I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. The guy is unquestionably a huge creep, a troll, and a sick fuck, but Gawker basically destroyed this guy's life because he was a dick on the internet. Say what you will about the man's ethics, but he hasn't committed any crimes. I wouldn't wish what's coming down on this motherfucker on my own worst enemy.
This is irresponsible journalism at best, and character assassination at worst.
Yeah, he was. And he's scum. However, I don't believe in using journalistic outlets like a Kangaroo Court. That's not what the press is for. We search for Truth in journalism, not Revenge.
Yeah, he was. And he's scum. However, I don't believe in using journalistic outlets like a Kangaroo Court. That's not what the press is for. We search for Truth in journalism, not Revenge.
I think that's sort of a rose coloured glasses view of press. Press is not some kind of holy ordained thing delivered from on high to bring TRUTH to the masses. It is and always has been petty political sniping and at it's BEST it uses the truth as ammunition to do so; the reason free speech is important is so that everyone can get a chance to fire off their fact guns so as to expose the government and each other from all angles; that way maybe the average person will get a fairly complete view. They won't, of course, because nobody can keep track of it all, but it's a nice theory.
If anyone were to get caught in the crossfire of the allegorical Battle of the Somme that is press media, I'm glad it's this douchebag. He seriously needed to take a six-pound high explosive truth round straight to the nads.
It's still unethical. Adrian Chen came out and said, directly in the article, that he's okay with using his journalistic mouthpiece as a means to ruin the life of a man whose views he disagrees with. That's irresponsible and absolutely contrary to the entire purpose of the press, which is to inform and protect the citizen. The precedent Chen sets is one in which any journalist can use his outlet to character assassinate anyone whose conduct he or she personally disagrees with, and I'm not okay with that.
I don't particularly see the issue. If President Obama was secretly torturing kittens to death in the White House and Fox News unveiled the story, it would be character assassination, and it would also be journalism. The two are not mutually exclusive.
The only breach of ethics for journalism, in my opinion, is lying. Any other standard is completely arbitrary.
If anonymity was so important to Violentacrez, why did he reveal his identity to anyone? Why did he provide so many specifics about his personal life on his account? I don't get it.
I don't either, but that doesn't make it right for a journalist to fucking dox him on a website with millions of subscribers just because he (the journo) is pissed off.
I don't either, but that doesn't make it right for a journalist to fucking dox him on a website with millions of subscribers just because he (the journo) is pissed off.
So your only problem with this is that this was done by an journalist. If Joe Random would have written this same thing on his personal blog everything would have been cool?
I don't particularly see an issue here. If this guy had been a politician, that would have been good journalism. Instead, because it's an internet troll, exposing him is assassination. Fuck that. So long as it's the truth being told, it's all gravy.
Actually I think it would be kind of awesome if there was a news organization that just randomly selected people who are dicks to others in some capacity and investigated their lives, then published their findings. Just every day, a new person having all their worst stuff exposed and their life ruined. 365 mostly random people destroyed every year. They would probably make a killing.
I don't see the issue because he agreed to talk to Gawker after they found him. If he had ignored it and then decided to "unmask" him or whatever, then that would have been immoral.
Actually I think it would be kind of awesome if there was a news organization that just randomly selected people who are dicks to others in some capacity and investigated their lives, then published their findings. Just every day, a new person having all their worst stuff exposed and their life ruined. 365 mostly random people destroyed every year. They would probably make a killing.
Really dude? What the fuck is wrong with you? A justice system exists for a reason; we're not supposed to just publish information about dicks and just be like, "Hey, bros, do what you want to this asshole." That's straight vigilantism.
Look, I'm against doxing in general. If someone does something illegal, report it to the police. If someone does something you take issue with, file a lawsuit. There are channels for these things that need to be respected in a functional society. You can't just decide, "I don't like this dude, let's make it so that he can never be employed ever again by exposing some dubious-yet-ultimately legal elements of his private life."
Society doesn't work that way. You're not allowed to ruin someone forever just because you don't like them.
I don't see the issue because he agreed to talk to Gawker after they found him. If he had ignored it and then decided to "unmask" him or whatever, then that would have been immoral.
I guess there's an argument to be made here, but I still take issue with the fact that he literally begged the author not to reveal his name, and Chen did it anyway while publishing that very exchange.
I dunno, I'm taking a journalism course right now (and I know that doesn't make me an expert) but this flagrantly violates every element of journalistic ethics and principles I've been taught thus far.
Privacy doesn't really exist any more; that's a fact of modern technology. Every single person has trails of information following them everywhere they go now. The only difference between walking out in the street and being published in the papers is how many people are watching and how intently.
When google glasses hit the shelves, the morally responsible thing for it's users to do is to hook up it's camera to a facial recognition system and run everyone you see through an internet search, so you can turn in anyone you find who is a wanted criminal of violent crime. However, it is inevitable that you would come across loads of personal information in the process. Personal information is not protected; a huge portion of the economy comes from companies collecting this information and selling it to advertisers, after all. The idea that we have to respect other people's private lives is laughable in a day and age where a person who does not openly publish their lives are considered antisocial or untrustworthy.
