Because an eye for an eye isn't the law. I'm not in favor of lowering the public discourse to the level of this morally vacuous cunt's personal code just so that he can "reap what he sows."
Ok, so somehow associating someone's real name with their online reddit account is equivalent to posting upskirt photos of people?
Get some perspective please.
It definitely is if said guy loses his livelihood over what he does. Is he a creep? Yeah. Does he deserve this? Yeah. Was it responsible journalism? No.
I don't care about whether or not you think the guy deserves this (I happen to agree that he does), I'm arguing about the journalistic ethics of posting dirt on a person you dislike just for the pleasure of watching them hang. I'd argue that it's sensational at best and unethical at worst.
This man needs to have his balls nailed to his forehead.
Oh please, this hyperbolic sentimentality needs to end as well.
The only thing that needs to happen is that this man needs to feel responsible for some questionable material he's posted. If the legal system feels it's a criminal offense, great, take him to court and prove it. If he's shunned by his friends and family because he's a fucking creeper, well that's his own damn fault.
But no one, NO ONE, should sound a cry for public execution. Let him stand in the cold light of being exposed.
It definitely is if said guy loses his livelihood over what he does. Is he a creep? Yeah. Does he deserve this? Yeah. Was it responsible journalism? No.
I'm sorry, but maybe he should have thought about that ahead of time before he posted pictures of underage girls online. Just because the internet is anonymous doesn't mean you shouldn't be held responsible for the content you share and create.
Free speech is not freedom from the consequences of speech, it is freedom from official retribution by a governing body. It does not make you immune to popular sentiment against you. If you defame others and people come to hate you for it, your rights have not been violated.
It definitely is if said guy loses his livelihood over what he does. Is he a creep? Yeah. Does he deserve this? Yeah. Was it responsible journalism? No.
I'm sorry, but maybe he should have thought about that ahead of time before he posted pictures of underage girls online. Just because the internet is anonymous doesn't mean you shouldn't be held responsible for the content you share and create.
Yeah, I agree with you, but that's not my argument here. The argument is over whether or not depriving an anonymous internet personality who has committed no crime, but is merely a reprehensible twat, of his or her anonymity is ethical journalism. I am arguing that it's not.
My problem with this is that it has a chilling effect on the greater pool of sources for all of journalism in general. Who wants to speak to a reporter when pissing them off can mean all of your secrets and personal info get splashed all over the internet for millions of RSS readers? Not me, probably not many others. It sets a dangerous precedent that stands to damage the press's ability to produce accurate, in-depth reports on internet culture ever again.
Yeah, I agree with you, but that's not my argument here. The argument is over whether or not depriving an anonymous internet personality who has committed no crime, but is merely a reprehensible twat, of his or her anonymity is ethical journalism. I am arguing that it's not.
It's the job of the Fourth Estate to inform and educate the community about issues such as this. It's their job to expose people to public light so that they can be held responsible. No one is pointing a gun at him, no one is dragging him off to get water boarded.
Yeah, I agree with you, but that's not my argument here. The argument is over whether or not depriving an anonymous internet personality who has committed no crime, but is merely a reprehensible twat, of his or her anonymity is ethical journalism. I am arguing that it's not.
It's the job of the Fourth Estate to inform and educate the community about issues such as this. It's their job to expose people to public light so that they can be held responsible. No one is pointing a gun at him, no one is dragging him off to get water boarded.
They merely spoke his name.
My problem with this is that it has a chilling effect on the greater pool of sources for all of journalism in general. Who wants to speak to a reporter when pissing them off can mean all of your secrets and personal info get splashed all over the internet for millions of RSS readers? Not me, probably not many others. It sets a dangerous precedent that stands to damage the press's ability to produce accurate, in-depth reports on internet culture ever again.
EDIT: Okay, granted, they weren't really secrets aside from his name. But, I feel like this is still a valid point.
