseudo-macho posturing constitutes healthy political debate, but pointing out the blatant hypocrisy of those who attack leftist extremists while simultaneously championing the extremism of those they happen to politically agree with is “just emotion.”

  Here’s a thought puzzle for you: Let’s imagine that Frisch’s blog is actually read by a lot of people, she has a NYT bestseller making fun of 9/11 widows, and she routinely appears on CNN and Fox News. Your organization issues a press release that doesn’t meet her threshold of ideological purity and so she publishes your contact information under the headlines “Amanda Hates Our Troops” and “Seditious Amanda vs. America” (the oh-so unemotional language M.M. used to describe the UCSC students). You begin to receive death threats. Using Amanda Logic, this is okay, right? After all, you WANT people to contact you! All your information is publicly available! Can’t stand the heat? Don’t blame the furnace!

  I’m arguing that internet civility should transcend politics. Frisch is just like Malkin, except she has a much smaller megaphone. Those that attack Frisch at the same moment that they offer knee-jerk defenses of Malkin et. al. only help prove my point.

  [Great post Larry – those are all things academics need to think about before they blog]

• No credibility left
• Posted by Krusty Krab on July 10, 2006 at 3:20pm EDT

• The denial from Frisch came, no doubt, with the thought of "plausible deniability", but also with a lamentable (for her at least) lack of knowledge about how detailed internet records are, and how difficult it is to The Internet, and the copious records that it keeps, makes a quick lie of Frisch's denial.

  Really, even the part she admits to is bad enough. Other than to defame Jeff by implying that he altered her comments, I see no purpose to bringing up such a charge at this point. This is especially probative considering the serious nature of the comments that she is claiming have been modified, and her lack until after the fact to make any prior protest about their modification.

  For me at least, this removes whatever shreds of credibility and dignity that she might ever once have had.

• Inside Higher Ed could well afford a little more thought
• Posted by Charlie (Colorado) on July 10, 2006 at 3:20pm EDT

• ... and, perhaps, another attempt to contact Jeff. (I've had no trouble reaching him this weekend; I wonder just how diligently the author attempted to reach him.)

  In particular, the question of what Frisch actually wrote is easily checked; I understand that it's not her technical field, but it is mine, and the authenticity of her comments is quite easily proven. IHE might want to consider whether it's appropriate to continue to propagate her libel.

• Posted by Marty on July 10, 2006 at 3:20pm EDT

• I was a student of Dr. Frisch at the University of Oregon in 2000. I'm suprised and appalled at her comments.

  I was one of the very few conservative students at the U of O and Dr. Frisch and I had numerous healthy, polite debates about politics and pop culture in her office while I was her student.

  I always found her to be funny and engaging (and wrong), I'm not sure what prompted her to go down such a vile path in this particular situation but hopefully she and Mr. Goldstein can put it behind them and move on.

• Drive by's
• Posted by Adam Sullivan on July 10, 2006 at 3:25pm EDT

• A commenter asked this :

  "What is it about blogs and similar web sites that so easily removes the inhibitions that lead to civil discourse in other settings?"

  IMO, it is the same thing that strips drivers of empathy the moment they get into an automobile. A sort of contextual anonymity is assumed that allows many to shed any sense of courtesy - as if courtesy were motivated by an avoidance of shame rather than sympathy for the other.

  Marcuse had a point: Our technological society continues to reify its inhabitants.

• Posted by Patterico on July 10, 2006 at 3:25pm EDT

• I have debunked this silly article here.

• She was debating?
• Posted by Shaun on July 10, 2006 at 3:25pm EDT

• Why do I keep reading here that Frisch went to Protein Wisdom for a debate. From the moment she entered that website, she did everything BUT debate. Unless you count inane and childish poetry as a form of debating an issue. She taunted and name-called, but I saw no debates coming from her posts.

• Sue Michelle Malkin
• Posted by Fair Poise on July 10, 2006 at 4:15pm EDT

• I was appalled to see Michelle Malkin continue the drama today on Hotair.com.

  I suggest that Debbie find a good lawyer and take these Conservatives to task - sue her for defamation, the grounds are there.

  Do it.

• Posted by Tom Maguire on July 10, 2006 at 4:20pm EDT

• From the article:

  On Goldstein’s site, she said, when she posted comments, others made “sexually disparaging and graphic comments about me.”“I said I found it creepy and inappropriate but it continued,” she said.

  I understand that that is her contention, and I know Goldstein's site has been down, so it has not been easy to verify.

  However, nwo that his site is back I would be very curious if anyone *can8 attempt to verify that - when i looked through a few days ago, I just couldn't see her side of it. Certainly not in any sort of proportionate way to her response.

• Debate?
• Posted by kevin Peters on July 10, 2006 at 4:20pm EDT

• I took the time to read the entire PW thread in question and debate, ideas, and even humor were nowhere to be found in her comments. Her first post was ignored by the majority of the posters. There was crude language used on the site but it was of the usual trite and boring variety. Then mid thread she went off the edge. It is one thing to direct your anger at the politics or even the person of the blogger who runs a site but she directed her rage at a young child in a manner and in such detail that was beyond the pale. She seemed to get mad when she was not kicked off the site and escalated the rhetoric and the disgust factor. If she had directed her barbs, even the ones that were vulgar, at the host this would never had become a topic of discussion. But she went after a young child in a manner that was truly disgusting even if you consider the high tolerance for vulgar language and thoughts that transpires on the net. She needs professional help. Everyone should read the entire thread. Her words stand out. There was plenty of teen age boy vulgarity playing out but on the whole most of the debate was heated but reasonably civil. She went over the cliff.

• Doing some homework first...
• Posted by Leonard on July 10, 2006 at 4:20pm EDT

• The author of this article hasn't done much in the way of real homework. Even a slapdash investigation would have yielded better results. Tsk, tsk ... not good enough, I'm afraid. You get a D on this one.

• Posted by Maggie on July 10, 2006 at 4:20pm EDT

• The student information Malkin posted was that of A. Adults who B. had already published that same information in their press releases, and I understand *on their own websites.*

  Nobody on the left has to apologize for Deborah, she dug her own hole and she is responsible for herself. But those who insist on talking about it and diluting the sheer disgrace of her behavior by those juvenile "yabbut, the right does it too," did their own hole- and that hole you make is in your own credibility. Show us where Malkin or Coulter made sexually suggestive remarks and thinly veiled death threats against a two year old, and you can argue moral equivolence. Otherwise, you're just arguing moral failure- your own.

  There is a huge difference between being obnoxious, ugly, and rude as all get out towards adults and making sexually suggestive remarks and veiled death threats towards a two year old. Grown ups know this and acknowledge it.

• Posted by Patterico on July 10, 2006 at 4:20pm EDT

• I guess this site doesn't recognize HTML.

