And my thanks goes not only to those who have supported my decision, but those who have been critical as well.  I do have to say that the criticisms strike home with me as I think they are the type of issues that made me so sick at what I did.  The threat (nee elimination?) to the possibility of free speech on this site.  The integrity of the site.  The breach it has created for future actions against the site.  And I very much considered taking the site down completely.

That said, having read some of the comments here has helped me to clear my head a bit and start the natural analysis that I tend to do (and once again demonstrates the "many eyeballs" strength of the open source method as many here have identified issues I never would have seen on my own).  First, I look back at the history of the site a bit.  As some have commented, the specific effort to CCL everything here is unusual (not sure we are the first or only doing it, but I have to guess we are out in front with it).  That was a conscious decision to help protect against this site going down.  It was also a result of everyone here debating the issues and providing their input.

We have also had extensive discussion here about policies to help protect against other potential threats.  The site has a history of debate about what measures need to be put in place to help protect it.  We now have this unfortunate incident where we did not anticipate this particular type of attack and had no plan of action.  But that does not mean we can't make the necessary changes needed to withstand the next attack.  In fact, I'm heartened to see many of the contributors here already starting on that.

To go back to the "war" metaphors, when you are on the front lines, you have to expect to take some casualties.  When that happens, you can't turn tail and run.  Instead, you figure out how to continue the fight in spite of the casualties you've suffered.  Certainly, some may think what has happened is a fatal blow.  imo, while a nasty hit, it does not have to be fatal.

Or, to turn to a sports metaphor, you can't expect to shut out the other side every game, sometimes you'll even find yourself down, but as long as there is time on the clock, you keep playing in an effort to come back.

So yes, I have been knocked down and bloodied (and everyone who has contributed to the site as well).  But now I'm standing up, spitting the blood out of my mouth, knocking some dust off, and getting myself braced for the next round.  Hopefully, everyone here will do the same.

With all that said, I would like to add some input to help with this process of fortifying our position.  The first thing that I have realized is the EFF and some of the other folks I contacted are severely limited in what they can do.  In fact, I'd say they are really only able to handle potential "precedent" setting cases.  This means the average blogger or forum owner who gets hit with a nuisance suit is on their own.  I'm not sure what the solution is - a legal fund established ahead of time?  hope someone creates a product that individuals could afford to help protect themselves?  setup some kind of cooperative or association to spread costs?  Whatever the solution, something needs to be done to ensure that not only the wealthy are able to avail themselves of the power of free speech and the Internet (alas, this disparity between rich and poor exists in meatspace as well).

In this situation, a human element was introduced that affected the outcome as well.  We never know when someone who is willing to fight may get hit with other stuff at the same time that negates that willingness or ability to fight.  And the threats are not only legal in nature.  Quite frankly, I could drop dead tomorrow and the site would probably go down.  This all leads me to the model of the Internet where it was designed to withstand weaknesses or breaks and can basically, route itself around problems.  Perhaps more needs to be done to ensure that the flow of information on sites like this can continue even when a site goes down.  More mirrors needed?  More aggressive recruitment of mirrors?  Some type of multiple ownership to help harden each site?

And at this site, we now see some specific issues for me to address.  Does the site need to be transferred to someone else?  A corporation setup to own the site?

As you can see, there are multiple levels that need to be addressed and there will be interaction between them.  I would suggest one goal would be to design some solutions that provide a disincentive to people who want to shut down sites via the court system.  I'm sure other goals need to be set as well.

Already, there are members of this site who have started work on these issues and I'm thankful for that as their knowledge and input has proven invaluable in the past.  I invite everyone to join in that effort.

Thanks,