Slog Comments
Good Advice From Violentacrez, the Man Outted As Reddit's More Infamous Troll: "Be nice."
1
"(I suppose the women who were just in line at McDonald's or trying to get a drink on the beach aren't worthy of the same privacy.)"
They're in public. They're personal information is not being posted. This is not a valid comparison.
They're in public. They're personal information is not being posted. This is not a valid comparison.
2
@1: The internet is public. Information you share in your profile is public information, and, moreover, is information that YOU chose to release, unlike a picture taken of you without your knowledge. It is an intensely valid comparison.
3
I agree with #1. If you want to be fair, someone would need to follow these guys around and sneak photos of them while they're bending over or in a swimsuit, and post about how they want to rape them.
4
@1 Can your internet personae be raped? No.
But real life young women are. All the time. And violating their CONSENT - photographically or otherwise - is just another type of treatment by men that can imply a threat. It's the type of shit rapists and predators do.
What the fuck is so hard to understand about this?
But real life young women are. All the time. And violating their CONSENT - photographically or otherwise - is just another type of treatment by men that can imply a threat. It's the type of shit rapists and predators do.
What the fuck is so hard to understand about this?
5
There is a huge difference in scope here, if your outed in a thread, that's one thing, as the internet is public and the scale is similar.
Being outed by gawker as a front page expose is a willfully malicious act, its a bully pulpit. the author of said article was known to have issues with reddit before.
They knew the man would get fired, that was their goal was to punish the troll. Creepy pics don't post addresses and names and suggest stalking, they oogle and move on.
I wouldn't think to defend any of these jerks, but I can recognize the scales here are out of wack. Dude pissed off a petty gawker author, and he got him canned for the trouble.
Being outed by gawker as a front page expose is a willfully malicious act, its a bully pulpit. the author of said article was known to have issues with reddit before.
They knew the man would get fired, that was their goal was to punish the troll. Creepy pics don't post addresses and names and suggest stalking, they oogle and move on.
I wouldn't think to defend any of these jerks, but I can recognize the scales here are out of wack. Dude pissed off a petty gawker author, and he got him canned for the trouble.
7
Why are people defending a guy who had subreddits endorsing violence towards women and taking pictures of underage dead girls? This person is getting a well-deserved kick in the ass. Sucks to be a privileged white guy who has the luxury of posting lewd pictures of underage girls without their consent while working his 9 to 5. Yes. Let's pity that guy who totally deserves to keep a job with women who he has also probably posted pictures of on a public forum without their consent. It was his choice to create a reddit account. It was not her/their choice to be photographed.
8
@ 1, if you aren't going to answer any of the valid points I pointed out for your benefit on the other thread, then I'll bring them up here.
How was his right to free expression harmed?
Do you believe that "freedom of speech" means that one should be immune to blowback from that speech?
How was his right to free expression harmed?
Do you believe that "freedom of speech" means that one should be immune to blowback from that speech?
9
@4: Not every creepy thing has to equate with rape. Taking a woman's picture without her knowledge is creepy, but it can't be implicitly threatening because she has no knowledge of it happening.
And Gawker didn't out his internet persona. They didn't say "Hey, there's this guy on the internet, goes by ViolentAcrez he's a huge creep." They outed his real identity. So yeah, actually, someone presumably could now track him down and rape him.
Whereas a woman whose picture is surreptitiously taken in public and posted on Reddit with no other identifying information isn't in appreciably more danger than she was beforehand.
It is inarguably creepy as all hell. But it's not rape.
And Gawker didn't out his internet persona. They didn't say "Hey, there's this guy on the internet, goes by ViolentAcrez he's a huge creep." They outed his real identity. So yeah, actually, someone presumably could now track him down and rape him.
Whereas a woman whose picture is surreptitiously taken in public and posted on Reddit with no other identifying information isn't in appreciably more danger than she was beforehand.
It is inarguably creepy as all hell. But it's not rape.
10
Can someone explain to me the appeal of Reddit? At best, it seems to me like they successfully combined Facebook's newsfeed with the sadness of Geocities.
11
@4- You image on the internet can't be raped or assaulted, but the actual you at your workplace or home can. Now which one makes me more vulnerable, an anonymous image on the internet or the real me's location on the internet?
Yes, creepshots are made by creeps. But this is apples and oranges. Doxxing people you don't like isn't going to make the internet better, it's going to make the internet a place where you can't have a controversial opinion or lifestyle without endangering yourself.
Yes, creepshots are made by creeps. But this is apples and oranges. Doxxing people you don't like isn't going to make the internet better, it's going to make the internet a place where you can't have a controversial opinion or lifestyle without endangering yourself.
12
I can't help but be grimly amused by the pearl-clutching of the über-creeps on reddit:
"What is this world coming to, that I can't take photos of unsuspecting 14 year-olds breasts and cheer on pictures of physical assault without some FASCIST finding my information through public websites and actually SAYING MY NAME?!!!!"
You poor souls. You must feel so violated.
Fucking garbage, the lot of them.
"What is this world coming to, that I can't take photos of unsuspecting 14 year-olds breasts and cheer on pictures of physical assault without some FASCIST finding my information through public websites and actually SAYING MY NAME?!!!!"
You poor souls. You must feel so violated.
Fucking garbage, the lot of them.
15
That article was *not* well-reported.
In fact, the role of moderators in online forums seemed intentionally misrepresented to make Brutsch seem worse than the author could prove. Whether or not Brutsch deserved to be outed as a troll, this misrepresentation is self-serving BS by the article's author. He intentionally made it sound like moderating a forum of "creepshots" was one and the same thing as taking them.
Essentially, that article put any of us who have ever moderated a forum on a topic we found repulsive at risk of being "outed" as someone who supports the contents.
Moderation promotes free speech by keeping illegal content out. Sometimes, mods have to look at something disgusting and ask, "is this legal?" If the answer is "yes" we do what we have to do to make sure only legal material is posted, whether or not we like it.
In fact, the role of moderators in online forums seemed intentionally misrepresented to make Brutsch seem worse than the author could prove. Whether or not Brutsch deserved to be outed as a troll, this misrepresentation is self-serving BS by the article's author. He intentionally made it sound like moderating a forum of "creepshots" was one and the same thing as taking them.
Essentially, that article put any of us who have ever moderated a forum on a topic we found repulsive at risk of being "outed" as someone who supports the contents.
Moderation promotes free speech by keeping illegal content out. Sometimes, mods have to look at something disgusting and ask, "is this legal?" If the answer is "yes" we do what we have to do to make sure only legal material is posted, whether or not we like it.