Congratulations, now you know what it feels like to be a politician! Should we not call out politicians by name just because they do reprehensible shit as well and won't talk to the press? What makes this guy so different?
This is nothing new to the press. Hell, it's been around since the dawn of their profession.
It's their fucking job to extract the truth from your sewn up mouth with every fiber of their being.
Congratulations, now you know what it feels like to be a politician! Should we not call out politicians by name just because they do reprehensible shit as well? What makes this guy so different?
He's not on the taxpayer dollar. He is not accountable to the public, unless he commits a crime.
He's not on the taxpayer dollar. He is not accountable to the public, unless he commits a crime.
How do we know if he has committed a crime or not if he cannot be brought to court because of his anonymity?
Again, it's not their fucking job to be the court and only out people who are criminals. They cannot, and should not, make that judgement. THAT is the precedent which we should avoid at all costs.
If you think this is even slightly ethical or good journalism, then you have no fucking place discussing what good journalism is and is not.
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are just another in a long line of viewpoint-peddlers that have existed as long as the press has.
And I repeat - that's what you're asking for by defending this and calling it good journalism. Viewpoint-peddling, bullying, zero-ethics bullshit that has as much in common with Journalism as a grain of sand sitting on a beach has with space exploration. The only difference between Limbaugh or Beck, and this case, is that this case the message agrees with you.
Important events and people are universally made out of lies, and the greatest claim journalism has is to use the truth to destroy those lies and the people behind them. Good journalism does not reassure the viewer, because reassurance is not news. Good journalism gets people angry, out in the streets, dragging the nobility from their homes and to the gallows, metaphorical or literal. Good journalism at it's core is an assassination of the narrative we are fed through propaganda and with it the destruction of those who feed it to us. The concept that was fought for in the idea of free speech was the freedom to allow the written word to whip the masses into a fury at their handlers and destroy them if things got too bad.
Pretty words, but you have no idea what you're fucking talking about. Good Journalism has the potential to do these things, but bad and irresponsible journalism has literally identical goals, the difference is method and aim.
I don't give a bloody fuck what cause you support, and what you think is right and wrong here. The press is a place for truth and information, is not a fucking weapon to be wielded by ANYONE, no matter how righteous their cause. It doesn't matter who the target is. I'm disgusted with you, and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself.
Seriously, how fucking dare you? Just because you don't like this guy, you think it's acceptable to pervert the press into being your sword? Or that it's acceptable to publish what is clearly a revenge piece, a Gawker-approved response to the movement to ban Gawker sites from Reddit? That it's acceptable to ruin someone's life, just because you think they're a creeper and a pervert, when they have not yet been convicted of any crime?
Also, here's one for you and for Andrew - Where is the value to public interest in revealing his real name and making it trivial to track down his place of employment, essentially throwing him to the wolves for no actual reason, when exactly the same article could have been posted without doing so, and it would have been just as impactful, and served the public interest equally well? Not to mention they've also thrown his wife under the bus, and his son. What, you think his wife's employers and friends won't figure it out real fast? Or the students and teachers at his son's school? Where is the public interest in ruining their lives, along with Brutsch's life?
If you're feeling up to it, feel free to tell me more about how you don't think this breaches even the loosest code of journalistic ethics, because I'm in need of a good fucking laugh right now.
So, wait. People should not be exposed by journalists because it'll interfere in the ability of journalists to expose people?
No. I'm saying that in this instance, compromising the identity of this individual is going to have a ripple effect on reporting about the internet in general. Say a website wants to talk about a successful fundraiser on Reddit, so they contact some Redditors. Who the fuck is going to answer when they know that pissing someone off could get a line like "Nina Smith, who goes by the Reddit handle infinitefunspace and is active on the /r/gonewild subreddit..." in the article?
If the concern is over whether this person has committed a crime, the responsible thing to do is report them to the relevant authorities, not publicly out them.
The press has always been a weapon. It has never been anything but. It has served as a medium for propaganda for and against governments, viewpoints, and individuals since it's inception. That's what it is and those are plenty big shoes to fill.