  The debunking is here:

  http://patterico.com/2006/07/10/4852/jeff-goldstein-responds-to-article-in-inside-higher-ed-portraying-deborah-frisch-as-a-victim/

• Posted by John C. Randolph on July 10, 2006 at 4:20pm EDT

• Being a hard-line Libertarian, I'm not a big fan of either right- or left-wingers. It is however, crystal clear that Frisch is not the victim here, she is the perpetrator. I'm rather impressed that Goldstein is generous enough to refrain from pressing charges, but I would urge him to reconsider.

  Frisch's behavior, and her attempt to protray herself as a victim in the aftermath, point to the kind of narcissistic world-view common to stalkers. She may be a harmless loudmouth, or she may really be unhinged. If I were in Goldstein's shoes I wouldn't take the chance. There should at the very least be a restraining order, the record of which will certainly help any future targets of her threats.

  -jcr

• Posted by Bill Schumm on July 10, 2006 at 4:20pm EDT

• Brian says: "Frisch is just like Malkin, except she has a much smaller megaphone."
  That's strange. I've read quite a few of Malkin's postings and I've never seen her threaten other people's children. I've never seen her lie about things she's written in the past. I've never seen her unleash a stream of profanity and call it "debate." And she's never called herself a professor, either.

  What's with all this phoney "equivalency" argument? Just the Left's way of fogging the issue.

• Posted by Alaska Jack , Wrong about Press Releases on July 10, 2006 at 5:00pm EDT

• Ok, I realize this is straying a little off topic, but in the interests of accuracy: Mr. Jim, you're simply wrong about press releases. As someone who has worked in and around the press nearly my entire life, I can attest to the fact that I (and anyone else I know in the industry) would be flabbergasted at the suggestion that someone would include, in a normal press release, information that they expected to be kept private.

  There is one exception that I'm aware of: Occasionally, a releasing party will include a request that certain information be "embargoed." But:

  1. There is no evidence that this happened in Malkin's case

  2. It's still just a request; press organizations aren't legally bound by it or anything; and

  3. In every case I've ever heard of, the embargo is associated with a date. (i.e., "Please don't release this information to the public until July 15.")

  Sorry. Saying "It was a PRESS release so the information was for the PRESS only" sounds plausible, but in fact it is just plain wrong. It is a release TO the press, but the info contained therein is for public consumption.

  - Alaska Jack

• Fair Poise
• Posted by Ted Burton on July 10, 2006 at 5:00pm EDT

• C'mon. Please. What case?

  If anyone ought to be 'lawyering up' here. it's Jeff G. And he's still doesn't seem to be convinced that it's the right approach. And, for what little it's worth, I think he's right on emphasis - you can argue that what she originally posted is not a 'credible threat', but certainly she was fair game for exposure to her faculty.

  Whether or not Ms. Frisch has a valid defamation case here really isn't the issue anyway; it's that the primary and initiating offense here was committed by her. If you note the comments from the less inflamatory posters here, including Jeff G himself, you'd note that what's being called for is typically along the lines of:

  1. An unequivocal apology (which looked as though it had been made, and then not - I've lost track)

  2. A recognition that while bloggers themselves are fair game up to but not including physical threats against their wellbeing

  3. A desire to elevate the discourse above that of Grub Street.

  Jeff himself is in a position to inject some background context which many of us may not have been fully aware of.

  But back to the point. Ms. Frisch needs to take her lumps, issue an apology, and ... MoveOn. If she can do that, she might be able to salvage some credibility, although personally, I'm not sure she deserves it, but I'm not the forgiving kind.

• LOL
• Posted by Rev Max on July 10, 2006 at 5:00pm EDT

• Commenters here are getting all huffy and prissy, as though Goldstein is some sort of Boddhi Dharma whose tent was soiled by a unwashed barbarian.

  The truth is, this is a guy who is infamous in the blogosphere for threatening to physically restrain his critics and slap them in the face with his penis.

  http://sadlyno.com/archives/002902.html

  What Frisch did was inexcusable, but c'mon - this isn't innocence besmirched here, its more like Andrew Dice Clay mixing it up with a heckler.

• Getting Dr. Frisch to tone it down...
• Posted by WildMonk on July 10, 2006 at 5:05pm EDT

• I've engaged Dr. Frisch, aka "Southwestpaw" on a number of blogs with requests to calm down the rhetoric. I have found it very difficult to get through to her as the most civil entreaties have been met with pretty inflammatory responses.

  If you've noticed a sudden acceleration of the nastiness of the rhetoric on comment lines, you are not alone. The right does often engage in name calling ("moonbat", Malkin's trademark "unhinged"). The left, of course, does too: "Wingnuts" and "fascists" spring to mind.

  What seems different - and disturbing - is that there is a sudden acceleration in what I can only call paranoid responses to such juvenile name calling. On Maha's blog and today on DU I see articles promoting the theory that all aggression originates on the Right, is uniquely violent and that it must be met with resistance or even violence in return.

  If you see someone on the right engage in exposing an opponents address or intimating violence CALL THEM OUT! Make it an issue so that the rest of the blogosphere can take note and I think you'll find that people on both sides of the issues will join in repudiating the act.

  But seriously folks, name calling doesn't equal violence. You cannot take every insult, every claim that shades the truth (plenty to go around there on both sides) and every inflammatory remark as evidence that the "Wingnuts" on the right or the "Moonbats" on the left are plotting violence that must be met in kind. Therein lies madness.

• Umm, don't think so
• Posted by Mark Poling on July 10, 2006 at 5:05pm EDT

• Fair Poise, I think a courtroom is the last place Deb Frisch wants to be right now.

  As to defamation of character, Frisch did that to herself. Malkin is just reporting on the trainwreck.

  This Dilbert cartoon seems wickedly appropriate right now....
  http://www.dilbert.com/comics/dilbert/archive/dilbert-20060705.html

• Little Debbie...
• Posted by D. I. on July 10, 2006 at 5:05pm EDT

• 1.) First and foremost, Deb Frisch is an unabashed, verifiable LIAR. Her lascivious comment regarding french kissing Jeff's son was hers, is a matter of record and was witnessed by myself as well as HUNDREDS of others in real time.

  2.) Jeff, sue her. Otherwise she will take the typical Liberal high road and continue the lie and victim portrayal amid smoke and mirrors she creates. You know the truth in what was said just like the rest of us who witnessed this crass spectacle... don't let her get away with it. JUST DO IT.

  3.) Scott Jaschik did an extremely poor job in writing and reviewing this incredible mess and, when one considers how plain and easily verifiable the facts in this situation were, the conclusion must be drawn that it was intentional. You have needlessly compromised your own journalistic credibility, albeit by apparent choice.

  4.) The statement above that Jeff never received any e-mail or phone attempt from anyone at "Inside Higher Ed" only reflects more suspiciously on #3 above. If he didn't wish to answer Mr. Jaschik's questions, why would he post and do so here?