16
@9 and @11: But dehumanizing women by taking their photos without consent and posting them in forum like r/creepshots is contributing to rape culture and setting an example that a woman's body is out there for the taking. So... It does actually cause damage.
17
@8- Those points aren't valid. We're not talking about government stifling freedom of speech. We're talking about whether or not the internet is going to be to run by witch hunts or whether we'll be able to continue to have open dialogue on any topic without having to run Tor all the time.
19
The nicest thing about this whole situation is that whenever someone uses the word "doxxing" to describe what happened to Brutsch, I can usually immediately begin to ignore whatever they have to say.
22
Also like this isn't a witch hunt. If I go to a bar, start leering on all the girls and loudly make jokes abour rape and pedophilia and beating women, the bouncer will probably ask me to leave. Anyone who is outraged at the idea that the Internet work the same way really needs to get out more.
23
@16: I never claimed it didn't cause damage. The "rape culture" issue is a whole different argument (one I don't particularly want to get into because it's historically had a reeeeeal low listening to histrionic shouting ratio).
I'm just speaking in terms of actual threat of actual harm faced by the involved parties. Troll guy has received death threats. I would be surprised to hear the same about "Lady at McDonald's with a fat ass."
I'm just speaking in terms of actual threat of actual harm faced by the involved parties. Troll guy has received death threats. I would be surprised to hear the same about "Lady at McDonald's with a fat ass."
24
@16- Ah.... what? Our images are out there for the taking. That's part of leaving the house. You don't have the right to not be fantasized about. You are a sex object. And so am I and everyone else in the world. Rape culture certainly exists, but I don't think voyeurs are the demons people are spelling them out to be.
If you don't like it, you have the right to wear a burka. Not that it'll help really, but you can. This is a free country (unlike France).
If you don't like it, you have the right to wear a burka. Not that it'll help really, but you can. This is a free country (unlike France).
26
Let's not forget that most of those "jailbait" girls were underage, or close to it. You cannot imagine what it is like to come of age under the white hot glare of the male gaze. I regularly got catcalled by construction workers when I was 12 years old. If you don't know what that's like, then take your penis and go play with it at home. You have no moral authority in this conversation.
27
Ye gawds, what a cock-up. The neckbeards of Reddit are defending VA by saying that, as moderator, he actually stopped real child porn from being posted. Way to go, guys: "we allow nasty shit 'cause it prevents even nastier shit". Yeah, right.
And point of fact: they haven't just banned the gawker article, many sub-reddits have banned any and all links to anything on Gawker. Because, "Freedom of speech!"
And point of fact: they haven't just banned the gawker article, many sub-reddits have banned any and all links to anything on Gawker. Because, "Freedom of speech!"
28
@11 This guy didn't belong to a class of people who get raped. He belongs to the class of people who typically DO the raping.
This is about consent. Creepshots are about the lack of consent. If you can't see how that contributes to threatening real women, then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm definitely not comfortable with the aspect that #9 mentioned, that this was a case of disproportionate force on behalf of Gawker.
But by the same token if I was women working at the company this guy worked at I sure as shit wouldn't want him there.
It is a moral conundrum.
But you know. This conundrum could be avoided if Reddit wasn't a fucking cesspool that couldn't moderate it's community of scum bags in the first place.
This is about consent. Creepshots are about the lack of consent. If you can't see how that contributes to threatening real women, then I don't know what to tell you.
I'm definitely not comfortable with the aspect that #9 mentioned, that this was a case of disproportionate force on behalf of Gawker.
But by the same token if I was women working at the company this guy worked at I sure as shit wouldn't want him there.
It is a moral conundrum.
But you know. This conundrum could be avoided if Reddit wasn't a fucking cesspool that couldn't moderate it's community of scum bags in the first place.
29
@17, there's got to be a middle ground between "having open dialogue" and posting pictures of dead teenage girls for guys to jerk off to.
30
@22 no your example is totally wrong. Its more like someone else at the bar who works for the local paper getting into an argument with the guy, and then publishing a front page article in said paper on the person he disagreed with about him being a douche bag who is the president of rape culture.
31
@7
Out as many creepshot photographers as you want, they all deserve it.
The problem with this article is that Brutsch was a creepshot moderator, not a participant. The "journalist" who wrote it has now successfully tied moderation, which is the job of removing posts which are illegal or violate policy, and participation.
As you have so helpfully shown, we now live in a world where people equate the permission of free speech with the agreement of it.
Out as many creepshot photographers as you want, they all deserve it.
The problem with this article is that Brutsch was a creepshot moderator, not a participant. The "journalist" who wrote it has now successfully tied moderation, which is the job of removing posts which are illegal or violate policy, and participation.
As you have so helpfully shown, we now live in a world where people equate the permission of free speech with the agreement of it.
32
@15 I can only assume you didn't read the article that closely and are unfamiliar with Violentacrez, or else you're stretching to try to defend his behavior for some reason.
The issue isn't that he was a moderator of those subreddits. I didn't read anything targeting Reddit moderators in general. The issue is that he's the one who started inflammatory and predatory subreddits, nurtured them, filled them with content and urged others to fill them. This is a man who publicly told stories about receiving oral sex from his step-daughter, who would remove pictures of girls he deemed too old (ie they looked over seventeen), who started a subreddit called deadjailbait and provided it with content.
That's a very different thing from volunteering to moderate an innocent forum and then having to turn a blind eye to obnoxious behavior that's legal and the administrators of the site don't consider bannable.
The issue isn't that he was a moderator of those subreddits. I didn't read anything targeting Reddit moderators in general. The issue is that he's the one who started inflammatory and predatory subreddits, nurtured them, filled them with content and urged others to fill them. This is a man who publicly told stories about receiving oral sex from his step-daughter, who would remove pictures of girls he deemed too old (ie they looked over seventeen), who started a subreddit called deadjailbait and provided it with content.
That's a very different thing from volunteering to moderate an innocent forum and then having to turn a blind eye to obnoxious behavior that's legal and the administrators of the site don't consider bannable.
33
@31 But he did participate. In Jailbait, specifically. As Gawker states: "Violentacrez himself posted hundreds of photos." And he admitted to posting photos, saying they were photos found elsewhere, but that's still participation.
34
Uh reddit is a pretty popular site as well. I don't know whether reddit or Gawker gets more hits, but it's not like the guy didn't have a voice online.
People lose their jobs all the time when they say douchey things in public. I'm pretty sure Charlie Sheen's gig on Two and a Half Men paid way more than Brutsch's did, but I don't recall people complaining about how his precious rights were violated.