If you just had a program running to take a peak into the facebooks of everyone you saw on a busy city street every day, maybe google their usernames and flag common reprehensible things, you could probably make a neat profit running a blog shaming these random people. And while that's a scummy thing to do, it's no different whatsoever from reporting on incidents of police brutality except for the scale of the crime and the interest levels of the witnesses. It is fundamentally identical; the news can't claim the moral high ground because it's not exposing the police brutality for moral reasons, it's doing it because it's good rating. Well, if exposing the stupid shit random people do brings ad bucks, it's in the exact same ballpark.
Of course, if you did do this, then somebody would expose you for it eventually, your life would be ruined, and the cycle would continue. It's not optimal, but it's the reality of how these things are going to work. At least it self-polices.
As long as news is a business, it has no moral high ground nor any ethical restraints.
Anyway, I have mixed feelings on the subject. I DO feel this guy was unduly persecuted and that doxing him wasn't cool. On the other hand, the old saying that anything put on the internet stays on the internet is true and that, eventually, someone with enough determination will be able to follow your bit-trail. It's a strange situation on the whole but I believe that this man committed no crime and that Chen used his reach irresponsibly. I say "irresponsibly" because having an audience does come with a certain amount of responsibility.
In any case, he certainly isn't a journalist.
EDIT: Open_sketchbook, If you (the royal "you" not you specifically) call yourself a journalist, then you DO have some ethical guidelines to follow. This is no more ethical than the "reporting" some reporters did during the red scares. I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to publish this, but he sure as fuck ain't a journalist.
The only breach of ethics for journalism, in my opinion, is lying. Any other standard is completely arbitrary.
Then your opinion is wrong. Truthfullness is only one part, you've also got to take into account accuracy, impartiality, fairness(yeah, even if you don't like them), objectivity, Harm limitation, for a start.
Like it or not, Sketch, according to the standards of journalistic ethics - which your opinion has precisely zero bearing on - this story was borderline unethical even when given the greatest possible leeway. In reality, it's vastly unethical and unconscionable.
You're not asking for a journalist, you're asking for a penny-ante bully with a fucking newspaper column, a Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck of the written word. Pursuit of the news is not a license to met out fucking judgement and punishment-by-proxy, no matter how righteous your cause. Your job, as a journalist, is to report on the world, and the truth. Not to act as judge, jury and executioner.
You're not asking for a journalist, you're asking for a penny-ante bully with a fucking newspaper column, a Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck of the written word. Pursuit of the news is not a license to met out fucking judgement and punishment-by-proxy, no matter how righteous your cause.
THIS.
Also, your police brutality comparison is hugely flawed, Sketch. Random people might be assholes, but only asshole police get named and shamed because they are paid by citizens to provide for the common defense.
Yep. William Randolph Hearst starting the Spanish-American War this is not, but it is most certainly some yellow journalism of the most reprehensible sort.
It's not the job of the press to decided if a crime has been committed or not. It's not their job to only report on illegal material.
Let's be honest here, Violentacrez said and posted some pretty fucked up (and possibly illegal) material on Reddit. How is it persecuting him when we have digital records of everything he said and did on reddit? Did Gawker present any false accusations?
I'm curious, why does privacy apply to this man who did not respect the same privacy of those posted on /r/creepshots, a subreddit he moderated?
Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck are just another in a long line of viewpoint-peddlers that have existed as long as the press has. There is no such thing as reporting without bias. Even the most neutral viewpoint ever has to choose which facts it's going to include and that's going to flavour the story in some way.
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.
Even though this guy had no position of power or noble title, his actions represent the hierarchy in a very real way. It is evident in the way that you are more upset over a journalist violating his privacy than you are upset over the way he exploited the vulnerable in our society through hatred and similar violation. The press did it's job to destroy a portion of the establishment (in this case, the power structures that make this privileged-ass white dude more important than his victims) so good on 'em.
(Of course, Gawker and other mainstream news can still get fucked in other respects, considering the way they have just become corporate mouthpieces both in and outside of their advertisement pages. But I won't throw away a victory because I don't like the look of the footsoldier.)
I'm curious, why does privacy apply to this man who did not respect the same privacy of those posted on /r/creepshots, a subreddit he moderated?
You reap what you sow.
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."
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?
This man needs to have his balls nailed to his forehead, and I think Chen feels the same way and just happened to have more of a voice than I do. Though even the truth can be damaging, in general that is not what a libel suit is brought about.
Comments
I'm not entirely sure how I feel about this. The guy is unquestionably a huge creep, a troll, and a sick fuck, but Gawker basically destroyed this guy's life because he was a dick on the internet. Say what you will about the man's ethics, but he hasn't committed any crimes. I wouldn't wish what's coming down on this motherfucker on my own worst enemy.
This is irresponsible journalism at best, and character assassination at worst.