  5.) One must be left with the lingering question as to WHY ANYONE might wish to soften and deflate the impact of such outrageous behavior, especially by one of such alleged high profile.

  6.) Disgusting. Utterly, simply disgusting.

• Did You Know That?
• Posted by RWH on July 10, 2006 at 7:55pm EDT

• I’m quite certain Scott and all those who posted comments to this article are aware of the fact that quantum computing holds great promise for solving difficult problems that would take a classical computer an infinitely long time to solve. But did you know that a group of scholars at the University of Queensland very recently discovered that finding optimal quantum circuits is essentially equivalent to finding the shortest path between two points in a certain curved geometry -- a geodesic, which also represents a path that a freely falling object would take? And did you also know that by establishing this analogy, they opened up the possibility of using the mathematical tools of Riemannian geometry (which involves the study of curved surfaces and spaces) to suggest new and efficient algorithms that will unleash the power of quantum computers?

  Umm … I didn’t think so. Never mind … let’s get back to the important issues in higher education.

• Posted by D.I. on July 10, 2006 at 7:55pm EDT

• Mr. Jaschik, I apologize for prematurely deciding that you had opted not to publish my earlier comments (entitled "Little Debbie"). I sincerely thank you for doing so.

• An opinion from across the sea
• Posted by Jon J. , HR Director on July 10, 2006 at 7:55pm EDT

• I have been following the story from Denmark. I don't consider myself an extreme conservative nor an overly naive moonbat, therefore I feel I can objectively say that Frisch's email to Jeff and her following apology is certainly one of the most bizarre things I have experienced on the internet, which in itself is an accomplishment considering all the sick shit that exits in cyberspace. Also using the horrific killing of Jon Benet as a threatening example to other children is just wacky and sick. I hope she not the prime example of American educators, otherwise the future looks bleak for the youth. From what I have heard Jeff G. is no saint, but there is a line that should never be crossed, which is threatening or using children or family in a personal dispute. Ms. Frisch seems to have gone way beyond that line, not only by using Jeff’s boy, but also smearing the horrible murder of Jon Benet in the process. In the final lines of a message on Frisch’s webblog, she writes “”…. I needed to resign, in part, because I wanted the looneytunes to feel liked they'd won by getting me fired and that might inspire them to move on (go for a walk or a swim, for example).”” No I personally don’t think I won, because she resigned. I would be much more satisfied if she had waited to be fired, because now I still feel the need to inform her new employer of what a nutcase she appears to be and with her bizarre postings should be kept far away from educating young people.

• Posted by Bob Owens on July 10, 2006 at 7:55pm EDT

• Mr. Jaschik, I've seen bias in the academy before, but I find your attempt to minimize the terroristic threats of one Deb Frisch to be deplorable.

  You begin by mischaracterizing Protein Wisdom (Goldstein's blog), and he properly calls you on it in his response in the comments.

  But I find it far more repulsive that you minimized Frisch's increasingly ramped-up attacks, attacks that spoke of murdering and sexually molesting a toddler.

  Frisch left the following comments, which I witnessed with my own eyes:

  "...as I said elsewhere, if I woke up tomorrow and learned that someone else had shot you and your “tyke” it wouldn’t slow me down one iota. You aren’t “human” to me."

  . . .

  "Ooh. Two year old boy. Sounds hot. You live in Colorado, I see. Hope no one Jon-Benets your baby."

  . . .

  "If some nutcase kidnapped your child tomorrow and did to her what was done to your fellow Coloradan, Jon-Benet Ramsey, I wouldn’t give a damn."

  It is rather sad, Mr. Jaschik, that you felt that the academy either couldn't or shouldn't be exposed to Frisch's true nature and rhetoric.

  Her remarks were taken seriously enough that her threats have been referred to the FBI, and yet, you write an article that portrays her as the victim.

  How sad and insular the academy has become, to form ranks around a woman who threatens with sexual assualt and murder, a two-year-old child.

• What's Wrong With You People?
• Posted by laila on July 10, 2006 at 7:55pm EDT

• I can not believe the comments here. For those of you who think that writing sexual material regarding a two year old is the same as writing derogatory comments about an adult, you guys are nuts. Jeff and Deborah could have attacked each other all day long and I could have cared less but then Deborah (who must have suffer from Multiple Personalities Disorder -read her blog )decided to make comments about stalking and french kissing Jeff's toddler.

  The author of this story failed to report the entire truth - for if that was told Deborah Frisch would be shown for the pathetic, crazed, attention whore that she is. By the way as a note to the reporter - it's not hard to research this story - the facts are out there. Perhaps you should have really tried to contact Jeff Goldstein - which according to his site you never did.

• Posted by Also an adjunct on July 10, 2006 at 7:55pm EDT

• Brian/Asst Prof comments at some length on the factors that a promotion and tenure committee should take into account with regard to Deborah Frisch. The only mention of potential tenure for her that I've read is her blog account of being denied tenure in Oregon and the boast that she manufactured responses which constituted a threat to make trouble for the university unless they continued to employ her despite the refusal of tenure - a tactic which she smugly notes was successful for a number of years. From http://debfrisch.com/archives/2005/01/quacksoregon_1.html :

  "I used to work in the psychology department at the University of Oregon. When the quacks (=ducks+psychologists) denied me tenure, the only way I could fight it was to allege discrimination on the basis of sex and/or sexual orientation. Although my main nemesis frequently made inappropriate comments regarding these two topics, at the time, I wasn't sure I?d been discriminated against.

  The majority of people who are denied tenure either fight or leave. Although I didn?t want to fight, I also didn?t want to leave. So I finegeled a demotion. One of the quacks was famous and had a lot of clout with the administration. I told him that if he could arrange for me to continue teaching for a few years, I wouldn?t sue and embarrass his crony. "

  It would appear her standard for honesty is lower than that of many other academics I am privileged to know and work among.

• Deligitimizing America's knowledge-based elites... YES!
• Posted by Orson at University of London on July 10, 2006 at 7:55pm EDT

• This entire affair - like Ward Churchill's long overdue but finally imminent firing - is simply the outing of the arrogance of the left-wing ivory tower nut jobs who have gone unchallenged for many decades

  The leftwing's raison d'etre of power lust has been frustrated for over a decade. Now, with non-leftist President Bush's democratic success in Iraq (yes kiddies - the "neo-con" has liberated 50 million people from oppression at only the average cost of US lives lost, compared with presidents from the past two and a half decades), and the outing of frauds like Churchill, now the elite sociopaths like Frisch are coming out - and self-righteously so!

  KEEP IT UP! KEEP IT UP

  Doing so only completes thhe delegitimization of America's contolling elite knowledge-based classes - which is ongoing, as we see the media competing with used car salemen for public respectability. Way to go, "smart" people!