People lose their jobs all the time when they say douchey things in public. I'm pretty sure Charlie Sheen's gig on Two and a Half Men paid way more than Brutsch's did, but I don't recall people complaining about how his precious rights were violated.
35
@28- You're saying Internet McCartheyism is OK be Violentacrez is an asshole.
That's not how things work.
That's not how things work.
36
@31 Wrong. Why do you keep on harping on this easily disproven point I do not understand.
He was a participant. He STARTED many of the sub-reddits himself, had been doing so for years, and why he was made the moderator - because he was popular with the scumbags.
Not to mention the hundreds of racist posts he crafted. Most of these in violation of Reddit's supposed "guidelines."
He was popular there with the moderator staff and with the large population of adolescent minded pRedditors who got off on his schtick.
He was a participant. He STARTED many of the sub-reddits himself, had been doing so for years, and why he was made the moderator - because he was popular with the scumbags.
Not to mention the hundreds of racist posts he crafted. Most of these in violation of Reddit's supposed "guidelines."
He was popular there with the moderator staff and with the large population of adolescent minded pRedditors who got off on his schtick.
37
I long for the day when the technology brings the one (or more) Internet stalkers who have been haunting me to justice.
I hope their penance is swift...and harsh.
38
@31,
Did you miss the part where he started many of those subreddits and where he was an active participant to jailbait?
Brutsch was outed by one of his friends who was sick of his creepy, pervy bullshit.
Brutsch outed HIMSELF. He went to Reddit events. He made not even the slightest attempt to hide his real identity.
Did you miss the part where he started many of those subreddits and where he was an active participant to jailbait?
Brutsch was outed by one of his friends who was sick of his creepy, pervy bullshit.
Doxxing people you don't like isn't going to make the internet better, it's going to make the internet a place where you can't have a controversial opinion or lifestyle without endangering yourself.
Brutsch outed HIMSELF. He went to Reddit events. He made not even the slightest attempt to hide his real identity.
39
@35,
You're saying that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.
That's not how things work.
You're saying that people shouldn't be held accountable for their actions.
That's not how things work.
40
@35 this is the same group that was outraged when anarchists were jailed over pamphlets, who are now justifying someone being fired and outed for their beliefs.
Speech issues are too hard for people to wrap their heads around apparently.
If someone "deserves it" then its totally OK, no double standard here at all.
Speech issues are too hard for people to wrap their heads around apparently.
If someone "deserves it" then its totally OK, no double standard here at all.
41
Megan @ 18,
He moderated some, started some, and posted in others. However, there is a very large distinction between Brutsch's activities as a troll, and his activities as a moderator. Chen's article not only doesn't distinguish between the two, it intentionally equates them.
Look at how many people believe that his moderation of "creepshots" was the same as his posting in it. That is the consequence of Chen's shoddy, irresponsible reporting.
He moderated some, started some, and posted in others. However, there is a very large distinction between Brutsch's activities as a troll, and his activities as a moderator. Chen's article not only doesn't distinguish between the two, it intentionally equates them.
Look at how many people believe that his moderation of "creepshots" was the same as his posting in it. That is the consequence of Chen's shoddy, irresponsible reporting.
42
#39 accountable to who? the law or the court of public opinion?
Its one thing to get outted on a site in context, for being a douchebag. Its a whole other to have your dirty laundry judged and published to the whole world as an example of whichever depravity, or unpopular opinion you may have.
Lots of people here justifying mob behavior and witch hunting.
Its one thing to get outted on a site in context, for being a douchebag. Its a whole other to have your dirty laundry judged and published to the whole world as an example of whichever depravity, or unpopular opinion you may have.
Lots of people here justifying mob behavior and witch hunting.
43
@35 McCarthyism?
For fuck sake can the hyperventilating histrionics. And quit putting words in my mouth.
Gawker is not the US Senate. He wasn't pulled in interrogated in front of a government tribunal.
He isn't barred from working in IT ever again.
He isn't black listed by anybody.
He isn't even forbidden to spew what ever shit he want to spew ever again. He has full use of the 1st amendment and can seek employment where ever he wants.
He got fired because he got outed spending a huge volume of time post massive amounts of vile shit on social media against his own companies rules about the use of social media - that he agreed to abide by - and on company time. THAT'S why they fired him.
For fuck sake can the hyperventilating histrionics. And quit putting words in my mouth.
Gawker is not the US Senate. He wasn't pulled in interrogated in front of a government tribunal.
He isn't barred from working in IT ever again.
He isn't black listed by anybody.
He isn't even forbidden to spew what ever shit he want to spew ever again. He has full use of the 1st amendment and can seek employment where ever he wants.
He got fired because he got outed spending a huge volume of time post massive amounts of vile shit on social media against his own companies rules about the use of social media - that he agreed to abide by - and on company time. THAT'S why they fired him.
44
Like always in threads like these some are (intentional or not) distorting what freedom of speech should mean, it means that the government should not infringe on the right of others to say stuff they/others don't agree on. it DOESN'T mean they, let alone we as society, let alone you as an individual should facilitate it. I moderate a forum, sure opinions get expressed I don't agree with but if there would be stuff I'm repulsed by whether it is legal is the least of my concern, if people wants to post repulsive stuff they can start an own repulsive website and get repulsive moderators to make sure only legal repulsive shit gets posted.
You have your own moral responsibility, if you do it voluntary either remove the repulsive shit or quite, hell even you get paid to moderate you should take a stand and demand the stuff that goes against your morals goes or you go.
Sure people should be allowed to post horrible shit but they can do their own damn moderating and you sure as hell don't have to waste your energy nor costly bandwidth on it.
And this goes to for the reddit owners, no way they let that shit stay because they believe so strongly in freedom of speech, if they did those subreddits would still be there, it just fits their businessmodel and they are getting rich of it.
You have your own moral responsibility, if you do it voluntary either remove the repulsive shit or quite, hell even you get paid to moderate you should take a stand and demand the stuff that goes against your morals goes or you go.
Sure people should be allowed to post horrible shit but they can do their own damn moderating and you sure as hell don't have to waste your energy nor costly bandwidth on it.
And this goes to for the reddit owners, no way they let that shit stay because they believe so strongly in freedom of speech, if they did those subreddits would still be there, it just fits their businessmodel and they are getting rich of it.
45
@41 What are you talking about? Now you contradict yourself.
He DID post in creepshots. He also admittedly posted in - and created - the underage deadgirls sub-Reddit.
