Michael Arrington of TechCrunch is a leader, and as such is a lightning rod for the good, the bad and the ugly. And so it happened.
Yesterday as I was leaving the DLD Conference in Munich, Germany someone walked up to me and quite deliberately spat in my face. Before I even understood what was happening, he veered off into the crowd, just another dark head in a dark suit. People around me stared, then looked away and continued their conversation.
While the reason for this attack is unclear, Arrington’s involvement with startups and venture capital is presumably the match that lit someone’s very short fuse. This isn’t one of the risks one assumes when blogging. This goes beyond the pale, and Michael Arrington has decided that he needs to consider his options.
I’ve decided the right thing to do is take some time off and get a better perspective on what I’m spending my life doing. I’ll be taking most of February off from writing, and decide what the best future for me is while sitting on a beach somewhere far away from my iPhone and laptop.
This post came across my radar from Mark Britton, the CEO of Avvo, who twitted the link, together with a comment, “and I thought we got beat up a lot at Avvo.” My initial reaction was to think this comment somewhat disingenuous, given what happened to Michael Arrington compared to Avvo and Mark getting rightfully beaten up over a dubious business model and some rather desperate self-promotion.
But upon further reflection, I realized that Mark’s off-hand comment probably masks a very serious problem. As Avvo CEO, he stands a very real probability of being the eventual target of a disgruntled Avvo user, who mistakenly assumes that he can rely on an Avvo Answer and winds up with a love one in prison for life. What are the chances that Mark gets blamed? Pretty good. What are the chances that some psycho decides to take his anger out on someone? Pretty good. What are the chances that the risk of this business model will eventually find its way back to the Avvo CEO? Unfortunately, pretty good. Mark has good reason to be concerned.
People don’t realize what comes of the exposure a person gets from blawging. There are emails and phone calls from people who “demand justice,” and have decided that a blawger is just the one to get it for them. We write about it. They need it. Therefore, it becomes our responsibility, in their eyes, to get it for them. And when they figure out that we will not dedicate our lives to their cause, they get angry with us. We are to blame. They turn vicious and threatening toward us. You can’t imagine some of the wild reactions I get from people I’ve never heard of who believe that I owe them something. I cannot emphasize this enough: There are crazy people out there.
As much as I enjoy razzing Mark Britton about some of the initiatives Avvo has introduced in its quest for survival, not to mention the faint praise of his promotional posts about how somebody in Podunk scored two new cases from Avvo in their first week (because the rest of us who have been on Avvo have enjoyed the 500 phone calls from people who want to know if we can be their lawyers for free case they’re innocent and broke and need a lawyer “really, really bad”), I also appreciate that Mark’s efforts could put a target between his eyes. This is where the fun stops and this online existence turns bizarre.
From a risk assessment perspective, one would think Michael Arrington to be relatively safe. After all, he deals with cutting edge technology, and even if critical, he’s not advocating that loved ones be executed for an ugly interface. Britton falls higher on the risk scale, as his business involves more personal and critical issues to certain members of the public (and lawyers), and tends to attract a more desperate and needy user.
But in the criminal law blawgosphere, the risk is great. For those of us who take strong and clear positions, we can be lightning rods for people filled with anger and frustration. We can be seen as their last hope, and our failure to be their savior has huge potential to shift their hostility away from its primary target onto us. I’ve seen this happen regularly with emails, and I’ve been threatened from time to time for my refusal to fulfill whatever demands people make of me. Half the time, I don’t even know what they’re talking about, as some of these folks are so self-centered that they truly believe the entire world is focused on them and their issues, and we all know everything about it. Some are just incomprehensible.
Criminal defense lawyers, by their nature, take the potential of threats in stride. It’s something that’s assumed due to the nature of our work, as defendants need someone to blame because of an unjust system, and we’re the closest warm body around. But in the virtual world, there’s a sense of distance from the flesh and blood. We don’t know who is reading our words and what is running through their mind as they do. Expectations are attributed to us online that we know nothing about, and should we fail to meet those expectations, people we don’t know can get angry with us. Some will get very angry. Some may feel compelled to act out their anger.
