Note: This posta response to Reddit's free speech argument in the wake of Gawker's Violentacrez storywas originally published on writer John Scalzi's personal blog, and is republished here with permission. You can find the original here. <\/p>\n
I've been watching with some interest the drama surrounding Gawker writer Adrian Chen revealing Reddit user\/celeb\/moderator\/troll Violentacrez's real life identity (Michael Brutsch), which among other things resulted in Brutsch losing his job, presumably because Brutsch's employer was not 100% comfortable employing someone who spent his days moderating online forums with titles like \"Chokeabitch\" and bragged about the time he performed oral sex on his 19-year-old stepdaughter. It also resulted in Reddit globally banning links from Gawker (since rescinded, although forum moderators (\"subredditors\") can choose to block links within their forums - and do), and various bannings due to discussion of the drama. <\/p>\n
Wrapped up in all of this are various chest beatings about free speech and whether someone's online anonymity is sacred, even if he is a creep, the culture of Reddit in particular and the Internet in general, and in a larger sense where the rights of one individual - say, a creepy middle-aged dude - begin to impinge on others - say, young women who don't believe that merely being in public is an invitation to be sexually degraded. This is all interesting stuff, to be sure, and naturally I have a few thoughts on these topics. In no particular order: <\/p>\n
1. The \"free speech\" aspect of this is largely nonsense. Reddit is not a public utility or a public square; it's a privately owned space on the Internet. From a legal and (United States) constitutional point of view, people who post on Reddit have no \"free speech\" privileges; they have what speech privileges Reddit itself chooses to provide them, and to tolerate. Reddit chooses to tolerate creepiness and general obnoxiousness for reasons of its own, in other words, and not because there's a legal or constitutional reason for it. <\/p>\n
Personally speaking, when everything is boiled down to the marrow, I think the reason Reddit tolerates the creepy forums has to do with money more than anything else. Reddit allows all those creepy subreddits because its business model is built on memberships and visits, and the dudes who visit these subreddits are almost certainly enthusiastic members and visitors. This is a perfectly valid reason, in the sense of \"valid\" meaning \"allowing people to be creepy isn't inherently illegal, and we make money because of it, so we'll let it happen.\" But while it makes sense that the folks at Reddit are either actively or passively allowing \"we're making money allowing creeps to get their creep on\" to be muddled with \"we're standing up for the principles of free speech,\" it doesn't mean anyone else needs be confused by this. <\/p>\n
If someone bleats to you about any of this being a \"free speech\" issue, you can safely mark them as either ignorant or pernicious - probably ignorant, as the understanding of what \"free speech\" means in a constitutional sense here in the US is, shall we say, highly constrained in the general population. Additionally and independently, the sort of person who who says \"free speech\" when they mean \"I like doing creepy things to other people without their consent and you can't stop me so fuck you ha ha ha ha\" is pretty clearly a mouth-breathing asshole who in the larger moral landscape deserves a bat across the bridge of the nose and probably knows it. Which is why - unsurprisingly - so many of them choose to be anonymous and\/or use pseudonyms on Reddit while they get their creep on. <\/p>\n
On the subject of anonymity: <\/p>\n
2. Anonymity\/pseudonymity is not inherently evil or wrong. Astute observers will note that on this very site I allow both anonymous and pseudonymous postings, because sometimes you want to say something you wouldn't normally say with your name attached and\/or because you have personal\/business reasons to want not to have a trail of comments lead back to you. Perfectly reasonable and perfectly acceptable, and as I moderate this site pretty attentively, anyone who decides to use the cloak of anonymity to be an assbag will get their words malleted into oblivion in any event. <\/p>\n
It's not anonymity or pseudonymity that's the issue. The issue is people being assholes while anonymous because they don't believe it's ever going to get back to them. This is a separate issue from anonymity\/pseudonymity. Someone who is anonymous shouldn't be assumed to be an assbag, any more than someone who uses their real name should be assumed to be a kind and decent human being. In both cases, it's what they say that should be the guide. <\/p>\n
However: <\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Continued here: Note: This posta response to Reddit's free speech argument in the wake of Gawker's Violentacrez storywas originally published on writer John Scalzi's personal blog, and is republished here with permission. You can find the original here. I've been watching with some interest the drama surrounding Gawker writer Adrian Chen revealing Reddit user\/celeb\/moderator\/troll Violentacrez's real life identity (Michael Brutsch), which among other things resulted in Brutsch losing his job, presumably because Brutsch's employer was not 100% comfortable employing someone who spent his days moderating online forums with titles like \"Chokeabitch\" and bragged about the time he performed oral sex on his 19-year-old stepdaughter Continue reading
\nWhy the Violentacrez Story Isn't About Free Speech [Reddit]<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"