He DID post in creepshots. He also admittedly posted in - and created - the underage deadgirls sub-Reddit.
46
was it really that fascinating or well written?
The guy turned out to be kinda normal working a kinda normal job. This really didn't come as a surprise to anyone.
The guy turned out to be kinda normal working a kinda normal job. This really didn't come as a surprise to anyone.
47
@41 I don't understand why you're so stuck on defining the difference between moderation and contribution when he is guilty of both and his being outted/fired wasn't solely based on the fact that he "just" moderated the controversial forums.
48
@42
I like how deliberately provoking people by promoting racist and sexist violence or posting pictures of underage dead girls for the purpose of jerking off too is now just an "unpopular opinion."
Yeah. You pretty much convinced me sign on with the witch hunt.
I like how deliberately provoking people by promoting racist and sexist violence or posting pictures of underage dead girls for the purpose of jerking off too is now just an "unpopular opinion."
Yeah. You pretty much convinced me sign on with the witch hunt.
49
@35, you're seriously equating communism with rape culture? And equating a government inquisition with a private shaming? You, sir, are either trolling or very stupid.
50
@32, @33,
Yes, Brutch posted horrible things just to troll people. He deserved to be outed for creating and posting to Jailbait and deadjailbait, and all the offensive subreddits he started just to make people angry.
I don't have a problem with the outing of trolls, or the outing of Brutsch in particular, *for what he did as a troll*. I'm not defending Brutsch's actual behavior at all.
However, Chen's article outed Brutsch irresponsibly by equating moderation with participation, just so he could take advantage of the questionable morality of creepshots.
Which is why the most worked up I've gotten about this issue was when someone who's journalistic abilities I admire declared his article "well-reported".
Yes, Brutch posted horrible things just to troll people. He deserved to be outed for creating and posting to Jailbait and deadjailbait, and all the offensive subreddits he started just to make people angry.
I don't have a problem with the outing of trolls, or the outing of Brutsch in particular, *for what he did as a troll*. I'm not defending Brutsch's actual behavior at all.
However, Chen's article outed Brutsch irresponsibly by equating moderation with participation, just so he could take advantage of the questionable morality of creepshots.
Which is why the most worked up I've gotten about this issue was when someone who's journalistic abilities I admire declared his article "well-reported".
51
I loooove the hypocrisy of defending Creepshots by claiming that no one (including children) has the expectation of privacy in public and with the very same breath claiming they should be protected by anonymity on a public forum like Reddit.
52
Prove it.
HE is the one who aired his dirty laundry. Brutsch, his wife, and his son put all of the worst aspects of their personal lives for the whole world to see, and it was Brutsch who barely made any attempt to hide who he was.
How do you think Chen found out his real identity? Do you think Gawker is Interpol or something? Chen found out who Brutsch was because he told many people who knew him as violentacrez his real name.
However, there is a very large distinction between Brutsch's activities as a troll, and his activities as a moderator.
Prove it.
Its a whole other to have your dirty laundry judged and published to the whole world as an example of whichever depravity, or unpopular opinion you may have.
HE is the one who aired his dirty laundry. Brutsch, his wife, and his son put all of the worst aspects of their personal lives for the whole world to see, and it was Brutsch who barely made any attempt to hide who he was.
How do you think Chen found out his real identity? Do you think Gawker is Interpol or something? Chen found out who Brutsch was because he told many people who knew him as violentacrez his real name.
53
I'm going to use that "I was just playing a character" whenever I'm caught being a dipshit. See? I'm a thespian.
54
That's not really a good argument. Obviously, a person is perfectly entitled to have those opinions, and there are certain sites set up specifically for people with "controversial" opinions and lifestyles ("lifestyles?" I'll let that one go). What you're talking about, though, is the right to have controversial opinions etc. in a public/private way - being allowed to voice said opinions while still remaining in the proverbial "closet," and I think there have been more then enough cases of cyber bullying now to safely say that the whole "internet isn't real" argument doesn't hold any water. People don't enjoy that right of anonymity when they make offensive statements offline; you either own it or you don't say anything. If someone feels a strong compulsion to rail against gay people or preach white power screeds, then more power to them. But they don't and shouldn't get to do it from behind the curtain, whether it's from a podium or a processor.
Doxxing people you don't like isn't going to make the internet better, it's going to make the internet a place where you can't have a controversial opinion or lifestyle without endangering yourself.
That's not really a good argument. Obviously, a person is perfectly entitled to have those opinions, and there are certain sites set up specifically for people with "controversial" opinions and lifestyles ("lifestyles?" I'll let that one go). What you're talking about, though, is the right to have controversial opinions etc. in a public/private way - being allowed to voice said opinions while still remaining in the proverbial "closet," and I think there have been more then enough cases of cyber bullying now to safely say that the whole "internet isn't real" argument doesn't hold any water. People don't enjoy that right of anonymity when they make offensive statements offline; you either own it or you don't say anything. If someone feels a strong compulsion to rail against gay people or preach white power screeds, then more power to them. But they don't and shouldn't get to do it from behind the curtain, whether it's from a podium or a processor.
55
@47: Nothing kittencomputergodess/kittencoder/wingedkat/whatever the fuck cat related name she comes up with ever makes any sense. There's no possible reason to engage with her, except perhaos to tease out whatever toxic mix of literal-mindedness, prejudices, and personality disorders make up the toxic stew of what passes for her mind.
57
@50 What?
You are not making any sense. Read what you've written so far and pretend it was posted by somebody else. Does it still make a lick of sense to you? Because it doesn't to anybody else.
You are not making any sense. Read what you've written so far and pretend it was posted by somebody else. Does it still make a lick of sense to you? Because it doesn't to anybody else.
59
Megan @ 47
I'm stuck on the difference between participation and moderation because Chen implies they are the same thing: FTA:
"outing Violentacrez is worse than anonymously posting creepshots of innocent women, because doing so would undermine Reddit's role as a safe place for people to anonymously post creepshots of innocent women."
He also merges a list of subreddits that Brutch moderated with those he started, without distinguishing them.
Just in case it still isn't clear, my complaint is not about Brutch's outing, but about Chen's article. I suppose it just hits home.
I mean, I'm prepared for harassment over those creepshot-esque pictures of my ass floating around online somewhere. I'm also prepared for all the harassment I've gotten for my "Christianity is getting Better" IGB video.
However, this is the first time I've looked at all the debates, forums and discussions I've moderated when no one else would and thought they really posed a danger for my personal life. This article, and the reaction to it, *scares the sh*t out of me*.