• Crossing the Line - Publishing Contact Details
• Posted by Mark Kantor on July 10, 2006 at 7:55pm EDT

• One of the previous comments argued that Michelle Malkin should not have published contact details about the UC students contained in their Press Release because that information was for the "press", not the "public". In addition to the question of whether a release widely distributed to the press can still be considered non-public, there is a separate question of what we mean by the "press".

  The issue of whether a blogger is a journalist, and thus entitled to the legal privileges and protections associated with journalism, is an ongoing issue that is currently in the courts - a topic that is interesting to debate. Certainly aggressive left-wing writers of blogs like Daily Kos and aggressive right-wing writers of blogs like Ms. Malkin are united in believing that they are in fact practicing journalists, and the fact that some are on the left and some are on the right should have no impact on how we consider that issue.

  In Ms. Malkin's case, she is not solely a blogger. Her website contains the following details of her background in journalism and writing (I have edited the description to focus on her journalism background):

  "I began my career in newspaper journalism more than a decade ago as an editorial writer and columnist for the Los Angeles Daily News (1992-94). .... Moved to the Pacific Northwest and worked at the Seattle Times from 1996 to 1999. .... Quit job and moved to Washington, D.C.

  My column, now syndicated by Creators Syndicate, appears in nearly 200 papers nationwide. My first book, Invasion: How America Still Welcomes Terrorists, Criminals, and Other Foreign Menaces to Our Shores (Regnery 2002), was a New York Times bestseller.

  Other: Fox News Channel contributor....."

  In addition to writing her syndicated column, Ms. Malkin also writes a political blog - where she published the contact details. In light of her background, and regardless of Ms. Malkin's political views, it seems to me very hard to make a persuasive argument that Ms. Malkin was not well within the range of individuals who might be expected to receive and read a "Press Release."

  Regards,

  MK

• Posted by onecent on July 10, 2006 at 7:55pm EDT

• Hey, Scott, your article is really short on the vile content of this unhinged woman's sexual comments and threats. Her continuing narcissistic engagement with the public via her blog underscores her depravity. You need to provide some links for examination. It's almost a whitewashing, reading your trying-to-be-fair presentation.

  Anyone defending her is either clueless or equally depraved. This isn't about politics. It's about civil discourse, academic integrity and character, none of which Frisch demonstrated. That a person of her craven behavior is employed in higher education is shocking.

  With each Ward Churchill and Debbie Frisch flushed out from under their rock on public campuses, it's making academia look like an asylum. Maybe, it's time for an examination of the rot so inherent in the humanities, behavioral sciences and inane women's-gender-race-sexual studies departments where these creatures seem to spring from.

• Rules of Engagement
• Posted by Whitehall on July 10, 2006 at 9:50pm EDT

• The blogging world certainly needs to rules accepted as a consensus. Those rules need to be enforced.

  "Free speech for me but not for thee" won't cut it. Yet we all know that free speech has always had limits and must allow free response.

  Some rules are common law - a physical threat is a physical threat made verbally on in a comment section. Goldstein has a legitimate recourse to the law. As another commenter mentioned, you threaten my family and my defense may well be physical as necessary and justified. Losing her job was the least she should suffer.

  Many of us also overgeneralize, both on the left and on the right. While I see strains of typical leftie thinking in Frisch's behavior, I'm certainly not ready to use one bad actress' behavior stand-in for every liberal, academic, or avowed leftist. We need to treat her as an individual, responsible adult (unless she can make an insanity plea!)

  Goldstein and supporting commenters, for example, are a bit "boys' clubbish" at times so I can't claim perfect high-minded purity on his part. He is insightful, readable, and funny. Still, there is just no justification for Frisch's proven, witnessed comments.

  The Left's downfall (or acceleration of fall from power) will come from it's general failure to speak respectfully to other citizens, especially voters. Bad temper, rude words, gross threats will not help.

  As to Milkin, her use of "seditous" to describe the UCSC demonstration leaders was logical, reasonable, and supported. It was a serious argument and should be responded to as such.

  Let's hope we can all learn from this sorted episode.

• Amazed
• Posted by Peaches on July 10, 2006 at 9:50pm EDT

• I am amazed at the defenders of Ms. Frisch who equate her behavior with Hannity or O'Reilly or who say its the same as some right wingers might say.
  Like O'Reilly or not, I don't remember him suggesting doing a two year old, either sexually or homocidally. Her conduct is simply outside the bounds of what any one, left or right should accept. Hers was not the language of dissent but the language of a creepy stalker emboldened by the false anomnity of the internet. Reading her apology and subsequent retractions show her to be unrepentant. She is sorry that she got caught and is tired of paying the price for her actions but Ms. Frisch has no awareness that her actions were wildly wrong.
  This is not a left/right issue.
  How can a supposed liberal suppport her homophobic insults. Do you think child molestation is ok? How about threats of murder? How about false and unsupportable allegations of manipulation of comments? Is there anything that you won't support?
  Both the left and the right should condemn people like Ms. Frisch in unqualified terms without a "but". As long as she does not try to teach in college or university setting, we should forget about her forever.

• Posted by SHuntly , "Lose her job" on July 10, 2006 at 9:50pm EDT

• Several comments - including one by Dr. Frisch herself - note that she has "lost her job" as a result of her actions.

  But she herself writes that her resignation was not requested. And she writes that she's been planning on resigning for some time. She apparently no longer lives with the UofA associate professor listed in the 2004 Arizona Star article about her, and wanted to return to Oregon.

  She submitted her resignation in between terms. Her contract for the preivious term was up, but she'd apparently been offered a new contract for nthe next term.

  So by what logic has she "lost" her job? She *gave up* her job. She did so in a spectacular way, but she was NOT fired.

  She may have made herself unemployable - but maybe not. She may also be counting on the old saw that any publicity is good publicity. As an adjuct professor at a mid-level school who doesn't have a professional license, she doesn't have that much to lose. She may be viewed as unballanced, but now we all know her name. If she can find a department head that hates Jeff G, she may have a job after all.

• Posted by Brian on July 10, 2006 at 10:00pm EDT

• Coulter says that her “only regret with Timothy McVeigh is he did not go to the New York Times building”; that Rep. John P. Murtha is “the reason soldiers invented fragging”; that someone should put “rat poison in Justice [John Paul] Stevens's creme brulee” for his decision in Hamdam. (see mediamatters-dot-org /items/200606300008;
  /items/200606220013; items/200607070009)”

  Malkin published the contact information of Santa Cruz war protestors, which they removed from their own site after receiving death threat, to which she responded by reposting the information under the ironic headline “More Thuggery in Santa Cruz” (her site /archives/004999.htm). One of the protestors said: “we only sent the contact info to the PRESS (not her site) along with our press release and then we specifically asked HER to remove them, when there were death threats (we’ve published some on our site), she’s refusing.”
  (see crooksandliars-dot-com /posts/2006/04/17/malkin-crosses-the-line-santa-cruz/).

