Profile of a Reddit Troll


Reddit troll = small-time troll. There's no effort involved in trolling there. Might as well troll print-media comment sections.
Back in Aaron Burr's day, if you found out the identity of some anonymous troll defaming your honor, you fought a motherfucking duel with pistols.

Simpler times.
@1- Reddit has almost as many users as pornhub.

I'm not a fan of this. I'm not a fan of violentacrez, but I fucking love internet anonymity.
Turns out actions have consequences. Huh.
I'm with 4 more than 3. While internet anonymity is great, this is what it boils down to:

Under Reddit logic, 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.

I am OK with that.

I am, too.
@5- I'm still at a loss to figure out why posting creepshots is worse than destroying people's ability to express themselves without their employers knowing about it. Honestly, who is harmed by having their photo taken in a public place?

The Gawker article came across as really sex-negative in general, not just opposed to non-con/underage sex.

The teacher posting to creepshots obviously shouldn't have been teaching. Why did he get fired? Because creepshots existed. Otherwise he'd probably still be in the classroom.
You could argue that the only thing that was ever going to make Reddit face up to its pedophile-porn problem was someone rubbing their faces in it like this. The guy is clearly a jerk of the highest order but maybe it needed doing. Not that the problem is actually solved, of course, but this kind of "show me where the line is" stuff, while just a game to bozos like Brutsch, serves a function in an environment where regular social controls don't work. Creeps like this used to surface on Usenet on a regular basis back in the day.
@6 - Is it worth more than those girls' (and I mean girls - many were UNDERAGE) right to privacy? They may be wearing skirts in public, but that doesn't mean they want someone taking upskirt pitures. Or angling the camera to shoot down their shirts.
There is a difference between a random photo taken in public and one where the photographer is using that unconsenting person for their sexual gratification.

What are the odds that someone is going to find out who you are in real life? If Brutsch wanted anonymity, he should have hidden his activities better. Or behaved like a decent human being. The right to free speech doesn't include the right to no repercussions for that speech.
Yes, It's free speech for him to say horribly offensive shit, but It's also free speech for Gawker to out him. I would compare this to outing an anti-gay Republican that is discovered to be living a closet lifestyle.
Reddit side of the story, which Gawker is basically banned from most sub reddits because of this.…
Hey, apparently what you do in your off-time has repercussions on your career!…
@9- So it's only OK to spank the monkey using the image of people who have consented to me using their image?

Human beings are all sex objects. The only problem is when people see each other (generally speaking men seeing women) as nothing but sex objects.
@13: Oh, that warms my heart with glee.

The only problem? How about the problem of girls and young women being made to feel that their only purpose in life is to be sex objects? Which is explicitly what taking sexualized photos of them and posting those photos without permission is *meant* to do. There are tons of sexualized photos of teens in the public sphere taken with the consent of the subject, just look at any Abercrombie & Fitch catalogue.

What gets these douchebags off is the lack of consent, the humiliation of their victims, and the message to the victims that they are subhuman. There are consequences for that kind of shitty behavior for anyone too stupid to hide his real life identity.
@Anonymity is not a right. It is a privilege that the internet grants us who some have chosen to abuse.

Freedom is not on the line, Anonymity is. If this is what you do with that privilege, then you should lose it.

Many of those photos are against the law. Every woman has the right to feel that they can go into public without having those kind of photos secretly taken of them when they are doing nothing wrong.
@ 6, you have a distorted view of what's going on here. This individual's rights of expression are not "destroyed." He can go ahead and register a new site and post pictures of all the 14 year old girls he wants. The government hasn't charged him with anything.

"Sex negative"? I don't see how the disparaging of creepshots is sex negative. Being out in public isn't an invitation to having your picture taken without your knowledge and shared with millions of people. If anything, your apparent defense of this smacks of slut shaming, and a "she asked for it" mentality.
@11 High five.
@12 The top reddit comment in that thread: "Ahhh reddit. Wants to take pics of girls without permission, suddenly wants to be private when everyone finds out."

