7 ms·

Violentacrez is a scumbag and the fact that redditors are willing to stand behind him as some sort of show of reddit brotherhood is a large part of the reason w

by omgsean 14y ago

Violentacrez is a scumbag and the fact that redditors are willing to stand behind him as some sort of show of reddit brotherhood is a large part of the reason why I don't go there much anymore.

danielweber 14y ago
0. Violentacrez sure seems to be disgusting, based on his online persona. 1. If you stand for free speech, you are going to be defending assholes and thugs and people who say disgusting things. We don't need free speech for people who emit rainbows. The ACLU defended the KKK's right to march, not because they thought the KKK was a bunch of nice guys or that the KKK would ever return the favor if the ACLU were in trouble. 2. It's more about the doxxing, which seems to be the one legal thing that isn't allowed on reddit. Either they have the policy that doxxing is horrible or they don't.
- eli 14y ago
  I absolutely believe the KKK has a right to march. But I also wouldn't participate, even as a spectator.
  - girlvinyl 14y ago
    What about publicly naming and shaming KKK members who did participate?
    - Evbn 14y ago
      Sure, but not by posting that info on Reddit with a link to the shamee's Reddit username. This is one of the only rules of Reddit, and it is for your protection, so people don't say "girlvinyl is KKK member and here is her legal name and address".
      - girlvinyl 14y ago
        Right. It wasn't posted on reddit, it was posted to tumblr.
    - danielweber 14y ago
      Depends on your policy. You can have a policy of "we are not allowed to publish personally identifying info of anyone." You can have a policy of "we are allowed to publish personally identifying info of anyone at will," but you need to realize that it will also affect people you like as well as people you don't like. What doesn't work is "we are allowed to publish personally identifying info of people that a sizable minority of the community thinks sucks."
- girlvinyl 14y ago
  Re: Freespeech. No one is asking the government to censor reddit. Users are taking things into their own hands because the private company that owns reddit refuses to moderate completely inappropriate material. The system is working just as it should.
  - prodigal_erik 14y ago
    Free speech is meaningless if anyone sufficiently unpopular can be unmasked. This guy's life would probably be in danger over thoughtcrime.
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    This is a fairly typical position - i.e. private corporations are under no obligation to protect free speech, therefore censorship in a private context is okay. Which is an argument that flies legally, but not morally depending on what you believe. If you believe in free speech, then using the fact that your website is private to censor others is not a violation of the law, but it certainly seems like a violation of your own declared ideology. Which is to say, you would support free speech until it got inconvenient. Reddit as a community seems to place a high value on free speech, so while they're under no legal obligation to keep things open, it would be a violation of its own declared ideology if they started censoring. Note that I don't miss the creepy subreddits at all, but if you're one of the people on /r/politics, /r/atheism, or whatever who are quoting Voltaire all the time, it seems hypocritical to call for censorship.
    - girlvinyl 14y ago
      The speech of these users is still free, but there are consequences to what they say. For example, the consequence here is that their creepshots results in others naming them and exercising their own right to speech as well. I'm also not at all calling for censorship. As I said, the creeps want their free speech and are getting it, as well as others exercising their rights too. I do think it is quite unfair that the tumblr with names was deleted, but again, Tumblr has a right to police their site as they see fit. Ultimately, I think it is exploitative of the reddit corporation and their masters to allow completely disgusting and clearly immoral content. This is 2012. The internet isn't the wild west anymore.
- rmc 14y ago
  If you stand for free speech… There are numerous different defintions of free speech. Some countries draw the line in different places. E.g. in the USA, you cannot say "shout fire in a crowded theatre", and there are various laws against revelaing some USA military knowledge. All "right to free speech" laws have limits, as they should. It's more about the doxxing, which seems to be the one legal thing Here's a thought, in the EU, we have data protection/privacy law. It's illegal to release personal details of people unless it's within the law. I wonder is doxing illegal?
  - rmrfrmrf 14y ago
    I'd hope that a woman's underwear and vagina are just as protected under that law as some scumbag's address and phone number.
  - Millennium 14y ago
    Common misconception. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is not a crime. The crime is causing a panic without cause: if you've got a good cause (for example, if there really is a fire) then you've done nothing wrong. The crime in releasing classified documents is in the breach of trust, not in the leak itself. Libel and slander are types of fraud: the crime comes from the falsehood, not the statements themselves. Free speech should be absolute and sacrosanct, but this doesn't mean it should protect people from breaking the law. The folks in creepshots and its kin are in fact doing something against the law, and they should be shut down accordingly. This is not a free-speech issue.