I'm stuck on the difference between participation and moderation because Chen implies they are the same thing: FTA:
"outing Violentacrez is worse than anonymously posting creepshots of innocent women, because doing so would undermine Reddit's role as a safe place for people to anonymously post creepshots of innocent women."
He also merges a list of subreddits that Brutch moderated with those he started, without distinguishing them.
Just in case it still isn't clear, my complaint is not about Brutch's outing, but about Chen's article. I suppose it just hits home.
I mean, I'm prepared for harassment over those creepshot-esque pictures of my ass floating around online somewhere. I'm also prepared for all the harassment I've gotten for my "Christianity is getting Better" IGB video.
However, this is the first time I've looked at all the debates, forums and discussions I've moderated when no one else would and thought they really posed a danger for my personal life. This article, and the reaction to it, *scares the sh*t out of me*.
60
It must suck to be a neckbearded misogynist and then get a taste of your own harassment. Boo fucking hoo.
Also, for the record, one has to wonder if St. Creepy McBeardo was doing some of his "saintly" (how one must suffer for the reddit cause!) moderating on company time. In which case, your guy isn't a martyr, Redditors, he's a fucking idiot.
Also, for the record, one has to wonder if St. Creepy McBeardo was doing some of his "saintly" (how one must suffer for the reddit cause!) moderating on company time. In which case, your guy isn't a martyr, Redditors, he's a fucking idiot.
61
If you're gonna be a douchebag on the internet, be smart or get called out for it. Alls fair in love and internet. Also, nice to see meanie, og troll of nw-raves/nwtekno from way back, defending other trolls.
63
@24 - Ah.... what? Our Reddit posts are out there for the taking. That's part of posting on the internet. You don't have the right to not be hated. You are a douchebag. PC police certainly exist, but I don't think internet journalists are the demons people are spelling them out to be.
If you don't like it, you have the right to post in protected forums. Not that it'll help really, but you can. This is a free country (unlike France).
If you don't like it, you have the right to post in protected forums. Not that it'll help really, but you can. This is a free country (unlike France).
64
Joe @55 holy crap, I had no idea anyone ever noticed me on Slog before today.
However, I am only WingedKat, and have been since about 1997 despite how vaguely embarrassing the juvenile handle has become. I don't know who those other people are. I think at least one is fairly conservative, so if you can't tell us apart I imagine my posts have been *VERY* confusing.
However, I am only WingedKat, and have been since about 1997 despite how vaguely embarrassing the juvenile handle has become. I don't know who those other people are. I think at least one is fairly conservative, so if you can't tell us apart I imagine my posts have been *VERY* confusing.
65
Internet culture is so fuckin weird, man. I don't know what half of you people are even talking about right now.
66
Oh seriously children. This pervert is not a victim. What goes round comes round. He spread hate in a public forum by posting pictures of people taken in public, (yes sexy teen girls are people too) and got outed. If you don't want to get outed don't post pictures of strangers on your internet hate forum for the whole world to see. This is not hard. Now grow up.
67
@64: Sincere apologies for the misidentification and name calling, but I find your arguments confusing, nit-picking, and just plain odd.
68
@50 TKC
hmm... no..... what I've said makes perfect sense to me. I must be missing something that would make it clear to you.
What exactly do you not understand?
1. I don't care if trolls are outed, Brutsch included. The internet is not anonymous.
2. I'm angry and disturbed by how Chen wrote his article, because of how he and his readers have interpreted moderation and participation.
hmm... no..... what I've said makes perfect sense to me. I must be missing something that would make it clear to you.
What exactly do you not understand?
1. I don't care if trolls are outed, Brutsch included. The internet is not anonymous.
2. I'm angry and disturbed by how Chen wrote his article, because of how he and his readers have interpreted moderation and participation.
69
i'm going to go out on a limb here, and say that his kids are probably pretty fucked up too. or at least, they are now.
70
Violentacrez and shitbags like him on reddit have been 'falsely crying FIRE! in a crowded theatre' for YEARS. And now they're unhappy about being trampled by the mob.
71
@ 17, hmm. Those points were valid yesterday, when you were arguing that his (and by extension, our) freedom of expression was destroyed. If they're invalid now, so is your argument.
The internet remains as free today as it was two weeks ago. Your illusion of how free is shattered, but now you see things as they really are.
The internet remains as free today as it was two weeks ago. Your illusion of how free is shattered, but now you see things as they really are.
72
Joe @67
Thank you, sincerely.
You are right, I probably am a bit odd.
Slog is a forum where I am NOT a moderator, so it is where I get to be a bit nit-picky and loose in my arguments. I get to be myself. I don't have to see both sides and ignore what I can't stand for whatever reason.
I LOVE SLOG. Even when I don't make sense. Making sense is my day job.
Thank you, sincerely.
You are right, I probably am a bit odd.
Slog is a forum where I am NOT a moderator, so it is where I get to be a bit nit-picky and loose in my arguments. I get to be myself. I don't have to see both sides and ignore what I can't stand for whatever reason.
I LOVE SLOG. Even when I don't make sense. Making sense is my day job.
73
It's a disrespect to the real dangers of dictatorial regimes to call bloggers "fascists," as if any threat to perfect Internet anonymity is some kind of existential threat to Western democracy. The histrionics and the rage reflect the worse kind of myopia -- an all-encompassing ignorance of past and present, self and society. If you're not willing to stand by what you say, to own your actions (and speech *is* action), in the public arena, then go buy a diary. Calling "fascist" on Gawker for disclosing publicly available information is akin to Sarah Palin saying "free speech is in jeopardy" because members of the media called out her ignorance. Speech has consequences. If it didn't, then the right to free speech would be meaningless.
74
This is the group you're defending, Gawker:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-avakrRU…
Nice people, journalists. Salt of the earth, aren't they?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2-avakrRU…
Nice people, journalists. Salt of the earth, aren't they?
75
@62
This is not exactly a secret, although I am only WingedKat, or TheWingedKat, not those other people.
Google search it, or google+, and you will find me. My old webpage is still cached in google.
I don't have a tumbler account though, so please don't spew that poor artist with hatemail. The "Christian" bigots harassed her enough after I posted my "Christianity is getting better" IGB video.
This is not exactly a secret, although I am only WingedKat, or TheWingedKat, not those other people.
Google search it, or google+, and you will find me. My old webpage is still cached in google.
I don't have a tumbler account though, so please don't spew that poor artist with hatemail. The "Christian" bigots harassed her enough after I posted my "Christianity is getting better" IGB video.