It's hard to get indignant about this guy's identity being exposed when he was moderating a hidden camera pedophile-porn ring.
@20- "It's hard to get indignant about this guy's identity being exposed when he was moderating a hidden camera pedophile-porn ring."

Exactly. But the premise, and the reason some of the Reddit community is mad about this is because when someone is posting/moderating about gay rights, atheism, Ron Paul or whatever they're vulnerable to exactly the same tactics. So a lot of people who don't give a rat's ass about violentacrez don't like Gawker's tactics.
@18- He lost his job and is almost certainly about to get buried in a wave of hate mail and harassment. The flying monkeys have turned against him. It's probably more effective against an individual than government action (especially given he hasn't appeared to commit a crime).

Reread the article and see how it feels about his porn-with-the-wife and sex toys.

@16- I don't know what the users of creepshots get off on, but given the whole concept is the "victims" don't know they're being photographed, it wouldn't be anything the "victim" feels.

I have a daughter I care very much about, and it wouldn't make me happy to find out someone posted a revealing picture of her on the internet without her consent (or with it, for that matter, I'm a bit paranoid about privacy). But I honestly wouldn't want to destroy someone's life over it either.

Dead Men Don't Reddit
@22 The article did seem to find him boasting about "oral sex with my 19 year old stepdaughter" rather offensive.

What galled me about this incident were all the people saying "the photos we post were taken in public and you have no expectation of privacy in public." I'm cool with that, sort of, but up my skirt and down my blouse are not public places.

And if the victim finds the photo online? What about the photos taken off Facebook profiles? If this isn't about sending the message that women are subhuman, why use non-consensual photos at all?

The same "tactics"? If Anderson Cooper had outed this guy, no one would be whining about "tactics".

And if those people want anonymity, they should protect it. Brutsch wanted the benefit of an IRL community with none of the repercussions of being a professional troll. Life doesn't work that way.
About a year ago, Violentacrez's teenage son did his own Ask Me Anything thread. His son uses the handle Spawn_of_VA and he is dad's biggest fan. Interspersed among talk of family game night, Spawn_of_VA regaled readers with more weird tidbits about his father, including the fact that he has a "suitcase full of dildos in his closet" and a "roller type thing with spikes on it, he uses that to roll on his balls."

Yes, this is so shaming. /sarcasm. No, it's pointing out that Brutsch has a really shitty understanding of boundaries surrounding sexuality.

And about the porn with the wife:

His current wife is similarly accepting of Brutsch's unsavory side, according to Brutsch. She is not only aware of his online habits, she's also a prolific Redditor under the handle not_so_violentacrez. She is a founder of the Fibromyalgia subreddit. She has diabetes and plays the online game Kingdom of Camelot. Violentacrez said that at home, the two would lie in bed together with their laptops, both on Reddit, him posting his porn, she posting cute animal videos and pictures of dolphins.

Apart from the "unsavory" nature of his particular brand of pornography, where is the value judgment? Where is the shaming of perusing pornography next to the wife?

This article isn't sex-negative, it's pedophilia-negative, it's privacy-for-pedophiles-who-invade-the-privacy-of-unconsenting-minors-negative.
Yeah, I don't give a damn about ViolentAcrez personally, but Adrian Chen is an asshole. Anonymity is necessary for free, open communication on the internet. And unless you're breaking laws (which Brutsch wasn't), that anonymity should be honored.

If you're interested in Brutsch's take on the matter, you can read it here:…

Think whatever you like about him. But he didn't deserve to lose his job, health insurance, etc for moderating porn forums.
@ 22, no need to re-read it. That was observational. You're projecting sex-negativity upon it

He lost his job. He may or may not get a ton of hate email (if anyone knows his email address, which wasn't listed in the article). Does that mean he still cannot keep doing what he does in other forums? Or just that he's less likely to do so?

Now, his livelihood may have been "destroyed," at least for the short term. He's not without remedy, though. He can change his last name, apply for a new job and not have any of this come up when the recruiter googles his name. Inconvenient, to be sure, but not insurmountable.
I remember the Flame Wars on UseNet.

Those were the days.

No trolls either, everyone was identified.

