They are accused of something or another or have a statement taken out of context. If they try to clarify their statements or defend themselves, the gang as a group complains to the moderators and accused them of the very behaviors the gang is guilty of doing themselves. An example one might accuse James of being disrespectful and no listening to others. James asks if anyone can give an example of being disrespectful and not listening. Answer everybody thinks so and the fact that you are still asking proves you weren’t listening and are disrespectful. How is that to have your head spinning? But two other go around of that and the entire list is turned off. It is often effective since moderators do not like to mediate these disputes and other list members either tune out or complain equally about both parties. So the deck is stacked against the victim.
Some backchannels contain information that is really malicious gossip with the clear intent to discredit another person. This is an all too human part of human behavior. For example, in a backchannel communication a reputable psychiatrist was accused of having an affair with one of his patients who he later married. If this were true it would have been illegal and unethical professional conduct. If the accusation were true a professional would have had an obligation to report unprofessional conduct rather than use is as a smear campaign under the guise of private and confidential communication.
The backchannel “poison emails” are extremely effective weapons with professional discussion groups. This allows the some of gang members at least to maintain a veneer of respectability while doing their work under the guise of confidentiality. When confronted they scream that their confidentiality has been violated. That is nonsense. They were caught. Period!
Some professionals have employed a novel approach to recruit members through a combination of backchannel recruitment with gang attacks on a list and poison backchannels. It works like this.
A group of flamers harass a selected target. They might follow him or her relentlessly from one group to another. This creates discord among the other group members. The flamers then contact the other group members inviting then to join their own list where they claim such disrespectful behavior does not occur. They might follow up with some “poison backchannels” reminding every one that if it were not for James the list would not be too bad etc. but on their list someone like him with his disrespectful and discourteous behavior would not be allowed. This tends to drive business to their own discussion group and the can grow rapidly using this approach.
Their methods are often quite effective because they rely on the passivity of most of the other group members and a convoluted misguided notion of confidentiality. Health professionals value confidentiality, however, many fail to understand its purpose and limitations. Confidentiality is designed to protect communications of patients/consumers. It is not meant as a cover to perpetrate violation of criminal or civil laws. It does not apply to malicious defamation of third parties.
Another way to look at it is this. In mental health there is a concept called the Tarasoff Doctrine[1]. Basically it means that when there is an eminent threat of harm confidentiality is suspended and a professional has a duty to warn. I am using this concept as an analogy. There is no confidentiality requirement in online backchannel malicious conversations. But if there were any, the duty to protect a third party takes precedence. I maintain that to keep silent and participate even passively in malicious third party defamations shows at least is a lack of courage and possibly crosses over into being a co-defamer. If there is no one who will listen the malicious gossip, defamers cannot succeed.
One may ask why would people do this. What would posses people, professional people to behave in ways that one might expect in a schoolyard at best or some rackets at worst? It is difficult to say. I have been studying this phenomena for years and am not ready to form an opinion. It would require an in-depth psychological evaluation of the defamers to discern motivation. Hatcher however offered some possible reasons from his experience. They include settling an old score or perceived slight such as feeling bested in debating some professional point. Or sometimes especially when the online and backchannel relationship started out friendly, cordial and professional one party may have been developing a far greater emotional attachment. If the other party does not reciprocate such one-sided emotional relationships it becomes the equivalent of finding a rabbit in your soup.
Summary:
As Hatcher described online stalking in the form of harassment and defamation is a serious problem online and professionals are not immune. Cyber stalking, liable and defamation occurs both on discussion groups and in backchannel emails. If the defamation is serious it is actionable and there are legal remedies of litigation. If the criteria of liable per se are met damages need not be proved only that the defamer actually wrote the false and defamatory statements. However Hatcher also strongly recommends alternatives to costly litigation and the beginning of the framework are outlined in the interviews on the Labyrinth radio show. See http://www.moosemeals.com/labyrinth.htm click on Colin Hatcher in archives.
[1][ A fairly well known court case in California where a psychologist was found to be negligent for failing to warn a third party when a creditable threat was made.