76
Hy husband's grandfather was investigated by the House Unamerican Activities committee for the "sin" of giving money to a racially-based community organization that helped his people cope with the aftermath of WWII.
I can tell you it was a very serious situation with lasting consequences imposed on someone who did something morally laudable.
Those who compare what this man faces to McCarthyism are either blinded by their privilege or purposefully ignorant. Maybe their just as hate-filled as the Trolls. Either way, I say on behalf of the actual victims of McCarthyism: fuck you.
I can tell you it was a very serious situation with lasting consequences imposed on someone who did something morally laudable.
Those who compare what this man faces to McCarthyism are either blinded by their privilege or purposefully ignorant. Maybe their just as hate-filled as the Trolls. Either way, I say on behalf of the actual victims of McCarthyism: fuck you.
77
I love watching these people tie themselves up in knots and try to explain why it's so mean to out this creep.
As someone with sisters, cousins, friends, nieces and great-nieces--FUCK HIM.
And for those of you who defend him by saying as a moderator he was only doing his job--are you fucking serious? What kind of slimeball even MODERATES something like that?
Give me a break.
As someone with sisters, cousins, friends, nieces and great-nieces--FUCK HIM.
And for those of you who defend him by saying as a moderator he was only doing his job--are you fucking serious? What kind of slimeball even MODERATES something like that?
Give me a break.
78
I understand the concept that people should not say anything they are unwilling to stand behind. And this guy was apparently engaged in long term activity, so he is not exactly able to plead "oops" here.
But try to keep in mind that in any type of conflict, the weapons your side deploys will usually, eventually, be turned on you and yours.
So for all you cheering on Gawker, think of how you will feel when it is not this fellow getting "Gawkered", but rather some party you feel more sympathetic towards. Say a young gay man living in a tough part of the country for his type gets found out by a hostile local church? Still cheering on the tearing off of anonymous protections, or saying "no privacy should be expected!"? Not me. Not in that case.
In my view, this is kind of a Nazis-Marching-in-Skokie moment. If you want to protect anyone's privacy in posting, you have to find it in you to support this guy's. You don't have to like him, but you have to like the protection afforded generally, and extend it to him in this instance.
But try to keep in mind that in any type of conflict, the weapons your side deploys will usually, eventually, be turned on you and yours.
So for all you cheering on Gawker, think of how you will feel when it is not this fellow getting "Gawkered", but rather some party you feel more sympathetic towards. Say a young gay man living in a tough part of the country for his type gets found out by a hostile local church? Still cheering on the tearing off of anonymous protections, or saying "no privacy should be expected!"? Not me. Not in that case.
In my view, this is kind of a Nazis-Marching-in-Skokie moment. If you want to protect anyone's privacy in posting, you have to find it in you to support this guy's. You don't have to like him, but you have to like the protection afforded generally, and extend it to him in this instance.
80
@78
Actually, no we don't. It's not the same at all and anyway, I'm not talking about some hypothetical kid. I'm talking about this specific schmuck.
Actually, no we don't. It's not the same at all and anyway, I'm not talking about some hypothetical kid. I'm talking about this specific schmuck.
83
@ 78, let's ask a hypothetical question. Violentacrez did not do a whole lot to keep his identity secret, and did a lot to bring attention to himself. If you feel that his actions at Reddit - actions which violated the privacy of others (you have to admit that or dispute that, you can't just let it sit unacknowledged) - did not justify this kind of reporting, then is there anything that would?
I don't mean anything illegal. That would justify reporting someone to the police, and is therefore outside the bounds of my hypothetical question. I mean something immoral.
I don't mean anything illegal. That would justify reporting someone to the police, and is therefore outside the bounds of my hypothetical question. I mean something immoral.
84
80, this says it better than I could:
Sir Thomas More: Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.
William Roper: Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes, what would you do?
William Roper: Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
Sir Thomas More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you...where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast......Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down......and you're just the man to do it...do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
--A Man for All Seasons
The sentiment applies equally in social conventions with less force behind it than law. But hey, don't let little things like ethics and principles get in the way of a self-righteous moment, right? We've all been there, me included.
Sir Thomas More: Go he should, if he were the Devil, until he broke the law.
William Roper: Now you give the Devil benefit of law!
Sir Thomas More: Yes, what would you do?
William Roper: Cut a road through the law to get after the Devil? Yes. I'd cut down every law in England to do that.
Sir Thomas More: And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned on you...where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws from coast to coast......Man's laws, not God's, and if you cut them down......and you're just the man to do it...do you really think you could stand upright in the wind that would blow then? Yes. I give the Devil benefit of law for my own safety's sake.
--A Man for All Seasons
The sentiment applies equally in social conventions with less force behind it than law. But hey, don't let little things like ethics and principles get in the way of a self-righteous moment, right? We've all been there, me included.
85
Snowguy, the difference is that this guy did bad things that harmed other people. Your suggested gay kid in an unsafe place hasn't.
87
@84, there is nothing illegal about what this guy did on Reddit; no one is saying that there was. There would be nothing illegal about him continuing to do what he has been doing, under the same handle or a new one. We don't know exactly why he was fired, but he has not been charged with anything. His right to do these things is not under attack.
There is also nothing illegal about what the Gawker reporter did in exposing the guy's RL identity. Nothing. Illegal.
Both sides can argue about which side's completely legal actions were more distasteful, but the fact is that no law has been broken and neither of these two men has been outrageously violated.
Reddit's "social convention" that "we like to be anonymous because that means we can do absolutely anything we like here with no repercussions on our actual lives" does not hold up to scrutiny. No one has a right to be completely anonymous just so they can get away with stuff more easily. Someone who was actually concerned about his safety (or job security) if his real identity was made public should not have told bunches of people his real name, gone to public meetups, described his personal life in detail under his oh-so-anonymous handle, etc. He was an adult, he behaved the way he did and took the risks he did, and now is crying because it turns out there are consequences.
Related, John Scalzi wrote a pretty comprehensive (I thought) post about this. http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/16/ga…
There is also nothing illegal about what the Gawker reporter did in exposing the guy's RL identity. Nothing. Illegal.
Both sides can argue about which side's completely legal actions were more distasteful, but the fact is that no law has been broken and neither of these two men has been outrageously violated.
Reddit's "social convention" that "we like to be anonymous because that means we can do absolutely anything we like here with no repercussions on our actual lives" does not hold up to scrutiny. No one has a right to be completely anonymous just so they can get away with stuff more easily. Someone who was actually concerned about his safety (or job security) if his real identity was made public should not have told bunches of people his real name, gone to public meetups, described his personal life in detail under his oh-so-anonymous handle, etc. He was an adult, he behaved the way he did and took the risks he did, and now is crying because it turns out there are consequences.