It was a time of Giants.
@Keshmeshi: Yes, people would be complaining about Anderson Cooper using these tactics. People who use anonymous communities don't like having their anonymity compromised. You're not using your real name and neither am I. We're not violentacrez, but that doesn't mean someone might not come after us via our friends and employers for something about us they don't like.

I suspect creepshots fans get off on being sneaky. I like having sex in public places not because I want people to watch me having sex, but because I like to get away with it. People with plenty of money shoplift for the same reason. People break the rules to feel more powerful. You don't have to be putting someone else down to get off on getting away with something.

And hey, maybe you're right. I don't know, but neither do you.

@29 you make a compelling case for universal health coverage. But as far as saying he shouldn't have to deal with the repercussions of his online life? Nope. Don't buy it a bit. Several other commenters have already given good reasons why Internet anomnity shouldn't be absolute, and we're not talking about a guy posting the pentagon papers here. He made a hobby of screwing with people online, and then seemed shocked that it would matter in the real world. Live by the knife, die by the knife...
Not a fan of those subreddits or the behaviors that they encouraged. I don't think they should be banned, though, they're smutty, morally wrong, and a violation of the privacy of the girls and women being posted... but that doesn't make them illegal or something that should be made illegal. Laws are not and should not be the sole identification of moral behavior.

I also don't especially care that violentacrez was outted... anything you do online should be something you can assume will be traced back to you.

However, I don't think he should have lost his job over it. What he does on Reddit is not his employer's business.

@29: I dunno. Posting pictures of dead teenage girls? Modding a subreddit about choking bitches? Eghh. Free speech doesn't mean speech without consequences. The government isn't infringing his 1st amendment rights in any way. He just is reaping what he's sown. He knew what he was doing and if he likes he can go to court if he feels he has a case for wrongful termination.
People break the rules to feel more powerful. You don't have to be putting someone else down to get off on getting away with something.

Except that many people feel more powerful specifically by putting others down, especially when you're talking about men who like seeing women harmed and humiliated.

And, no, they wouldn't. Redditors are pissed off because it's Gawker doing the outing. If it were a legitimate journalist, there would be far less whining.


Too bad he wasn't actually anonymous. How do you think Chen found out who he was?
@29 also, I'd the company bothered to check and see if he was posting/modding on company time (and I'd be shocked if someone as prolific as he was wasn't on company time, at least once), then they are entirely within their rights to can him. I don't know for sure that he was, but... Call it a hunch that he was up to at least something during work hours.
However, I don't think he should have lost his job over it. What he does on Reddit is not his employer's business.

If his employer has any female employees or if Violentacrez ever deals with female clients/customers then it certainly is their business. The nature of what he was doing on Reddit taking and posting creepshots made him a direct threat to any women he came in contact with.
@29 What Brutsch was doing may not have been illegal, but it was clearly wrong. Since what he was doing wasn't illegal, the government hasn't gotten involved. Since it was wrong, the community has gotten involved.

And let's not be too quick to say that he hasn't broken any laws. Part of the safe harbor laws that protect Reddit from the content that their users post is a SPECIFIC regulation regarding the procedure for reporting child pornography. As a moderator for a child not-quite-but-maybe-pornography forum, some of Brutsch's common tasks involved deleting content that legally DID classify as child pornography. And he was required to report each and every one of these incidents to the FBI. Do you think he's done this? Filled out reports with his REAL NAME? Or do you think he's hidden behind his anonymity to protect fellow child predators?
@38 THIS. His behavior online demonstrates that he's a threat to female employees. Any woman working there would be right to wonder if THEIR photos were up there. Plus, he be creating a toxic workplace environment.
No sympathy for this "gentleman". Perhaps he can find a new job in the porn industry. He seems to have had years of practice. Nothing wrong with that, of course. As long as he doesn't take pictures/videos of women without their knowledge and post them to the internet. Not cool.
Free speech is not anonymous. This is why the gay marriage opponents have to put themselves when they donate.
This is stupid. The man hasn't been arrested and I can pretty much guarantee you he won't be. He just lost his job. And anybody even vaguely familiar with the concept of at-will employment shouldn't be surprised by this. If you've landed a job within the past few years, a quick scan of your 'welcome aboard' packet will likely reveal a few paragraphs dedicated to acceptable use of social media. Sure, these concepts haven't really been tested in the courts yet, but it's safe to assume they'd hold up the 'embarrassing the company' standard that's been with us for decades. So posting upskirt shots of underage girls? Yeah, goodbye. Posting a 100 page, largely indecipherable screed in support of Ron Paul? Confusing but not embarrassing. You're safe.