Let him fucking burn.
http://holyshitreally.com
If anyone were to get caught in the crossfire of the allegorical Battle of the Somme that is press media, I'm glad it's this douchebag. He seriously needed to take a six-pound high explosive truth round straight to the nads.
The only breach of ethics for journalism, in my opinion, is lying. Any other standard is completely arbitrary.
Actually I think it would be kind of awesome if there was a news organization that just randomly selected people who are dicks to others in some capacity and investigated their lives, then published their findings. Just every day, a new person having all their worst stuff exposed and their life ruined. 365 mostly random people destroyed every year. They would probably make a killing.
Look, I'm against doxing in general. If someone does something illegal, report it to the police. If someone does something you take issue with, file a lawsuit. There are channels for these things that need to be respected in a functional society. You can't just decide, "I don't like this dude, let's make it so that he can never be employed ever again by exposing some dubious-yet-ultimately legal elements of his private life."
Society doesn't work that way. You're not allowed to ruin someone forever just because you don't like them. I guess there's an argument to be made here, but I still take issue with the fact that he literally begged the author not to reveal his name, and Chen did it anyway while publishing that very exchange.
I dunno, I'm taking a journalism course right now (and I know that doesn't make me an expert) but this flagrantly violates every element of journalistic ethics and principles I've been taught thus far.
When google glasses hit the shelves, the morally responsible thing for it's users to do is to hook up it's camera to a facial recognition system and run everyone you see through an internet search, so you can turn in anyone you find who is a wanted criminal of violent crime. However, it is inevitable that you would come across loads of personal information in the process. Personal information is not protected; a huge portion of the economy comes from companies collecting this information and selling it to advertisers, after all. The idea that we have to respect other people's private lives is laughable in a day and age where a person who does not openly publish their lives are considered antisocial or untrustworthy.
If you just had a program running to take a peak into the facebooks of everyone you saw on a busy city street every day, maybe google their usernames and flag common reprehensible things, you could probably make a neat profit running a blog shaming these random people. And while that's a scummy thing to do, it's no different whatsoever from reporting on incidents of police brutality except for the scale of the crime and the interest levels of the witnesses. It is fundamentally identical; the news can't claim the moral high ground because it's not exposing the police brutality for moral reasons, it's doing it because it's good rating. Well, if exposing the stupid shit random people do brings ad bucks, it's in the exact same ballpark.
Of course, if you did do this, then somebody would expose you for it eventually, your life would be ruined, and the cycle would continue. It's not optimal, but it's the reality of how these things are going to work. At least it self-polices.
As long as news is a business, it has no moral high ground nor any ethical restraints.
Someone press X.
Anyway, I have mixed feelings on the subject. I DO feel this guy was unduly persecuted and that doxing him wasn't cool. On the other hand, the old saying that anything put on the internet stays on the internet is true and that, eventually, someone with enough determination will be able to follow your bit-trail.
It's a strange situation on the whole but I believe that this man committed no crime and that Chen used his reach irresponsibly. I say "irresponsibly" because having an audience does come with a certain amount of responsibility.
In any case, he certainly isn't a journalist.
EDIT: Open_sketchbook, If you (the royal "you" not you specifically) call yourself a journalist, then you DO have some ethical guidelines to follow. This is no more ethical than the "reporting" some reporters did during the red scares. I'm not saying he doesn't have the right to publish this, but he sure as fuck ain't a journalist.
Like it or not, Sketch, according to the standards of journalistic ethics - which your opinion has precisely zero bearing on - this story was borderline unethical even when given the greatest possible leeway. In reality, it's vastly unethical and unconscionable.
You're not asking for a journalist, you're asking for a penny-ante bully with a fucking newspaper column, a Rush Limbaugh or Glen Beck of the written word. Pursuit of the news is not a license to met out fucking judgement and punishment-by-proxy, no matter how righteous your cause. Your job, as a journalist, is to report on the world, and the truth. Not to act as judge, jury and executioner.
Also, your police brutality comparison is hugely flawed, Sketch. Random people might be assholes, but only asshole police get named and shamed because they are paid by citizens to provide for the common defense.
Actually, when I read that article, I thought "This reeks of McCarthy-ism".
Let's be honest here, Violentacrez said and posted some pretty fucked up (and possibly illegal) material on Reddit. How is it persecuting him when we have digital records of everything he said and did on reddit? Did Gawker present any false accusations?
I'm curious, why does privacy apply to this man who did not respect the same privacy of those posted on /r/creepshots, a subreddit he moderated?
You reap what you sow.
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.
Even though this guy had no position of power or noble title, his actions represent the hierarchy in a very real way. It is evident in the way that you are more upset over a journalist violating his privacy than you are upset over the way he exploited the vulnerable in our society through hatred and similar violation. The press did it's job to destroy a portion of the establishment (in this case, the power structures that make this privileged-ass white dude more important than his victims) so good on 'em.
(Of course, Gawker and other mainstream news can still get fucked in other respects, considering the way they have just become corporate mouthpieces both in and outside of their advertisement pages. But I won't throw away a victory because I don't like the look of the footsoldier.)
Get some perspective please.