Related, John Scalzi wrote a pretty comprehensive (I thought) post about this. http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/16/ga…
88
Nuanced article about social courtesies (as distinguished from rights) on the internet: http://inthesetimes.com/duly-noted/entry…
89
From where I'm standing, the defenders of the crypto-pedophile are getting seriously Bidened in this debate.
It's easy for anyone to avoid the kind of massive public outing and shaming suffered by Violentacrez. It seems he did everything he could to make this happen, as a joke.
It's easy for anyone to avoid the kind of massive public outing and shaming suffered by Violentacrez. It seems he did everything he could to make this happen, as a joke.
90
"this fascinating, well-written, and well-reported piece"
Yes to the first, yes to the second if you mean "well-researched," but hell no to the middle one. Adequate at most. Readable. Jesus Christ, the guy's name is Brutsch (a fact that YOU, Gawker writer, uncovered). Stop referring to him by his reddit handle. Just for example.
Yes to the first, yes to the second if you mean "well-researched," but hell no to the middle one. Adequate at most. Readable. Jesus Christ, the guy's name is Brutsch (a fact that YOU, Gawker writer, uncovered). Stop referring to him by his reddit handle. Just for example.
91
So I guess all the people saying that Brutch is the victim here would be fine with him posting pictures of their hypothetical young daughters so that old men could jerk off to them?
Or perhaps god forbid their child was killed somehow, they would be fine with people posting pictures of their dead children online?
They would not want to find out who did it I guess, because they believe people have more rights online than in person.
How can so many people argue for the ability to not take responsibility for their actions? How is Gawker in the wrong in any way to write a story about one of the most prolific people on one of the most popular sites on the web? So I guess when reporters do stories about other people, that is always an invasion of privacy?
How can people compare a journalist writing a factual story about a person's actions to government sponsored witch hunts and McCarythism?
Baffling.
Or perhaps god forbid their child was killed somehow, they would be fine with people posting pictures of their dead children online?
They would not want to find out who did it I guess, because they believe people have more rights online than in person.
How can so many people argue for the ability to not take responsibility for their actions? How is Gawker in the wrong in any way to write a story about one of the most prolific people on one of the most popular sites on the web? So I guess when reporters do stories about other people, that is always an invasion of privacy?
How can people compare a journalist writing a factual story about a person's actions to government sponsored witch hunts and McCarythism?
Baffling.
92
@76- Fuck you back. Some of the victims of McCartheyism were avid supporters of a Communist take over of the USA. Was McCartheyism OK for them, just not OK for you Granddad?
@91- The point isn't whether or not the actions are tasteful, it's whether the reactions are moral. The journalist writing the story isn't McCartheyism. The journalist writing the story for the purpose of rousing the flying monkeys who get a man fired, socially ostracized, and probably permanently crippling his career all because they dislike his perfectly legal behavior is akin to McCartheyism. As others have pointed out, if it happens to assholes it can happen to nice people too. Is this really what you want the internet to become? A place where angry mobs keep everyone mainstream?
If he got hit by a drunk driver, would we all be like "Drunk driving is cool, violentacrez was an asshole."
@91- The point isn't whether or not the actions are tasteful, it's whether the reactions are moral. The journalist writing the story isn't McCartheyism. The journalist writing the story for the purpose of rousing the flying monkeys who get a man fired, socially ostracized, and probably permanently crippling his career all because they dislike his perfectly legal behavior is akin to McCartheyism. As others have pointed out, if it happens to assholes it can happen to nice people too. Is this really what you want the internet to become? A place where angry mobs keep everyone mainstream?
If he got hit by a drunk driver, would we all be like "Drunk driving is cool, violentacrez was an asshole."
93
@71- Slippery definitions, I thought you were trying to bring the law up. Honestly I've had far too many conversations about this recently and thought you were a different weasel.
Yes, this kind of behavior does restrict the ability of people to act freely. This tactic isn't good for the internet. Pseudonyms have been used for centuries in public discourse, and it doesn't make anything better to take them away. How about you show me how the world is improved by internet mobs making people afraid to express their less-than-mainstream opinions?
Yes, this kind of behavior does restrict the ability of people to act freely. This tactic isn't good for the internet. Pseudonyms have been used for centuries in public discourse, and it doesn't make anything better to take them away. How about you show me how the world is improved by internet mobs making people afraid to express their less-than-mainstream opinions?
94
@92: Sorry buddy, but a reporter reporting facts about a person of interest is not immoral.
I guess you think then that any journalism that features another person is a similar invasion of privacy? Do you have any proof that the intent of the journalist was solely to get the man fired, and not just to write a story that gets attention?
Drunk driving is immoral and illegal, reporting and journalism is not. The worst analogy I have seen in a long time.
You just want the ability to say and do horrible things without consequences just like Brutsch did, and you are scared. Grow up.
I guess you think then that any journalism that features another person is a similar invasion of privacy? Do you have any proof that the intent of the journalist was solely to get the man fired, and not just to write a story that gets attention?
Drunk driving is immoral and illegal, reporting and journalism is not. The worst analogy I have seen in a long time.
You just want the ability to say and do horrible things without consequences just like Brutsch did, and you are scared. Grow up.
95
@93: Also, publishing pictures of underage girls for sexual purposes, without their consent is not an "opinion."
I hope you are happy finding yourself defending a person who hurts other people for fun, horribly invades the privacy of others, and supports pedophilia and violence/murder against women.
You must be a charmer.
I hope you are happy finding yourself defending a person who hurts other people for fun, horribly invades the privacy of others, and supports pedophilia and violence/murder against women.
You must be a charmer.
96
dwight, I understand your concerns, but as has been pointed out again and again, this man's right to be vile has not been impinged. He is still legally free to continue do what ever he cares to. His constitutional rights are intact. But the freedom to be a truly horrible person is not sacrosanct simply because it manifests on line. Actions have consequences. Why is his privacy more valuable than that of the subjects of, to cite one of the more egregious examples, deadjailbait? The cruelty of that subreddit is breathtaking. Why is violentacrez to be spared when the parents of those girls were not?
We both agree that Brustch is a terrible person, and we both agree that the government suppression of political speech is something to guard against. Where we part ways is the idea of social consequences for bad behavior some how being voided if that bad behavior occurs on line.
We both agree that Brustch is a terrible person, and we both agree that the government suppression of political speech is something to guard against. Where we part ways is the idea of social consequences for bad behavior some how being voided if that bad behavior occurs on line.