Further, if you actually read the article you'll see that Brutsch made virtually no attempt to actually remain anonymous (aside from not actually putting his name next to each shot). He repeatedly showed up, in person, to public forums where he discussed his role as ViolentAcrez. Gawker isn't Interpol. If Brutsch had made even the slightest of efforts to stay anonymous, this whole thing would've never happened.

Bottom line - stupid, not-really-anonymous troll lost his job for being a dick on the internet. OH NOES!
Noadi @38 he was a mod, someone who slogged through all the crap and removes postings which violate rules or are illegal. he did not post in the creepshots, he was a late-added mod (according to his side of the story).

mods make places like reddit possible, and if outing them starts getting people fired, there will be no one watching for exploitation and illegal pictures. I don't see how that helps anyone.
@6 If there is nothing wrong with that, then what is wrong with posting the name and photo of a guy on the internet? He made these posts of his own free will, and he left enough evidence behind for people to find out who he is. No laws were broken to find out his identity and if a woman has no right to control the distribution of pictures taken of her in a creepy manner, then this guy has no right to control his information being shared in a destructive manner. If they can discuss women they don't know in a sexualized manner then others can certainly discuss him and his activities. Both equally occurred in public.

The idea that exposing him as an ass is an affront to freedom, but exposing provocative pictures of a teenage girls without their consent is totally fine, is an incredible example of the problem with privileged in our society.


"If you've got 10 minutes..." You read this thing in 10 minutes!? Wow.

Great read though. I guess I think it's unfortunate he had to be "outed," though hopefully all the consequences serves as a message to others who are tempted to behave in such a manner (and I know that the reality is that it'll likely serve a message to be more diligent in covering their tracks rather than not posting offensive content.) Fascinating.
If it's not illegal in the US to take up-skirt photos of people without their consent, then maybe this is something that needs to change.

In Australia, (where I live) it can carry up to 2 years in jail…


Did you read the article or are you determined to solely take his word for it?
On the one hand I hate Gawker. On the other hand Reddit is a vile cesspool and Violentacrez was THE premiere racists, misogynist, (and I don't use either term lightly), pedophile piece of shit on that site. And that is saying something.

I often wish there were consequences for anonymous cowards who are only empowered by the internet. But sometimes those SAME cowards use outing as a tactic as well. So outing should be used very sparingly.

Like the dude on SLOG who linked to my Facebook page one time over some totally mild comment I left on a restaurant review. A guy who, ironically, I've met IRL and know who he is and where he works (hello, large local retailer!). But I did not "out" him back. First off because I didn't anything to be ashamed of. And second he might get fired because his employer has some fairly strict rules about social media on the clock.

So I wouldn't out some body for JUST being a coward asshole. I might punch them in the nose if I see them on the street. But I wouldn't get them fired.

However, Violentacrez was a sicken waste of space and deserved consequences for causing actual harm. I don't think anything else would make him question his behavior.

Sadly, I suspect that Violentacrez will learn nothing turn this into a profit. I hear he already has a Paypal account so all the other scumbags can turn him into a martyr - a martyr with backers.
@39: "but it was clearly wrong" you. The beauty of free speech is that you don't have to like it.
The lesson here is, don't behave on the internet in a way that you can't defend IRL. Don't be a dick. How come this is so difficult...?

@6: "Honestly, who is harmed by having their photo taken in a public place?"
Photo taken is one thing, photo published as porn is another. Any woman who ever leaves her house should be considered "fair game" for her image to be collected (without her knowledge or consent) and wanked over by strangers -- you don't see anything wrong with that? Really? Rape culture, my friend: you are living it.
@14: "So it's only OK to spank the monkey using the image of people who have consented to me using their image?"
Yes. It's not like there's not enough stuff out there intended to be porn in which the woman was actually a willing participant. Or at least, how about limiting oneself to using images of people in situations when they have consented to be photographed?
It's terrible for anyone to lose their health insurance, let alone someone with a disabled wife.