It has always been blogs versus corporate news, broadsheets against little periodicals produced in a basement somewhere, the town crier against the seditious preacher, and it has always, always been used to destroy. The real information gathering happens months and years afterwards, and often the only real purpose journalism serves in that field is to give a barometer of public opinion and perception of events as they unfolded. The true role of journalism is to take the truth and use it as a sword against the reality as it is constructed by others.
So, no, I don't see the outrage in media used as a weapon. I hate it when journalists lie, but I accept that is central to the journalist's job to take a side and that it is, in fact, impossible for them not to do so. As long as they are presenting real, honest facts, I can't fault them. I don't dislike Beck because he attacks people I support, I dislike him because he lies. I think the solution to people like him and Limbaugh is not to shut them down but to introduce opposing viewpoints, and I understand the reason those viewpoints do not occupy the same sphere is because said viewpoints are, for whatever reason, either not profitable or run against the grain of the narrative those who control the distribution of such media want to present.
Also, here's one for you and for Andrew - Where is the value to public interest in revealing his real name and making it trivial to track down his place of employment, essentially throwing him to the wolves for no actual reason, when exactly the same article could have been posted without doing so, and it would have been just as impactful, and served the public interest equally well? Not to mention they've also thrown his wife under the bus, and his son. What, you think his wife's employers and friends won't figure it out real fast? Or the students and teachers at his son's school? Where is the public interest in ruining their lives, along with Brutsch's life?
If you're feeling up to it, feel free to tell me more about how you don't think this breaches even the loosest code of journalistic ethics, because I'm in need of a good fucking laugh right now.
Those the are consequences for acting as he did. I'm sorry they are tough and they suck but maybe he should have thought about his family before he posted the things he did. If his life from now on serves as an example, perhaps people will think twice before taking pictures of high school girls panties without their knowledge and posting them online. Hopefully people don't take it out on his wife and child directly, but that is neither in yours, mine, nor Gawker's control.
And if you disagree, well then we have a fundamental difference in opinion.
I should also point out that I hope that no one seeks to do bodily harm to him or his family because of his actions. That is wrong as well.
That journalist is a major fuckhead. I mean the guy isn't the most upstanding citizen ever, but he's like a sizable majority of other people on the Internet is his disgustingness. I'm not sure why it's necessary we all know who he is, nor does anyone really fucking care now that we all know his name except for the people close to him, which will only negatively affect him.
Also, here's one for you and for Andrew - Where is the value to public interest in revealing his real name and making it trivial to track down his place of employment, essentially throwing him to the wolves for no actual reason, when exactly the same article could have been posted without doing so, and it would have been just as impactful, and served the public interest equally well? Not to mention they've also thrown his wife under the bus, and his son. What, you think his wife's employers and friends won't figure it out real fast? Or the students and teachers at his son's school? Where is the public interest in ruining their lives, along with Brutsch's life?
If you're feeling up to it, feel free to tell me more about how you don't think this breaches even the loosest code of journalistic ethics, because I'm in need of a good fucking laugh right now.
Those the are consequences for acting as he did. I'm sorry they are tough and they suck but maybe he should have thought about his family before he posted the things he did. If his life from now on serves as an example, perhaps people will think twice before taking pictures of high school girls panties without their knowledge and posting them online.
This is kind of bullshit because it's not the responsibility of journalists to met out punishment, merely to expose people to judgement. A subtle difference, but an important one.
This is kind of bullshit because it's not the responsibility of journalists to met out punishment, merely to expose people to judgement. A subtle difference, but an important one.
How so? I don't see Gawker demanding any sort of particular punishment. I never said they should. I'm merely saying that if the community shuns this man because of his behavior and the fact that he's been exposed, well...tough shit.
Churba are you seriously saying it's Gawker's fault that he is shunned and ruined for his actions by merely associating his name with said actions?