97
@ 93, what mob are you talking about? This was the action of one reporter at Gawker. Nice try.
Pseudonyms have historically been used to further political discourse, not to invade people's privacy. Now, that's a false equivalence if there ever was one.
As I said before, you're taking the wrong moral side. Violentacrez's actions matter. They are not the same as yours or mine, and are not to be treated equally. Internet anonymity is not a valid shield for his actions.
Do you have any judgment for the man's inability to keep his own name secret?
Pseudonyms have historically been used to further political discourse, not to invade people's privacy. Now, that's a false equivalence if there ever was one.
As I said before, you're taking the wrong moral side. Violentacrez's actions matter. They are not the same as yours or mine, and are not to be treated equally. Internet anonymity is not a valid shield for his actions.
Do you have any judgment for the man's inability to keep his own name secret?
98
@84--
Sorry--but if it's self-righteous not to be upset when a pervy asshat gets taken down, so be it. You may be OK with lumping yourself in with someone like him but I have standards. They may be low but they're not that low.
Sorry--but if it's self-righteous not to be upset when a pervy asshat gets taken down, so be it. You may be OK with lumping yourself in with someone like him but I have standards. They may be low but they're not that low.
99
This feels kind of like punishing the prostitute, while the johns go free. I know nothing about these sites so I'm not really sure how all this works but if we posting such stuff I assume this means people were looking?? Are they going to out all the people looking at the pictures? I'm more concerned about BillyBob who sits alone in his parents' basement looking at this stuff while eating Cheetos and drinking warm, stale beer than I am about the turd posting the material.
100
Yeah, let me clarify something for "Dwight" and the others defending this guy.
The Internet is a really huge place, full of many wonderful things. And one of the many things it is full of is porn. Lots and lots of porn. Why, it has special filters designed entirely to stop you from seeing porn accidentally, so much porn there is. It's *really, really easy* to find consensual porn, in which the participants were there because they want to be there, for you to rub one out to. Sometimes they're paid! Sometimes they're volunteers! But you have their permission to get off to them.
The Internet is also full of lovely men and women. Lots and lots of pretty people. You can do a random search at any point and find billions of attractive women who don't mind being looked at on the Internet, or on television, or on film. You have their permission to look at them.
What the creepshots people are doing isn't admiring pretty women, or looking for porn. They're specifically getting off on lack of consent. That's not free speech, that's harassment. They target people who specifically do not give permission for their images to be used, and post them in a form for guys to beat off to, because they are sad, pathetic, childish and entitled haters, and this makes them feel very powerful. "This woman didn't want me to take a picture of her, but I did. So I win." "This woman didn't know I was taking a picture of her breasts, and now I share it with all of you. I win."
This specific focus on forcing non-consensual sexual engagement is the stuff of sexual predators, abusers and harassers. It's not about free speech. It's about your twisted sense of power over another human being who might otherwise make you feel inadequate. And how sick is it that you're even threatened by female kids?
So that, Dwight and others, is what you're defending. Let's be honest here. Not free speech, not your right to be an ass. Your right to force women, even kids, into non-consensual sexual interaction. (And yeah, we do have laws prohibiting that, though nothing that specifically bans this very passive aggressive form of it. Yet.) And I think the people who are objecting to you sense that, too, though they may not have the words for it.
You aren't fooling anyone.
More...
The Internet is a really huge place, full of many wonderful things. And one of the many things it is full of is porn. Lots and lots of porn. Why, it has special filters designed entirely to stop you from seeing porn accidentally, so much porn there is. It's *really, really easy* to find consensual porn, in which the participants were there because they want to be there, for you to rub one out to. Sometimes they're paid! Sometimes they're volunteers! But you have their permission to get off to them.
The Internet is also full of lovely men and women. Lots and lots of pretty people. You can do a random search at any point and find billions of attractive women who don't mind being looked at on the Internet, or on television, or on film. You have their permission to look at them.
What the creepshots people are doing isn't admiring pretty women, or looking for porn. They're specifically getting off on lack of consent. That's not free speech, that's harassment. They target people who specifically do not give permission for their images to be used, and post them in a form for guys to beat off to, because they are sad, pathetic, childish and entitled haters, and this makes them feel very powerful. "This woman didn't want me to take a picture of her, but I did. So I win." "This woman didn't know I was taking a picture of her breasts, and now I share it with all of you. I win."
This specific focus on forcing non-consensual sexual engagement is the stuff of sexual predators, abusers and harassers. It's not about free speech. It's about your twisted sense of power over another human being who might otherwise make you feel inadequate. And how sick is it that you're even threatened by female kids?
So that, Dwight and others, is what you're defending. Let's be honest here. Not free speech, not your right to be an ass. Your right to force women, even kids, into non-consensual sexual interaction. (And yeah, we do have laws prohibiting that, though nothing that specifically bans this very passive aggressive form of it. Yet.) And I think the people who are objecting to you sense that, too, though they may not have the words for it.
You aren't fooling anyone.
101
@92 No. Social pressure on the internet is not "akin" to McCarthyism. It's nothing close. In fact as a result of this internet PR I bet this guy, if he isn't a total moron, lands monetarily AHEAD of where he was a year ago.
You clearly really know nothing about McCarthyism so I'm gonna go ahead and ignore your silly histrionics.
You clearly really know nothing about McCarthyism so I'm gonna go ahead and ignore your silly histrionics.
102
@78 In regards to the LGBT community the only people that get "Gawker'd" (as you put it) are bigots or "hostile churches" trying to harm people.
104
These people only have as much a right to privacy as the people whose photos they're distributing. What's good for the goose is good for the gander, assholes.
So far I haven't heard any argument defending what these people do that doesn't also defend their own exposure.
I wonder why it's "free speech" to secretly take pictures of unsuspecting minors in public and then post them without their consent, but it's NOT free speech to expose people who do this using information that they've voluntarily posted online?
I wonder what would bias someone in favor of the jailbait pics, since any truly objective, noble ideals regarding "free speech" wouldn't allow exceptions for one form of exposure and not the other...
So far I haven't heard any argument defending what these people do that doesn't also defend their own exposure.
I wonder why it's "free speech" to secretly take pictures of unsuspecting minors in public and then post them without their consent, but it's NOT free speech to expose people who do this using information that they've voluntarily posted online?
I wonder what would bias someone in favor of the jailbait pics, since any truly objective, noble ideals regarding "free speech" wouldn't allow exceptions for one form of exposure and not the other...
Comments (107) RSS