However, bragging about who he was - at Reddit meetups to people he assumed were like-minded - was an enormous risk to take with his wife's life. What the fuck did he think would happen if any of them turned?

This is why this guy is scum: He saw this outcome as an acceptable risk.
I think it's interesting a certain type of person has come to believe that "Freedom of Speech" means "Freedom to Say Anything I Want Without Any Consequence."

If you say or do fucked up shit, expect other people to exercise their "Freedom of Speech" and call you a fucking scuzzy dirtbag. And only a moron thinks they have a "Reasonable Expectation of Privacy" on the goddamn internet.
Lots of conversation about the sexual aspects of this piece of crap's Reddit life, but of course that wasn't all. Here are a few of the other subreddits he founded:


@23 wrote:

I have a daughter I care very much about, and it wouldn't make me happy to find out someone posted a revealing picture of her on the internet without her consent (or with it, for that matter, I'm a bit paranoid about privacy). But I honestly wouldn't want to destroy someone's life over it either.

I sure as hell would would want to ruin this miserable toll's life. Like it isn't hard enough raising kids without asswipes like him posting pictures to Reddit.

Fuck him.
@29 I don't understand the plea that Brutsch's actions weren't illegal. I mean, they were clearly illegal. Yes, he didn't violate child porn laws. But child porn laws are not the only laws on the books.

Reddit lifted images from people's facebook profiles without permission or recompense and used them to rake in an extraordinarily large amount of money. No matter how you slice it, that is enormously illegal. If Disney did that do Reddit, you'd be flipping the fuck out.

Just because something is up on the web doesn't mean anyone can use it for anything without permission. Shocking, I know.
The most fascinating thing about cognitive dissonance is that most people who have it - such as those who believe in privacy for me ("people in a public place should never have their photo taken without permission" which is not US law by the way) but not for thee ("forum moderators who work with such [legal] photos are scum who deserve to be outed and publically shamed") - are totally unaware of it.
@29, Adrien Chen did not fire him. That was between him and his employer. Adrien legally reported fact. As others have said, Violentacrez took risks, paid the price and stupidly assumed that his anonymity would last forever.
And why is anonymity necessary for free and open communication on the internet? This is a totally new concept and seems to only be embraced by those too cowardly to accept responsibility for their actions. How does anonymity contribute to the betterment of the net?
As if this whole affair were not sufficient proof of Brutsch's stupidity, he and his disabled wife did not do everything in their power to leave Texas while the gettin' was good:
Texas —Gov. Rick Perry (R) in a statement on July 9 said, "If anyone was in doubt, we in Texas have no intention to implement so-called state exchanges or to expand Medicaid under ObamaCare." He sent a letter to HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius on July 9 asserting this position (Office of Rick Perry release, 7/9; Ramshaw, Texas Tribune, 7/9; Fikac, Houston Chronicle, 7/9) [graphic].
@58: Oh James. So smug. The other way to look at it of course is this:
The most fascinating thing about cognitive dissonance is that most people who have it - such as those who believe in privacy for me ("people in a public place {have no right not} to have their photo taken without permission" and deserved to be publicly shamed, but not for thee ("forum moderators who work with such photos should never be outed and publicly shamed because FREEEEEDOOOOM") - are totally unaware of it.
I think the anonymity of the Internet is an overrated commodity -- what utility does it have in a free society? What is it that an American needs to say to a global audience that can't be owned? I understand that in the context of a police state, anonymity has a great deal of value. But if all you want to do is say hateful things, post borderline illegal pornography, or just generally act an asshole, there really isn't much of a defense to be mounted. There's a a deep sense of entitlement at the core of objections to Violentcrez's outing, as if there is in the Constitution a right to anonymous speech. Speech, though, demands a measure of civic courage to exercise. If you aren't willing to risk your job, your station, your reputation on the rightness of what you're saying, than why are you saying it? Are lulz really worth losing your job over?
@36- "Except that many people feel more powerful specifically by putting others down, especially when you're talking about men who like seeing women harmed and humiliated." Are we talking about Creepshots now? Because it sounds like you're talking about female bottomed BDSM.