No, I'm saying Gawker has an ethical responsibility to not out someone who has not been convicted of any crime, when it would be in their best interest to remain so(if you think this isn't going to inspire some vigilante punishment bullshit, you're mental), unless it's very strongly in the public interest to do so, and you have very strong evidence to show as much.
Yeah, VA should be fucking ashamed of his actions, and he should have to deal with the consequences of them, but the press is not the judge, jury and executioner, nor is the press's job to crucify him, his wife, and his son, without any evidence that it's extremely strongly in the public's interest to do so.
I don't give a shit if all the information in the article is correct. Show me evidence that it's in the public interest to out him, and thus ruin three lives, two of them which had little or nothing to do with any of his actions. And if you're even thinking of typing the words "Oh, that's the consequences of his actions" then try again, because that's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking how this serves the public interest, when it could have trivially been done another way, which would not have outed VA and his family - whom I repeat are pretty much entirely innocent in this ordeal, but will certainly suffer punishment just as VA will - and would not have made them targets for internet vigilantism.
Also, weak effort, Andrew. I've seen better out of brand-new entry-level local politicians in stump speeches.
Furthermore, I have yet to see anyone mention any falsehoods or deceptions on any of the article's claims about Violentacrez.
That's because it's utterly irrelevant, and the only reason you're repeating this is so that you can try and pull the discussion somewhere that you're able to take an objective fact, and fashion it into a bludgeon to beat whoever fucks up a detail first till they leave the argument, thus giving it to you by default.
This is kind of bullshit because it's not the responsibility of journalists to met out punishment, merely to expose people to judgement. A subtle difference, but an important one.
That's exactly the bullshit not condemning, but cheering. In this case, the punishment being essentially throwing the bloke and his family to internet vigilantes puffed up with the full importance of the fact that they're "Doing the right thing" by attacking the guy. Frankly, I'd be stunned if some violence doesn't befall the guy, or is not at least attempted - they have his name, they can trivially ferret out his place of employment, his address, and so on. A long campaign of harassment is almost certain.
Churba are you seriously saying it's Gawker's fault that he is shunned and ruined for his actions by merely associating his name with said actions?
No, I'm saying Gawker has an ethical responsibility to not out someone who has not been convicted of any crime, unless it's very strongly in the public interest to do so, and you have very strong evidence to show as much.
Yeah, VA should be fucking ashamed of his actions, and he should have to deal with the consequences of them, but the press is not the judge, jury and executioner, nor is the press's job to crucify him, his wife, and his son, without any evidence that it's extremely strongly in the public's interest to do so.
I don't give a shit if all the information in the article is correct. Show me evidence that it's in the public interest to out him, and thus ruin three lives, two of them which had little or nothing to do with any of his actions.
Also, weak effort, Andrew. I've seen better out of brand-new entry-level local politicians in stump speeches.
Furthermore, I have yet to see anyone mention any falsehoods or deceptions on any of the article's claims about Violentacrez.
That's because it's utterly irrelevant, and the only reason you're repeating this is so that you can try and pull the discussion somewhere that you're able to take an objective fact, and fashion it into a bludgeon to beat whoever fucks up a detail first till they leave the argument, thus giving it to you by default.
Ok, I'll wait until you quit the Ad Hominem attacks.
Oh wait, no I won't because they are all bullshit.
And yes, because facts are entirely irrelevant to an argument. How dare I bring the issue of facts into the discusssion. How dare I bring up this when you equate this Gawker article to Limbaugh and Beck
The only difference between Limbaugh or Beck, and this case, is that this case the message agrees with you.
Yes because the only difference is that the message agrees with open_sketchbook.
Oh yeah, and the fact that Limbaugh and Beck lie out of their fucking teeth. You missed that little point.
Furthermore, I do think it's in the public interest to know about a man who solicits and collates images of underage girls and voyeuristic shots of high schoolers. Hell, his own wife should know to protect their son from this monster. Who knows, maybe this will protect their child from years of abuse. This could be a godsend instead of a punishment for them.