What happened to Michael Arrington is a reminder that there are real people out there who will project their feelings and expectations on us, regardless of whether they have any right or cause to do so. So to Mark Britton and my fellow blawgers in the practical blawgosphere, be careful out there. And to anyone who stumbles on a post here, and assumes that it gives you the right to demand my time and attention for your cause, I’m sorry if I disappoint you but I cannot help everyone.
Discover more from Simple Justice
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“when they figure out that we will not dedicate our lives to their cause, they get angry with us.”
Boy, I’ve sure been there!
I’ve had quite a few hostile exchanges and also the occasional threat since I started Grits over things that I’ve written, mostly, as it turns out, from people I knew or believed were cops. Most of that came when I was managing what turned out to be a successful campaign on behalf of ACLUTX to de-fund Texas’ drug task forces. The cops who lost their jobs were PISSED, but I knew I was sticking my finger in the fan and considered the backlash part of the cost of doing business.
The only one that really scared me was a threat from a cop’s WIFE who was angry that I’d published his disciplinary history. She was mad as a wet hen, somehow got my (unpublished) cell phone number, and ranted that she knew people who would “take care of” me. It’s been a while now, so hopefully she’s calmed down.
Yesterday as I was leaving the DLD Conference in Munich, Germany someone walked up to me and quite deliberately spat in my face. Before I even understood what was happening, he veered off into the crowd, just another dark head in a dark suit.
Of course, he could also have been a random victim of a nut job, and it had nothing to do with blogging.
That doesn’t mean that there aren’t risks in going public with a blog, and raising the hackles of some folks a few eggs short of a dozen. But there isn’t anything in his story of the mystery spitter to support that idea.
I had that thought, too. The behavior smacks of possible mental illness, doesn’t it?
Sure, mental illness is one possibility.
Or maybe he did something nasty that was unrelated to blogging and thought the guy deserved it. (It may be illegal, but still rational to many.)
Blogging is one of only three choices that I see.
It’s possible. That doesn’t change the equation much, but it’s possible. The point to remember is that there’s a risk associated with what we do, and to be careful ourselves are warn off any nuts who get the wrong idea. If it’s not related to blogging, then no harm, no foul.
Interesting post Scott (even with the usual irrational Avvo-bashing). Thank you for looking out for Avvo and me. 😉 I will expand on (and reply to some of) your thoughts over the coming days – probably on the Avvo Blog with trackback. I am giving a number of speeches next week, so I am just jammed getting ready for those. Still, I appreciate the thoughtful post. You touch on some sensitive issues for all of us that have some part of their lives in the public eye.
Mark Britton
CEO, Avvo
Great post. I get them too. Ours are people who ordered 100 iPods for $1000 and were shocked that they were badly made fakes. They want us to sue some PO box in China on a contingency fee basis and when I tell them that we won’t they then angrily tell me that lawyers don’t care about people and that China is a backwards country without any laws….
We all get those, but fortunately, usually sans spittle.
It’s a shame that you see anything shy of mindless enthusiasm to be “usual irrational Avvo-bashing.” I’m neither fan nor foe, though your twitting each time some attorney gets a case makes me think that it’s such an unusual event you have to throw a party. You have plenty of people sucking up in the hope that Avvo will save them from their inability to get clients, and won’t miss me on the cheerleader line. But that doesn’t mean that I’m not concerned for your welfare. I care deeply for all of you at Avvo, and never want to see anything bad happen to you.
I would imagine that you are in the direct line of fire these days, given the fear-mongering about Chinese products. I’m doing a case now involving alleged counterfeit products from China, where they do two shifts for the name company and one shift for themselves. The prosecutor insists they are of inferior quality, and I’ve detected what I believe to be spittle but won’t swear to it for fear of a 1001 violation.