  But Maggie, Leonard, Bill Schumm, Alaska Jack, Ted Burton, Orson, Amanda et. al. are *really mad* that some unknown, unemployed blogger – whose comments NO ONE here (including myself) supports – said nasty things about another blogger. I know you’d all like Frisch’s irrationality to somehow represent “The Left” or “liberal academe.” I know Bob Owens is disappointed that we lefty professors are distancing ourselves from Frisch instead of forming “ranks around” her. And I know how frustrating it must be for Orson that the war he supports is a $1 trillion dollar disaster (is “liberate” British for “civil war?”). I guess it’s only natural for conservatives to invent scapegoats they can beat up on, but a month from now NO ONE will remember Frisch or this fake-controversy, but Coulter and Malkin will still be on our TVs and radios.

  To be perfectly clear, I’m not saying “our lunatic fringe is better than your lunatic fringe.” I’m saying: Your lunatic fringe is a lot louder and has a lot more power than our lunatic fringe, and BOTH are bad for our political culture. Criticizing Frisch is like shooting the proverbial barrel-housed duck, but I guess (judging from posts of Maggie, Leonard, etc.) it’s a lot easier than engaging in rational grown-up discussion.

  Thanks for reading – have a nice night everyone!

• Re: "Historical Query"
• Posted by Billy Beck on July 10, 2006 at 10:00pm EDT

• What you're seeing pre-dates blogs, Katha. It was exactly this intense in Usenet more than ten years ago. Most people had no idea because they had no idea what Usenet was, and lots of them still don't.

  It made a lot of sense to me then, though, and it still does. What you're seeing is the natural conclusion of "democracy" as it approaches its end logic. Eventually, democracy is always a recipe for civil war.

  This is the rehearsal.

• Posted by MikeSC on July 10, 2006 at 10:00pm EDT

• Did somebody say if the right was more secure in their positions, they wouldn't go to somebody's employer?

  Then how does one explain what happened to Bill Hobbs?
  -=Mike

• Missing the point
• Posted by Beth on July 11, 2006 at 4:30am EDT

• Um, you guys who are trying to call this "silencing the debate" or equate it with right-wingers are totally missing the point. Furthermore, this is beyond politics. Plenty of left-wing bloggers have condemned her remarks, just as right-wing bloggers have.

  There's way too much ugliness in the blogosphere, but we're used to the stupid ad hominem attacks that occur. THIS IS DIFFERENT. A woman who makes violent and sexual references to a child is clearly disturbed, and has no place in "mainstream" society, such as academia--or anywhere else but in therapy.

  "If the right were secure in its position, they would not need to respond by emailing Frisch’s employers. Frisch would be seen to be self-evidently wrong."

  It's not about ANY position, it's about a person who thinks it's OK to talk about killing or molesting a child. DOES such a person belong in academia? DOES such a person deserve any defense? (Maybe a lawyer representing her.)

  Anyone making excuses or equating it with the regular garbage flung at ideological opponents sounds like they find nothing disturbing about such things, and it makes them look just as sick as she is, for not recognizing the difference. Maybe you aren't parents yourselves, but even if you aren't, ANYONE should find the idea of "JonBeneting" or molesting a child repulsive and unworthy of any defense.

  Shame on this publication for repeating the lie Ms. Frisch said about others making vile comments to her--that simply did not happen. She is a liar--nothing anyone said even approached anything near the level of sickness she did. She has a history of making unprovoked attacks, and relishes her self-perception of being an attack dog. She's said so repeatedly at her own site and while trolling others. She attacks simply for the reaction it gets.

  Give it up, apologists.

• Frisch isn't the left or academia
• Posted by Dianna on July 11, 2006 at 4:30am EDT

• But she is a liar, and her comments (which are google cached and accessible) are bad.

  I don't expect the "left" or "academia" to apologize for Frisch. I expect her to apologize for herself, and get some help.

  All I expect from the people she identifies with is for them to make sure she gets herself under control. Since she does identify herself with the left (whether the left likes that or not) and academia, perhaps she will listen to them.

  This isn't about anyone but Deb Frisch; this article is not helpful, as it allowed her to further her, "I'm the victim, here!" position. Not everyone is going to follow up, and realize that she did, indeed, make the comments about "french kissing" she is trying to deny.

  This can't be allowed. If she isn't held accountable, I can't see how her behavior is going to improve.

• Posted by Jim C. on July 11, 2006 at 4:30am EDT

• K.T. wrote, "KC — the article explicitly states “Goldstein could not be reached for comment.” (which more often than not means attempts at communication were not returned.)"

  That does not mean Goldstein received those attempts and chose not to reply. He has stated he did not receive any such requests for comment.

• She'll be hired somewhere
• Posted by onecent on July 11, 2006 at 4:30am EDT

• Trust me, Frisch will find new employment. She'll be a star to hire at some lame victim-race-women's-ethnic studies department somewhere. Those agenda driven lunatics, that have diluted the quality of higher education for the past 40 years, will find a place for her. They'll even accommodate her need for compulsive sociopathic blogging. Please don't think this women, by virtue of her vile behavior, is washed up in academia. Heck, she has defenders within these comments. Ward Churchill has his defenders by "higher education" employees on this site too, in spite of his egregious plagiarism.

  She deserves to be working at a car wash or stalking shelves at Walmart, but, she'll find a perch on some campus in one of the angry leftist Victim Departments in a new state.

• In respomse to Brian
• Posted by Ted Burton on July 11, 2006 at 4:35am EDT

• Brian, I'm sorry that your comprehension of my (and probably other) postings was considered to be 'really angry', but you're mischaracterizing. Again.

  You lead in with two paragraphs of moral equivalence, then claim that 'NO ONE (including myself)' supports the claims.

  It's horsepucky, man. If you really, really can't differentiate between two adults duking it out in a blog using profanity, and dragging a child into the catfight, I can't understand why you wouldn't support it.

  I also note that some of the other commentators you cite had also gon to some length to detatch the issue from being a left/right, he said/she said chain of gainsaying. It's hard for some people to eliminate the political component from any discussion, but to not attempt to do so in this case reveals what I believe to be either a lack of moral or intellectual clarity. Sometimes, it's not *all* about politics.

  Or, possibly, you're projecting. I'd have to leave that to psych professionals.

  Your cheap shot about other posters - myself included - not 'engaging in (a) rational grown-up discussion' merely confirms my conclusion above that you are yourself induging in ad hominem attacks.

  Try and be bigger than that. Please.

• Are people paying attention?
• Posted by Andrew Purvis on July 11, 2006 at 4:35am EDT

• The comments that Frisch made are in the worst of taste, but at no time did she threaten action. She merely said that certain things would not bother her. While deplorable, it does not rise to the level of a threat--that would require an indication that she wished to take such action, not merely go about unfazed by news of it.