@45- The guy's career has been ended because some internet assholes thought he was too much of an internet asshole. That's a huge difference of scale from "A picture of me got fapped to by some mouthbreathers." And anyone who considers getting fapped to worse than being broke in Texas needs their head examined.

@51- I don't need a photo to use someone's image to masturbate. I have an imagination. "Rape culture" is not "men finding women physically attractive", but that seems to be your definition. You're going to make everyone around you less happy with that.

@55- You're entitled to your opinion. Maybe I just have an easier time raising kids than you do since my kid is so fucking smart and awesome. Or maybe I'm better at parenting. Probably it's some combination of the two.

@61- This is a joke, right: "What is it that an American needs to say to a global audience that can't be owned?" Maybe something like "My boss is a creep and will fire me if I say anything." or how about "My family doesn't know I'm gay and will send me to Junior Bible Prison if they find out." Honestly, just because your life and lifestyle are safe doesn't mean everyone in America has the resources to survive speaking publicly and without the protection of anonymity.

@everyone: Since time im-fucking-morial people have used pseudonyms when making public statements or sharing smutty ideas. This isn't new from the internet. This isn't about the lulz, this is about freedom.
@62 His career ended because HIS BOSS thought that he was too much of an internet asshole. You're jumping up the chain of causality too much. Yes, his boss found out because of the actions of Chen, but his boss might easily have found out some other way, as many others' bosses have.

I kind of like to think the assumption of anonymity contributes some positive things to the internet as well.
Thank you @60 for getting @57 so succinctly. I would just add that I don't think anyone's saying that they think taking pictures of people without their knowledge/consent is (or should be) illegal, it's just skeezy as fuck. And skeezy speech is protected, but it's not without social consequences.
I don't understand the assumed sacrosanctity of internet anonymity. Just assume that anything you put on the internet can and possibly will eventually be traced back to you IRL. It's true!

@62 re: women harmed and humiliated, the gentleman in question did also create and/or moderate a forum called "chokeabitch." It's not all harmless public clandestine-photo skeezing.
Re: rape culture, I'm not an expert in feminist theory, but according to my limited understanding: the idea that any woman, simply by leaving her house, is accepting the risk that her image might be taken (without her knowledge or consent) and posted online as a masturbation fantasy for strangers -- that just by stepping outside she might at any time be not just objectified but very publicly degraded, even if it's not to her face -- and that that's just part of doing business, a supposedly acceptable risk? The idea that any woman who doesn't want to be turned into pornography by strangers should be afraid to leave her house? That sounds a hell of a lot like rape culture to me.
No one said anything about men not being able to find women attractive, but men also need to recognize that women are people, and not just walking collections of attractive parts.
What you and your imagination do is obviously none of my business. I would argue that a remembered image is different than a recorded image, and both are different than an image recorded and posted online for a community to masturbate over.
@Lissa, please never change. I made you a glitter text.
@ 62, you're simply on the wrong moral side of this question. If you don't agree, then the question you REALLY ought to address is the one @ 53 raised in his first paragraph - one that you skipped.

This is not about freedom. This man's freedom has not been threatened in any way. He can still do what he does if he wants to. That hasn't changed. He's not under arrest or in jail. That's a point I brought up @ 30, and it's another point that you skipped.
If it'd get you punched in real life, it probably not a good idea to do it online. And if this dipshit doesn't think someone would slug him for taking an upskirt shot of their daughter he's sadly mistaken. It just took thousands of shots for him to get punched, and somebody did it with an article instead of a fist. Good on them.

@dwightmoody: Sincere question for you; why is this one guy's name entitled to more privacy than the crotches of hundreds of teenage girls?

That's the argument being made, after all. Turnabout's fair play, and if you have a problem posting intimate details of your own life online, you probably shouldn't do it for other people without their permission.
@62 Quite nice of you to tell people how things should affect them.

