I appreciate the sentiment, Serach, and though I realize everyone says this, I do need to say that I truly was innocent of everything they smeared - and I could've proven it in court (see below for what happened with that route).
I simply rejected one man (I'd blocked for asking repeatedly for naked pictures), refused to return to my exhusband, and a female blogger I thought a friend (who apparently thought she deserved more attention) ganged up and Tonya Harding-ed me.
(The latter female I also call "Regina George", as in "Mean Girls")
These 3 people ordered the attack on me, through people later identifying themselves as Anonymous/Legion, to keep themselves out of legal harassment trouble.
I couldn't afford a civil suit, but I shouldn't have had to, because I had a criminal case.
The woman who claimed "bff" friendship with "Tonya Harding/Regina George" (though they'd never met in real time) actually admitted publicly, IN WRITING, that she'd made the call to CPS of of what is now legally disproven allegations.
However, here's the problem with that - she lives in the U.K. Have you tried extraditing and prosecuting someone in another country? How about even another state?
Because the law in MY state says you can't, without an address proving the perpetrator lives IN the state.
I fought back verbally, absolutely (which, of course, was only used as justification in reverse that I deserved it).
However, I never privately searched their lives or made contact with anyone in THEIR real lives, I didn't want to make honest people of them - and because I guess I like to delude myself into believing the due process of law will prevail, rather than vigilantism.
But maybe those attacking me, on 11 different blogs, impersonating me 6 times, and hacking into my account with a keylogger never WERE Anonymous/Legion, as they claimed...
Or maybe you're right, the new mask of Anonymous is merely a PR move to clean up their image...
Or maybe, despite having good intentions, they have very little control over who does what, online, because they have no idea, what type of people they're allowing in...
But if we don't even really know our own face-to-face neighbors, how much less do we know people we only met online?
Regardless of their motivations with Amanda Todd, I'm glad they're doing it - but it's not going to hurt to encourage them, going forward, to investigate thoroughly the people they allow in, as well as ask for proof.
I mean, what happens if a member DOES act a fool online?
Close ranks like the Vatican?
And I'm now hearing reports of mistakes being made, in this case, by the press.
I hope that's not true, but that's my point - please be sure - if you HAVE made a mistake, please realize you can destroy the lives of innocent people by doing so.
So take responsibility for any mistakes - it is what separates you from the powers that be that you complain about:)