This post examines several sides of the collision of privacy and freedom to offend. And comes to a conclusion that surprised me.
There's a lot of complex hand-wringing, celebration, and outrage making the rounds about the recent Gawker post that outed internet uber-troll Michael Brutsch, who for years has led an anonymous and wildly successful movement on Reddit and elsewhere to be as calculatingly cruel as possible to victims of previous crimes and other offences.
The hand wringers are pretty uniformly people who recognize Brutsch for the flaming fucking asshole he is... but who nevertheless feel conflicted about people's rights to a) post anonymously and b) retain a right to free speech. Oh, and possibly c) a right to privacy.
There are others who feel that the mere nature of Brutsch's deplorability (and, seriously, the guy is utterly deplorable) deprives him of his rights to free speech and privacy.
And there are yet still others who feel that the very deplorability of Brutsch's "speech" (and again, seriously, his entire on-line presence revolved around creating, celebrating, and nurturing deplorability) somehow enshrines his rights to free speech and privacy.
Sorry, gang, there's no paradox, no cause for outrage, no cause for censorship, and definitely no cause for hand-wringing.
Instead it's a matter of standards. Standards of decency. Standards of deplorability too.
It is, of course, equally deplorable to either a) to offend sensibilities by encouraging others to jack off to photos of dead minor children as Michael Brutsch, operating under the pseduonym Violentacrez did, or b) to offend sensibilities by outing someone who posts anonymously on the internet, as Gawker Media did.
Sorry, on the hand-wringer-y side it's just true: if you're offended by one you should be offended by the other -- and thus people offended by outing Brutsch's "speech" must by definition be offended by Gawker outing him.
Similarly, sorry, on the censorship side it's just true: if you defend Brusch's right to post calculatingly deplorale "speech" on the internet then you by definition must defend Gawker Media for outing him.
And finally, sorry, on the free-speech side it's just true: if you agree that Brusch should have been outed for posting his deplorable speech then by definition you agree he should be able to post it.
If you think you can weasle out of it by picking one side or the other you're mistaken. (Well, while remaining a progressive anyway: conservatives do it with self-serving ease but that's why they disgust us.) If you think you need to wring your hands over it you're also mistaken. (Well, while remaining progressive anyway: liberals do it with self-defeating ease but that's why so many of them disgust everyone else.)
Update: Other variations include
If you support censor Gawker for outing Brutsch you support censoring Brutsch
If you support taking revenge on Gawker for outing Brutsch you support taking revenge on Brutsch
Tags:
I agree that outing someone
Submitted by Jake Klarity (not verified) on Sun, 2012-10-14 16:00.I agree that outing someone should be a free speech right -- especially for someone who uses their own free speech to attack other people. It doesn't seem right or fair to say some people (trolls) have the right to use their speech to cause hurt to other people by name while remaining anonymous themselves.
And from a practical standpoint.. I don't really see how not exposing anonymous hateful users can be enforced in today's society. What group of 12 jurors would possibly convict gawker of anything for outing this slimeball, even if the courts would allow it. And on the global internet, it's probably impossible to prevent somebody from posting anonymously on some foreign website the secret identity of any given troll.
On the other hand, I don't know that a commitment to free speech really varies between lefty-righty. It seems to me to vary between more between moderate/pragmatic (who figure that the other side could have the censorship controls in 5 years) and extremists (either left or right) who somehow believe that all future censorship decisions will go their way because their hearts are pure.
Perhaps I'm missing something
Submitted by Anonymous (not verified) on Sun, 2012-10-14 17:58.Perhaps I'm missing something here, but why must one abandon privacy in order to support free speech or vice versa? I don't see a necessary implication here.
Privacy and anonymity are
Submitted by Irene (not verified) on Sun, 2012-10-14 19:31.Privacy and anonymity are obviously related, and sometimes people don't feel free to speak unless they're anonymous. None of us in this discussion are using our real names, f'rinstance. On the other hand, my free speech rights might include talking about certain facts I happen to be aware of -- such as who a particular anonymous poster is. (That last is theoretical. I have no idea who you are.)