Tell me, how many violations of the privacy of teenage girls does it take to equal the violation of the privacy of one middle aged man? Understanding of course that simply stating the real name that goes with a screen name is many many times worse than posting revealing pictures of someone without their consent.
Freedom of speech does not mean that you have a right to hide you who are from the people you are talking to. You can try, but they have a right to find out and tell people who you are. Especially if you do things that are illegal or horrid.

#53 puts it as well as anyone can. This is not a question of freedom at all, I have no idea how that got wound up in it. Baffling.
Zero sympathy for this ponchy, gross dude and his dumb abiding wife (don't care how disabled she is). His employer had every right to terminate him for wasting company time and tarnishing their good name alone; even without concern for the female coworkers.

I think it's just marvelous how unabashed he was until this "interview" reveals him as a huge baby. He even tries to bribe her. This is the kind of internet activism that restores my faith in mankind. He deserves the hate mail; he needs to know that the violation of (hundreds of) girls' bodies nullifies his "right" to internet anonymity, which he did very little to protect.

Time to buy some more modest clothing, and never post photos of myelf at the beach I guess...*sigh*

Pretty absurd considering that jailbait mined minor girls' Facebook accounts for photos, with the defense that those girls can't expect privacy on the Internet. And now Brutsch is screaming for mercy.


Yes, you do have that problem. I suggest you do something about it.
Despite multiple attempts to put words into my mouth (poor form, really) for the record, I don't in fact suffer from the opposite form of the cognitive dissonance I pointed out previously. There is, however, an excellent book by David Brin called "The Transparent Society" (written about 14 years ago) that explores these issues with intellectual rigor.
@73, there's a difference between pre-teen girls sharing pictures of themselves wearing swimsuits and someone else finding those photos and posting them in a subreddit titled Jailbait. There's a difference between walking around in a skirt and taking a shoecam shot up some woman's skirt and posting it in a subreddit called Creeepshot. And there's a difference between acting like a racist, sexist jerk on the internet and someone else connecting a real name to those online actions.

Most of us perceive these differences, and thus there is no cognitive dissonance.
posting candid photos sexualizing 14-year-old girls online is not perfectly fine
I've just never liked Gawker since they let loose one of my passwords. I will never forgive them and I will jump on the back of anything to watch them fall. They overplayed their hand and in hunting down an alleged pervert, I don't think they care and while I'm all for their conviction but I do not support them and what they do. If you're not smart enough to hide who you are if you are doing shady things you deserve to be outed. The internet is not for newbs.
"Reddit's role as a safe place for people to anonymously post creepshots of innocent women."

Reddit's role as a safe place for people to anonymously post anything legal, if what these people are doing is so wrong outlaw it, if not explicitly forbidden it's legal in America. I'm of the firm opinion that you're not really anonymous on the internet unless it's only your servers talking to your servers but the idea that every reddit user should have attached to it a real name for reasons that someone might post creepshots of innocent women is ludicrous. I think people should have the tools to out anonymous creepers posting innocent women on the internet if they think it's gone too far, I'm really not sure after that article but it seems the author totally stands by his work. The guy probably got what was coming to him after what he did, and I'd never feel any remorse, but I feel like it's like when you break into a forbidden circle. Sure maybe the ends justified the means, but batman broke the law. Haha gawker is batman.
What @73 says: "all you ladies need to calm your hysterics and discuss this rationally, with intellectual rigor."
@77: I didn't get a chance to thank you earlier for the glitter tag! :)
79 Agen bola terpercaya, Untuk membantu anda dalam pembuatan akun sbobet, ibcbet, ssbet, sbobet casino dengan menggunakan Bank lokal. proses cepat dan keamanan Terjamin. taruhan bola
Arizona Working Dog Academy produces single and multiple purposes working canines trained specifically to meet the eclectic needs of today’s dog handler. Trained Doberman Pinscher for sale
SBOBET.COM Memanjakan anda dalam taruhan online, dengan lebih dari 500 cabang olahraga setiap minggunya digelar diseluruh dunia dapat anda mainkan dalam sportsbook yang indoagen berikan. taruhan bola sbobet