  I wish people would learn the basics of even informal logic. Every neurologist I have ever had has been male; therefore, all neurologists are male? Just because Frisch is liberal in no way makes her indicative of liberals as a whole. Even intimating that much--see Orson's comment as a key example--smacks of irresponsibility and either a poor capacity for reason or a desire to distort.

  For the record, I am glad she left her job. No, I am not a Democrat. Finally, I would not like to have her as a colleague on campus. Still, pay attention, folks.

• Posted by brooksfoe on July 11, 2006 at 5:50am EDT

• This can’t be allowed. If she isn’t held accountable, I can’t see how her behavior is going to improve.

  Good lord. How soon can we other 300 million Americans be expecting a visit from you to correct our unacceptable behavior? Mote, meet beam.

• Frisch
• Posted by Yankeewombat on July 11, 2006 at 9:35am EDT

• Wikipedia has an article under 'flamebait' that provides several explanations of Frisch's behavior based on experience with Internet behavior since usenet days. Also see the article on 'Internet Trolls'.

  "There are various motives or explanations for this behavior. The most popular is the desire for attention and the desire for entertainment at the expense of others. Posted flamebait can provide the posting party with a controlled trigger-and-response setting in which to engage in conflicts and indulge aggressive behavior anonymously, without facing the consequences those behaviors would certainly bring to bear in real life. In other instances, flamebait may be used to reduce a forum's use by angering forum users." ...Wikipedia

  I note she begged to be banned. This is the clearest clue to me that she was using the controlled trigger-and-response tactic and she got carried away by her own passion and pathology. She lost control of the exchange because Jeff refused to play and ban her - so she kept upping the ante and finally switched the attack to his kid. I believe she was so focused on her attempt to get him to ban her and give her victim status that she failed to notice that her baiting made her a perpetrator. Jeff may have been giving her enough rope to hang herself (good tactic when dealing with people who are provoking you in order to blame you), but I don't think he would have anticipated she would attack the specific way she did.

  I wrote about this on my blog www.Yankeewombat.com yesterday without ever mentioning the political orientation of the protagonists. I think most of this behavior is typical of human beings with certain weaknesses in conflict situations regardless of political orientation. The positive comment by her conservatively oriented student indicates to me that she might be a much better person face to face than on the net. I am obviously speculating here but I would look to encourage her to develop the areas of her life that lead to positive interactions and avoid indulging her aggression on the net.
  I'd give similar advice to a guy who kept getting in fights down at the pub.

• Midwest librarian's comment way up-thread
• Posted by Jamie McArdle on July 11, 2006 at 9:55am EDT

• Something struck me as I read through this thread: the comment that the Right should expect this kind of inflammatory rhetoric (if it can be so characterized - but ask yourself what would have happened, and been universally applauded, if Frisch had made her comments in person) as long as the Left's reactions to rhetoric on the Right are emotional and powerful. So. If I say, "Hey, Four-Eyes!" and the person to whom I'm referring is wildly infuriated by my insult, that person is justified in responding, "Your toddler looks gooood to me! Where do you live again?" Sorry?

  It's not the extreme response that matters; it's the nature of the insult. Isn't it? Otherwise we're at risk of all blog conversation's (maybe all public conversation's) devolving into an aggrievedness contest. I followed the Protein Wisdom threads in question closely; Frisch was insulting from the get-go (rather than making any attempt to make a point, for instance), and some of Goldstein's regular commenters insulted her right back. As has been pointed out, this is S.O.P. I never read a "threatening" comment against her, just some mean and dismissive ad-hominems. But then, somehow, she decided that she felt "threatened," and that she could appropriately respond to that feeling by making comments that made me shudder directed, not at the perpetrators of her "threatenedness," but at the child of the blog host, accompanied by her statement that Goldstein, because of his views, is "not human" to her.

  To say that the Left's emotional response to the Right's comments appropriately determines how egregious the Left's response can be is ludicrous, just as it'd be ludicrous with the polarity reversed. For those saying that Frisch was just foolishly upping the rhetoric and we all ought to calm down about it, nope, nope; too dangerous. Just because Goldstein's child, in Colorado, might not be at immediate risk from someone willing publicly to voice such horrible thoughts from Oregon or Arizona (wherever she is at present), it does not follow that a person whose mind moves that way is not a threat to a child closer to her. One thing that concerns me is that this whole episode might have pushed her over the edge from thought to action. On her own site as well as Jeff's, people have been urging her to get help; I have to join with those people. No healthy adult's brain ought to work that way.

• Mark Kantor
• Posted by mrjim on July 11, 2006 at 11:20am EDT

• I'm not sure what you mean by this, since no one has argued that this isn't true: "In light of her background, and regardless of Ms. Malkin’s political views, it seems to me very hard to make a persuasive argument that Ms. Malkin was not well within the range of individuals who might be expected to receive and read a “Press Release.”"

  It isn't receiving and reading the press release that is a problem. What Malkin then specifically and intentionally did with the contact information is something that no respectable journalist would do. During the 8 years I was a working reporter, I never put in my stories the contact information for someone who issued a press release, unless that information was in the body of the release and was intended to be used for the public to follow up with. And in the 21 years that I have been working on the other side, putting out press releases in my public relations job, no reporter has ever put my contact information in a story unless I requested it.

• "Crossing a Line"
• Posted by Sue , Oh, well... on July 11, 2006 at 1:05pm EDT

• Oh, well. It's too late to say much. You all seem to have just about covered every square inch of both sides of the aisle. There were even a few who were more in the middle. So, I won't waste anymore of your time except to say that I personally emailed Jeff to express my support during the DoS attacks when his site was down, and he responded quickly to my email.

  What I do know for 100% sure is that the majority of either side will find it nearly impossible to "see" the other side. But this thread shows promise. There seems to be no
  "frisching" going on and that a plus.

  Good read.

• The Press and Debate
• Posted by Ken , Educator on July 11, 2006 at 1:05pm EDT

• Brian, it actually started before that. In the 18th Century, "broadsides" were published by any one who could afford them and political races started to get nasty. A broadside was a one page large type (as in font)attack on a person or an idea. These kinds of social commentary got the Revolution started.
  I love the fact that on Higher Ed News we can have a more intelligent debate on these types of issues.
  When you go on a liberal or conservative talk show, radio program, blog, etc., all the host is interested in hearing is agreement with their point of view. That's not debate. I have read in the last few years that it is harder to talk to conservatives about liberal issues, and harder to talk to liberals about conservative issues. The country is polarized into red and blue states. What we need is more open debate about issues and how the younger students will shape those issues and solve the nations problems in the coming years.
  Going on blogs and trying to "bait" the other bloggers accomplishes nothing. Threatening children is a terrible way to get yourself noticed. It only sparks debate about child molesters, not national ideas and solutions. Threatening Supreme Court Justices with poisoning is another reprehensable comment. Coulter makes these types of statements to sell books, and she does. How scary is that?
  These right and left wing talking heads are merely trying to draw attention to themselves, not have any kind of dialog.