It could be argued, though, that anonymity should not be breached except after due process -- e.g., suppose I said things here that made it seem as if it was likely that I had committed terrible crimes. Figleaf, as the blog owner, presumably has access to information that would establish my identity, and could tell the police about it. But only after I'd been charged should he feel free to say in public that Irene is actually Marie of Roumania (or whoever I am).
But in fact anonymity is a matter of degree -- even when I post somewhere under my real name, to someone who doesn't know me I might as well be anonymous. They could Google me, but most people don't. Many more people have pseudonyms that are open secrets (it's a very common phenomenon on Livejournal and Dreamwidth, where many writers blog). Minor pseudonym-to-pseudonym outing (of sock-puppeting trolls, for example) happens constantly, and I don't think anyone's very fussed by that. Lots of bloggers post under pseudonyms, but also post pictures of themselves and their families, so anyone who knew them who ran across the blog would realize who they were. I don't think it's really a binary situation, where people are absolutely anon or they're not, where outing is a huge big deal or it's not. A sensible law would have to reflect that, which means it would probably be more like the laws about sexual harassment, or libel, where below a certain level something isn't prosecutable. Of course IANAL, etc.
This isn't about abandoning
Submitted by figleaf on Sun, 2012-10-14 21:03.This isn't about abandoning free speech. Or privacy! It's about consistency. I'm just annoyed with the "how dare they..." attitude from people who define their own existence on identical dares. Same with people who'd applaud the violation of privacy of someone who's offense was violating the privacy of others. I just don't have patience with either side. If one wanted to dissect this beyond that my next position is that outers and trolls are moral equivalents with the result that outing a troll or trolling an outer exist as discardable edge cases in the matter of either privacy or free speech. Hope that makes sense. --fl
I don't think I'm following
Submitted by Irene (not verified) on Sun, 2012-10-14 22:37.I don't think I'm following you, actually. In fact I've reread the post a few times now, and it basically just makes my head hurt. It may be partly that I haven't seen much beyond the original story -- there may be references I'm not getting. I don't really think it's fair to talk about weaseling or handwringing when in fact plenty of us are just legitimately still confused about what's the right thing to do.
In any case, Brutsch did so many things of questionable legality that I don't think there's any argument against turning him over to the authorities. But that's a different question than outing him. (In some respects I wish he hadn't been warned -- I suspect he had the chance to wipe a lot of incriminating stuff off his computer before the police got there, assuming they were eventually involved.)
I think the one thing about which I definitely do think I agree with you so far (if I understand you correctly) is that being a violator of privacy doesn't mean you give up your right to privacy, any more than being a thief means you give up your right to own property, or being a rapist means it's just dandy if you get raped. There might well be a reason his right to privacy should be set aside, but it isn't that.
Okay, apparently he isn't
Submitted by Irene (not verified) on Wed, 2012-10-17 14:12.Okay, apparently he isn't getting charged with anything? So that changes matters for me. I thought the whole idea was that he would eventually get hauled into court.
<i>It is, of course, equally
Submitted by Plymouth (not verified) on Sun, 2012-10-14 22:19.<i>It is, of course, equally deplorable to either a) to offend sensibilities by encouraging others to jack off to photos of dead minor children as Michael Brutsch, operating under the pseduonym Violentacrez did, or b) to offend sensibilities by outing someone who posts anonymously on the internet, as Gawker Media did.</i>
Er, how do you figure? I'm sure YOU think they're equally offensive, since you wrote this, but I'm not seeing by what principle they're DE FACTO equivalent. Yes, both things are exercise of free speech, I totally agree with you there. Free speech is a thing we can define and compare. But offensiveness is relative. Different people are offended by different things. It makes no sense to claim that a person who is offended by one thing must be offended by another.
Yeah, I agree. Even if I
Submitted by Irene (not verified) on Sun, 2012-10-14 22:51.Yeah, I agree. Even if I thought Adrian Chen was totally wrong to out MB, I would think of him as more mistaken than inherently deplorable -- someone who hadn't realized what the consequences of his action might be as regards innocent people's right to privacy, and even probable criminals' right to due process, etc. "Offensive" seems like the wrong word for that, and in any case refers to an emotional reaction that I might or might not feel, depending just as much on my state of mind as on what I happened to think were the moral issues at stake.