As you said yourself, you have to have very strong evidence to show as much. So unless you can prove otherwise, rightfully, shut the fuck up.
we should prbly just send like 1000 anchovy pizzas to his house cuz losing his job & being ostracized & then having to pay for like 1 thousand anchovy pizzas will defs make this guy stop being a #creep
Hell, his own wife should know to protect their son from this monster. Who knows, maybe this will protect their child from years of abuse. This could be a godsend instead of a punishment for them.
Weren't you the one who brought up the importance of truth, rather than of just making shit up?
As you said yourself, you have to have very strong evidence to show as much. So unless you can prove otherwise, rightfully, shut the fuck up.
we should prbly just send like 1000 anchovy pizzas to his house cuz losing his job & being ostracized & then having to pay for like 1 thousand anchovy pizzas will defs make this guy stop being a #creep
Weren't you the one who brought up the importance of truth, rather than of just making shit up?
Apparently conjecture of the future is an acceptable argument by the other side's standards. I mean, HOLY SHIT THIS GUY'S LIFE AND FAMILY ARE RUINED.
The burden of proof is hardly symmetrical here.
Wait, I'm sorry. Are you saying you can't disprove anything easily found by reddit or CNN articles about this mans behavior? How very unfortunate for you.
we should prbly just send like 1000 anchovy pizzas to his house cuz losing his job & being ostracized & then having to pay for like 1 thousand anchovy pizzas will defs make this guy stop being a #creep
Comments
I don't care about whether or not you think the guy deserves this (I happen to agree that he does), I'm arguing about the journalistic ethics of posting dirt on a person you dislike just for the pleasure of watching them hang. I'd argue that it's sensational at best and unethical at worst.
The only thing that needs to happen is that this man needs to feel responsible for some questionable material he's posted. If the legal system feels it's a criminal offense, great, take him to court and prove it. If he's shunned by his friends and family because he's a fucking creeper, well that's his own damn fault.
But no one, NO ONE, should sound a cry for public execution. Let him stand in the cold light of being exposed. I'm sorry, but maybe he should have thought about that ahead of time before he posted pictures of underage girls online. Just because the internet is anonymous doesn't mean you shouldn't be held responsible for the content you share and create.
My problem with this is that it has a chilling effect on the greater pool of sources for all of journalism in general. Who wants to speak to a reporter when pissing them off can mean all of your secrets and personal info get splashed all over the internet for millions of RSS readers? Not me, probably not many others. It sets a dangerous precedent that stands to damage the press's ability to produce accurate, in-depth reports on internet culture ever again.
They merely spoke his name.
This is nothing new to the press. Hell, it's been around since the dawn of their profession.
It's their fucking job to extract the truth from your sewn up mouth with every fiber of their being.
Again, it's not their fucking job to be the court and only out people who are criminals. They cannot, and should not, make that judgement. THAT is the precedent which we should avoid at all costs.
I don't give a bloody fuck what cause you support, and what you think is right and wrong here. The press is a place for truth and information, is not a fucking weapon to be wielded by ANYONE, no matter how righteous their cause. It doesn't matter who the target is. I'm disgusted with you, and frankly you should be ashamed of yourself.
Seriously, how fucking dare you? Just because you don't like this guy, you think it's acceptable to pervert the press into being your sword? Or that it's acceptable to publish what is clearly a revenge piece, a Gawker-approved response to the movement to ban Gawker sites from Reddit? That it's acceptable to ruin someone's life, just because you think they're a creeper and a pervert, when they have not yet been convicted of any crime?
Also, here's one for you and for Andrew - Where is the value to public interest in revealing his real name and making it trivial to track down his place of employment, essentially throwing him to the wolves for no actual reason, when exactly the same article could have been posted without doing so, and it would have been just as impactful, and served the public interest equally well? Not to mention they've also thrown his wife under the bus, and his son. What, you think his wife's employers and friends won't figure it out real fast? Or the students and teachers at his son's school?