• Press and Debate
• Posted by Mark Kantor on July 11, 2006 at 2:05pm EDT

• mrjim,

  My point was not to defend Ms. Malkin. I was trying to point out that the argument the information was non-public and restricted to the "press" doesn't really fly with the new generation of web-based commentators, especially if those commentators come to the web from more traditional print journalism.

  I agree with you that Ms. Malkin should not have published the information, and I would feel that way whether such information had been released by a right-winger, a left-winger or a Martian. However, I also believe that persons who put their personal contact details on press releases and then circulate those releases widely do not have a real expectation of privacy and candidly are acting in a foolish fashion. IMHO, both Ms. Malkin and the UC protestors should reconsider their conduct.

  Regards,

  MK

• "Free speech"
• Posted by Evil-right-wing-extremist at The Right-wing Nuthouse on July 11, 2006 at 3:15pm EDT

• I LMAO whenever someone - usually leftists (but not always) - starts screeching "free speech" whenever comments made by them or fellow travelers come under scrutiny and/or refutal by anyone who doesn't agree with them.

  Yes, "free speech" is a most important tenet of the US Constitution, embodied in the First Amendment of that wonderful document; and is guaranteed under the Second.

  But, the screechers demonstrate their absolute ignorance of the meaning of "free speech" by failing - or refusing - to understand what constitutes infringement upon same.

  Conduct just a little bit of research - Googling would be a good start- and find out what does.

  Hint: Because someone hurts your feelings or offends you because they do not agree with you does NOT violate "free speech".

• Malkin and the Press release
• Posted by Bic on July 11, 2006 at 8:55pm EDT

• mrjim,
  As has already been mentioned, several times in fact, the information in question was not only written directly on the press release but prior to Michelle posting it, directly on the page of the organization in question as well as several other progressive sites. Michelle herself merely copied the release from the SAW website itself.

  It wasn't until after they began receiving the unwanted emails/phone calls etc.. that they removed the information. Even then several of the other sites which had posted the statement kept the original versions up, with all the info intact.

  The fuss only really started when SAW as well as many of the other sites then tried to smear Michelle by making it appear as if only she had posted the contact information. Apparently they were not too familiar with the concept of web caching or possibly they were more than aware that their supporters tend to take their arguments for gospel despite undeniable proof to the contrary.

  Then the whole he said/she said stuff started with them claiming to have demanded the removal of the info and Michelle claiming to have never gotten any such request, but that is neither here nor there.

  The facts are pretty clear; Michelle merely reproduced information SAW themselves posted on the internet.

  But you are close if you want a clear cut case of violating someone's privacy for revenge, you're just looking at the wrong side. In retaliation for this whole SAW ordeal Michelle's personal information, as well as maps and photos of her house, which was not publically posted on her site, was later published on several 'progressive' sites.

• Goldstein is no victim
• Posted by Spanky on July 12, 2006 at 6:00am EDT

• It’s not about ANY position, it’s about a person who thinks it’s OK to talk about killing or molesting a child. DOES such a person belong in academia? DOES such a person deserve any defense?

  Of course, those of us familiar with Goldstein's online rantings already know that he's done essentially the same thing to people he gets into spats with. He also takes great pride in revealing the personal information of other bloggers, bloggers who have not threatened him in any way - well, scratch that. Some have threatened his self-image as an intellectual by getting the better of him in an intelelctual debate, in full view of the mouthbreathing legions who frequent his site. Goldstein seems to feel the appropriate response to that is to do a little online sleuthing, then post the name, hometown, and place of employment for whoever it was who out-thunk him - and then, for good measure, do the same for thhe guy's wife, who had no role in the spat whatsoever.

  What Frisch wrote was over the line. It was disgusting and despicable. But be very, very careful before you make Jefff Goldstein into some kind of victim. If you can stand it, spend a few hours reading his blog. While it won't excuse Frisch's actions, it may help you understand the context of this entire incident, and why it is ultimately so ridiculous.

• Posted by JinTx on July 12, 2006 at 6:05am EDT

• Its easy to defend what Malkin and Coulter do, they are just trying to sell books! :)

  Honestly there is no defense or justification for what this prof did. Its vile and wrong.

  Maybe this will shock people and make them think a little bit. Maybe next time they start to call somebody a "wingnut" or "moonbat", they will stop and think, and instead change course and argue the points in the debate, instead of in generalities and slurs. Hey, I can dream can't I?

  Was political discourse this bad in the 90's? I don't remember it, maybe it was. Or maybe it was the tactics of one Karl Rove that found it easier to win elections if he could create wedge issues that divided people and kept just enough in the "base" to elect his guys.

  The sign of a great leader is their ability to rally everyone to their cause, build consensis and get everyone on board and moving forward in a productive way. We have been leaderless for 5 years now! Can we please elect somebody we can all believe in again? A HOUSE DIVIDED CANNOT STAND!

• Thanks Ken!
• Posted by Brian on July 12, 2006 at 11:15am EDT

• I had a hunch that there were pre-19th century antecedents for the rough-and-tumble political discourse that we find in the blogosphere. My historical knowledge (shamefully) doesn’t go back that far, so thanks for your post.

  I’m in full and complete agreement with you on the need to find common ground and the worthlessness of “flame bait” strategies for political discussion. That’s why this is a good site (in my opinion).

  If you’re interested (and for anyone who has been following this thread), Glenn Greenwald has a great recap of the “Frisch debate” on his blog: http:// [then] glenngreenwald [dot] blogspot [dot] com. Sorry for the clunky cite. I didn’t want it screened out by a spam filter.

• Posted by Marvin McConoughey on July 12, 2006 at 12:05pm EDT

• Commentators both left and right should remember that many readers are, like myself, individuals with incomplete knowledge who are sincerely trying to reach a more knowledgeable state. Extremist rhetoric tends to conceal rather than highlight the underlying logic--when present--of the arguments being made.

• Posted by Paul Giandomenico on July 12, 2006 at 4:05pm EDT

• (Brian says: “Frisch is just like Malkin, except she has a much smaller megaphone
  What’s with all this phoney “equivalency” argument? Just the Left’s way of fogging the issue.)

  It makes sense once you realize that these folks beliefs are as strongly held as any religion, and forms the core of their identity. By disagreeing with them, or denegrating their views in the slightest, you are personally insulting their very being. The rage that they emote is the same that might result from a vile personal attack the likes of which Frisch spewed.

• Frisch's enmity is against Goldstein's forum
• Posted by Ahmad on July 12, 2006 at 4:25pm EDT

• Frisch's unconscious motive, is not so much to hurt Goldstein because of his anti-left remarks, but is because she has a fundamental disagreement with Goldstein on the nature of the reader comment's forum on his blog.