Meh. Definitely! Objecting
Submitted by figleaf on Mon, 2012-10-15 09:57.Meh. Definitely! Objecting to trolling and/or outing is purely a matter of opinion. But so is objecting to those who amuse themselves by putting sugar in other people's gas tanks or by leaving wet shit on people's doorsteps in paper bags one has set on fire. It is not possible, as you indicate, for anything to be universally deplorable. Fortunately it's not necessary for something to be universally deplorable in order for it to still be deemed deplorable. In the context of opinions expressed on the internet and its predecessors both outing and trolling are *generally* agreed to be very bad form. Even though some subset of internet users may consider one or both as unto sonatas or exhalations of larks. But yes, at the end of the day everything except possibly the laws of physics are matters of opinion. --fl
Yes but no. I don't think
Submitted by F. (not verified) on Mon, 2012-10-15 11:15.Yes but no. I don't think violating several thousands of people's privacy and potentially their security is a matter of opinion. Maybe at the end of the day, for some people, racism is a matter of opinion, misogyny is a matter of opinion, pedophilia/ephebophilia is a matter of opinion, rape culture is a matter of opinion, men's unquestionable right to objectify women's bodies is a matter of opinion--but posting stolen and/or violent pictures for the lascivious delight of the internet is not a matter of opinion. It's what actually happened.
P.S. Figleaf, your blog is banned in my country. Keep up the good work.
Thank you, F. There are all
Submitted by figleaf on Wed, 2012-10-17 07:54.Thank you, F. There are all kinds of things that are "just" a matter of opinion about things that happen. And have consequences. --fl
Doesn't it depend what you
Submitted by Irene (not verified) on Mon, 2012-10-15 12:05.Doesn't it depend what you mean by outing, given the hugely varying degrees to which people desire and maintain their anonymity, and the huge differences in motivation and method among the out-ers? Seems to me it could be anything from a whispered confidence over coffee to the front page of the New York Times, and anything from no-big-deal, everyone-knew-anyway-and-no-one-minds to you-ruined-an-innocent-person's-life-just-because-you-could. Whereas trolling is always nasty by definition, even if it's very small scale.
Specifically I was referring
Submitted by figleaf on Wed, 2012-10-17 08:16.Specifically I was referring to the full-on publishing their name, their photo, their address and employer. Given the guy's "proclivities" it really will make it harder for him to explain to his friends, family, employer and, especially, prospective employers. In internet tradition that and amusing one's self by intentionally and persistently causing as much emotional pain as possible in people you don't otherwise know and who otherwise *haven't bothered you* in order to provoke outraged reactions are considered to be real, serious breaches of protocol. Whispered confidences? Eh, happens all the time. --fl
Actually, it's not hard for
Submitted by Lynn Gazis-Sax (not verified) on Fri, 2012-10-19 23:57.Actually, it's not hard for me to think of a case where outing someone by publishing his full on name strikes me as OK, even though the guy in question wasn't himself violating anyone's privacy (and apparently didn't mean to cause trouble). That case would be A Gay Girl in Damascus, who won a fan base, got linked by prominent bloggers, and left a post by "her" "cousin" that she had been snatched by armed men on a Damascus street. Since "she" was supposed to have dual US/Syrian citizenship, this post inspired an effort by her American fans to get the US government involved in tracking her whereabouts and ensuring her safety, at which point reporters got involved, tried to find out what had happened to her, and uncovered enough information to deduce that "she" was actually A Straight Man in Scotland. In this case, outing "her" served the useful purpose of letting the world know that they no longer needed to appeal either to the US or the Syrian government about this particular not really missing blogger, and could focus their human rights efforts in a more useful direction.
So I don't see maintaining pseudonyms/anonymity as an absolute, on the Internet or off. But I do think there should be a good reason for breaching it. If you've pretended to be someone else, and caused people to believe things about that other real or imaginary person about which it's desirable that they no longer be misled, that strikes me as a good enough reason (at least, if it's as grave a misconception as the fictional kidnapping of the fictional Gay Girl in Damascus). If you're using your anonymity in ways that make other people reasonably feel less safe, that strikes me as a good enough reason. If you simply say things that other people don't like (but without doing things that would make people reasonably feel stalked, threatened, or intruded on, just public responses to other people's public conversation), then I think your pseudonym should be left alone.