Where is the public interest in ruining their lives, along with Brutsch's life?
If you're feeling up to it, feel free to tell me more about how you don't think this breaches even the loosest code of journalistic ethics, because I'm in need of a good fucking laugh right now.
Furthermore, I have yet to see anyone mention any falsehoods or deceptions on any of the article's claims about Violentacrez.
It has always been blogs versus corporate news, broadsheets against little periodicals produced in a basement somewhere, the town crier against the seditious preacher, and it has always, always been used to destroy. The real information gathering happens months and years afterwards, and often the only real purpose journalism serves in that field is to give a barometer of public opinion and perception of events as they unfolded. The true role of journalism is to take the truth and use it as a sword against the reality as it is constructed by others.
So, no, I don't see the outrage in media used as a weapon. I hate it when journalists lie, but I accept that is central to the journalist's job to take a side and that it is, in fact, impossible for them not to do so. As long as they are presenting real, honest facts, I can't fault them. I don't dislike Beck because he attacks people I support, I dislike him because he lies. I think the solution to people like him and Limbaugh is not to shut them down but to introduce opposing viewpoints, and I understand the reason those viewpoints do not occupy the same sphere is because said viewpoints are, for whatever reason, either not profitable or run against the grain of the narrative those who control the distribution of such media want to present.
And if you disagree, well then we have a fundamental difference in opinion.
I should also point out that I hope that no one seeks to do bodily harm to him or his family because of his actions. That is wrong as well.
Yeah, VA should be fucking ashamed of his actions, and he should have to deal with the consequences of them, but the press is not the judge, jury and executioner, nor is the press's job to crucify him, his wife, and his son, without any evidence that it's extremely strongly in the public's interest to do so.
I don't give a shit if all the information in the article is correct. Show me evidence that it's in the public interest to out him, and thus ruin three lives, two of them which had little or nothing to do with any of his actions. And if you're even thinking of typing the words "Oh, that's the consequences of his actions" then try again, because that's not what I'm asking for. I'm asking how this serves the public interest, when it could have trivially been done another way, which would not have outed VA and his family - whom I repeat are pretty much entirely innocent in this ordeal, but will certainly suffer punishment just as VA will - and would not have made them targets for internet vigilantism.
Also, weak effort, Andrew. I've seen better out of brand-new entry-level local politicians in stump speeches. That's because it's utterly irrelevant, and the only reason you're repeating this is so that you can try and pull the discussion somewhere that you're able to take an objective fact, and fashion it into a bludgeon to beat whoever fucks up a detail first till they leave the argument, thus giving it to you by default. That's exactly the bullshit not condemning, but cheering. In this case, the punishment being essentially throwing the bloke and his family to internet vigilantes puffed up with the full importance of the fact that they're "Doing the right thing" by attacking the guy. Frankly, I'd be stunned if some violence doesn't befall the guy, or is not at least attempted - they have his name, they can trivially ferret out his place of employment, his address, and so on. A long campaign of harassment is almost certain.
Oh wait, no I won't because they are all bullshit.
And yes, because facts are entirely irrelevant to an argument. How dare I bring the issue of facts into the discusssion. How dare I bring up this when you equate this Gawker article to Limbaugh and Beck Yes because the only difference is that the message agrees with open_sketchbook.
Oh yeah, and the fact that Limbaugh and Beck lie out of their fucking teeth. You missed that little point.
Furthermore, I do think it's in the public interest to know about a man who solicits and collates images of underage girls and voyeuristic shots of high schoolers. Hell, his own wife should know to protect their son from this monster. Who knows, maybe this will protect their child from years of abuse. This could be a godsend instead of a punishment for them.
As you said yourself, you have to have very strong evidence to show as much. So unless you can prove otherwise, rightfully, shut the fuck up.
uh huh yea #socialjustice
#violetacerPCs2012
>2012
u shuld kno bttr, bb!