  Frisch, just like all other post-colonial leftist bloggers tightly control commentary on her own forum, just as the Stalinist commissars used to do to their citizens under communism. She does not allow free debate. Every posting must be first submitted to her for approval. Other prominent abusers of open discussion are Juan Cole and Daily Kos - all well know post-colonial leftist blogs. Juan Cole will NOT approve any comment that does not neatly toe the official line. Any hint of disagreement means Juan Cole will not publish your comment. Daily Kos takes that one step further. They periodically audit their comments, and if they find a user posting several disagreable comments, they will BAN the user, weeks after the comment has been approve and published. Of the hundreds of serious leftist blogs out there, NONE will allow any hint of factual criticism of Prophet Mohammad, for example.

  Frisch's beef is that under her political belief system, all comments have to be pre-approved, censored, and the commentator banned if deemed undesirable.

  But Goldstein accepts the premise of free speech and open society, does not see fit to censor his forum, unless a comment is slanderous or disgustingly profane, etc.

  Frisch's actions can be explained by her desire to impose her Stalinist methodology on forum's out of her control, and her inability to come to terms with forums that allow user comments to be published freely.

  Just goes to show that if these post-colonialists ever get their hands on power, they are well prepared to shut down democracy.

• psychology
• Posted by Mary N. on July 13, 2006 at 4:40am EDT

• The goal of every psychologist (and I'm one) ought to be personal fulfillment. Not the gauzy, flower-child image of the "me" generation, but just that -- elevating ourselves higher, via understanding and knowledge, toward a sense of the rightness of ourselves in our place in the universe.

  This woman has done more damage to those of us wishing to help our fellow seekers than she has done to herself, which is considerable.

  As someone pointed out, the issue goes beyond politics. Politics may have been the trigger -- but it is an issue more about humanity -- or lack thereof.

  She has blatantly revealed many disturbing disorders she herself teaches to vulnerable students (or has done -- let us hope she retires from the field altogether). I am not a therapist -- rather, a statistician -- but I don't envy the task of whomever may attempt to unravel the terrible, and wholly negative, complexities in this woman's makeup. It's a bit like a solitary engineer asked to clear away a New York landfill in a single day.

  I think Jeff Goldstein has shown admirable restraint in not prosecuting this woman. I applaud and approve his reactions. If it were me, as a parent, I'd perhaps have gone for the jugular before reason put on the brakes.

  Just want to say, way to go, Internet -- and long live free speech, regardless of its content.

• “Admirable Restraint”
• Posted by Brian on July 13, 2006 at 10:55am EDT

• Mary N. – I encourage you to visit Goldstein’s site. Then, take a lot at the compilation of offensive things he’s written compiled by sadlyno [dot] com. The exact address is: http:// [then] sadlyno [dot] com [then] /archives/002902 [dot] html. Then, tell me he’s an exemplar of restraint.

  No one here, or on any other board I’ve seen, defends Frisch. She has zero influence in the left blogosphere and in the academic blogosphere. No one heard of her before last weekend. Few academics had heard of her before insidehighered published this story. Now she’s unemployed and will fade into obscurity. A broad consensus has emerged (left & right) that this is a good thing.

  Meanwhile this week, one of the most widely-read rightwing bloggers (Misha of the Anti-Idiotarian Rottweiler) called for the hanging of the five Supreme Court Justices who voted in the majority in the recent Hamdan decision. Michelle Malkin promotes that blog on her blogroll. Blogger Dan Riehl continues to publish satellite photos and the address of the family home of Arthur Sulzberger, the NYT editor, and David Horowitz said in a recent radio debate that Sulzberger was “fair game” for publishing “traitorous” stories about domestic surveillance. T-shirts that say “Rope. Tree. Journalist. – Some Assembly Required” are advertised on Worldnetdaily, a popular rightwing (and purportedly Christian) news site. There’s simply no comparison between the “The Great Frisch Affair” and what routinely passes for acceptable political commentary on the pro-war right.

• Posted by Ang on July 13, 2006 at 9:20pm EDT

• Brian,

  There's quite a difference between fleeting negative commentary on very public figures and specific repeated in depth negative comments directed at a minor. "Man, those justices are so dumb, I could kill them" is very different from "Hey nextdoor neighbor Joe, I hope someone kills your kid... no REALLY... really kills them..... with a lot of pain....and where is little Billy now anyway?"

  Low brow negativity of ANY kind weakens a logical argument, but it riles people up and sells stories. I guess you have to pick which intellectual road to go down, a respectable argument that will only be heard by a few, or a raunch one that everyone will be talking about.

• Ahmad Nails It
• Posted by w3 on July 15, 2006 at 10:59am EDT

• I believe it was Thomas Sowell who compared the left to a mother duck, making sure her ducklings were all in a line. I'm grossly oversimplifying the analogy, but essentially he argues that a leftist utopia would require all ducklings to behave in a predictable and orderly fashion and a mother duck to chase down the stragglers.

  Ahamd nails Frisch's motives (and the motives of the entire left blogosphere) cold and I wish I had seen it before because it is the primary tactic of the modern left. From blog comment censoring to the pursuit of terrorists as criminals, it's their way or watch out for sabotage.

  Stalinists like Frisch and Kos say they are progressive but they are seriously militant and violent people looking for any excuse to get militant and violent. Real wolves in sheeps clothing, these guys.

• Posted by Julie Ph.D. on July 16, 2006 at 3:30pm EDT

• I followed the Goldstein/Frisch exchange in real-time. I'm late to this discussion here, but the fact that the writer at this site managed to obfuscate the totality of Frisch's actual language is most disturbing. In an online journal representing the "inside of higher education," what we see an esssentially false presentation of what I know to be the facts of this case. The writer would, no doubt, claim "space limitations" (the usual excuse of the journalistic malpractioner) but I quote the psychological insight of my grandmother: A half-truth is a complete lie.
  Note to "journalists" and ivory tower elitist academics: You need to look very carefully at the Dan Rather fiasco to see where the new media is going. You are no longer in a position of power that permits manipulation of public opinion without rebuttal.

• Where to draw the line
• Posted by uberpatriot on July 20, 2006 at 3:20pm EDT

• I'm really glad I happened upon Inside Higher Ed, and particularly this thread. Given all the inflamatory rhetoric in the blogosphere, I was wondering where the line of reasonable discourse was to be drawn. Now I know: children are off limits. We can speak longingly of hanging judges, blowing up reporters, and slapping people in the face with one's penis; we can level accusations of treason against those who disagree with the president and publish their personal information with the intent to intimidate them into silence, but if one random, unhinged person makes lewd and threatening comments about someone's child, we must cry havoc and let slip the dogs of war.

  It's nice to see that there is still a line to be drawn, somewhere.