Also, pretty much all the cases I've been able to think of where I might think it ethical to reveal someone's name would fall under the category, to borrow a phrase from Scalzi, "practicing journalism, and writing a story of a figure of note (and of notoriety)." So it would be a question of journalistic ethics when to reveal an identity and when to protect a source (reveal in the case of the Straight Man in Scotland, conceal in the case of Salam Pax, the pseudonymous blogger who was verified as a real person when journalists made it to Iraq, but had his pseudonym still preserved), as well as what research you need to do to be sure of your facts.
I can't think of a case for revealing anyone's address, even in the rare cases where there's a good reason to reveal someone's name.
Okay, yes, outing and
Submitted by AllanV (not verified) on Wed, 2012-10-17 14:32.Okay, yes, outing and trolling are both bad form. I'm still not seeing how you justify insisting loudly that they are equally bad form. I'm especially not seeing how violating the privacy of someone who has used his anonymity to behave like a total shit is just as bad as violating the privacy of thousands of people who did nothing at all to deserve it. (Not to mention that what he did wasn't just violating people's privacy, but also actively creating a culture of nonconsensual objectification -- which I'd think you of all people would've noticed and cared about. So yeah, I see nothing hypocritical about condemning his behavior while not giving a shit one way or the other about whether outing him was wrong.)
Teresa Nielsen Hayden made a
Submitted by Irene (not verified) on Wed, 2012-10-17 15:17.Teresa Nielsen Hayden made a good point on http://whatever.scalzi.com/2012/10/16/gawker-reddit-free-speech-and-such...
"When I talked about workers needing protection from being fired for things they say online, I wasn’t talking about toxic types like Violentacrez, or about posting things that could genuinely bring one’s employer into disrepute. I’m talking about people being fired for saying things completely unrelated to their job, which their employer happens to dislike. Gays, neopagans, fanfic writers, polyamorists, parents of young children, political activists, pro-union activists, and people who have potentially expensive medical conditions all know about this one. It’s not hard to research your employees’ off-hours activities now. I’m sure someone out there is working on automating it.
"What we need are protections for workers who are up against the irrational prejudices of their employers. Until we get that sorted, there’s nothing we can say about the overall rightness or wrongness of outing pseudonymous users."
Thank you. You said what I
Submitted by Plymouth (not verified) on Fri, 2012-10-19 00:14.Thank you. You said what I was trying to say but you said it a lot better. The things these two individuals are being criticized for just aren't equivalent. They may both be wrong but they're in no way EQUALLY wrong. Like, not even close.
Egh ... I may lose it the
Submitted by Societal Deviant (not verified) on Thu, 2012-10-18 08:57.Egh ... I may lose it the next time someone uses the phrase "free speech" or "right to privacy."
The first amendment prohibits THE GOVERNMENT from (1) PROSECUTING a person for PROTECTED SPEECH and (2) from infringing on the right to privacy. The first amendment does not protect you from the social consequences of your "speech."
Thus, Busch cannot get in trouble with the law (criminally) for being a reprehensible shell of a human being, and the Gawker cannot get in trouble with the law for exposing him (the women may possibly still be able to sue him under state privacy tort laws).
I am baffled, also, by those who think that the internet is this sacred thing that has completely different rules from the rest of the world based on one's personal desire to be anonymous. In every form of media, if you say something anonymously, it may still be linked back to you. You risk something by coming forward, and, thus, to encourage this, the media has an incentive to keep you anonymous. A print or other media may lose reputation for revealing an anonymous person, but there are no other consequences. I may post anonymously, here, but that - in no way - means that my anonymity is protected.
However, I have yet to see anyone expend the effort to pierce my anonymity because I do not say things on the internet that I wouldn't say in real life (to someone, at least, though perhaps, not to employers). The internet is not a safe haven for refusing to take responsibility for your own actions. If you decide to be a horrible masogynist human being who takes pleasure from hurting young girls and driving them to desperation, people may hate you. And people may try to find you.