    - rmc 14y ago
      But don't you see, that's the point. There are limits on "free speech", you just declare something as illegal. This kind of thinking is how many other countries have laws banning certain speech, which USA courts would probably view as protected. E.g. in EU you have the right to privacy, so there are various laws that say you cannot report things about some people without their consent. That sort of thing might be protected in USA. But the EU say "Wrecking someone's privacy is a crime, and we have free speech". Saying "All speech is protected, but if there are some laws then the thing doesn't count as speech and hence isn't allowed to be protected", is misleading, because loads of countries follow that rule, but have different free speech rules. Every country decides where to set it's limits, the USA is almost certainly the one that has a few limits as possible, but it has limits, it has set the line somewhere/
- thwest 14y ago
  Regarding point 1: You are absolutely misguided. I have no obligation to defend them disgusting things until it is the government that is prosecuting the speech, rather than the community. We have a moral obligation to protect free speech from government intrusion. We have an equal or greater moral obligation to personally confront the KKK, and sexual predators in order to enforce moral standards within our community. The government's job is to make sure we both get to speak, and don't kill each other over the disagreement. The first amendment has nothing to do with protecting KKK members from public shaming and expulsion for the views they profess.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    I wasn't talking about the government. "You" wasn't "you, thwest." It was to the reddit admins and their own desire to have a community of free speech. Once they, the reddit admins, decide that they, the reddit admins, want a community of free speech, then they, the reddit admins, are going to find themselves supporting the rights of assholes to speak.
    - thwest 14y ago
      If the reddit admins want to shoulder the same burden as the government in regards to free speech, I still believe in community self-policing of reddit by users. The admins won't shut down assholes, but neither shall they shutdown shaming of assholes.
- koeselitz 14y ago
  >> 2. It's more about the doxxing, which seems to be the one legal thing that isn't allowed on reddit. Either they have the policy that doxxing is horrible or they don't. I guess the question is whether that is a sensible policy. It may make sense to protect anonymity - I can see that - but does it make sense to protect nothing else? Is anonymity really the only true community value?
- tzs 14y ago
  > If you stand for free speech, you are going to be defending assholes and thugs and people who say disgusting things. Violentacrez's speech rights do not automatically trump the privacy rights of his victims. His ideas and opinions can be communicated via speech that does not violate the rights of others, and so when balancing his speech rights against their privacy rights I'd favor the privacy rights.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    This is true. I was mostly offended by the "he's a bad person so who cares about his rights" argument.
- watty 14y ago
  Free speech? Free speech would be not banning Gawker and allowing Gawker to doxx the scumbag. Free speech, right?
Peroni 14y ago
Anyone who attempts to defend the guy's actions on Reddit is an idiot and it was only a matter of time before someone brought their anger into the real world HOWEVER an individual is one thing, a reputable, established company is a totally different situation. Sure they are media and sure the media loves a witch hunt but the bottom line is that their actions are threatening and it's blatant blackmail. In my opinion their actions are as disgusting as their targets online activity.
- Evbn 14y ago
  Implies that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are idiots.
thedrbrian 14y ago
Who is violentacrez?
- rmc 14y ago
  A reddit user who deleted their reddit account. They used to be moderator of some pretty sleazy subreddits like r/creepshots r/incest, etc,.
- Peroni 14y ago
  A prominent Reddit user who has been on the site for years and accumulated shit tons of karma and a proportionate amount of controversy. He established really questionable subreddits such as /r/jailbait and /r/incest and was extremely upfront about his motivations (claims it was more about exercising his right to free speech than being a pervert). The fact that he deleted his account is considered a big deal in the reddit world given his "reddit fame" and the fact that he was always willing to defend/justify his actions and never back down from said defence.
  - Adirael 14y ago
    It's not very clear for me with all the drama around, but they were threatening him with revealing his real identity, didn't they? It's easy to defend and justify stuff being anon.
    - Peroni 14y ago
      You're right about the anon bit but my own personal view is that unless someone has committed a crime (that can be proved beyond doubt) then posting people's real world identities is fucked up.
      - Adirael 14y ago
        It is, I just found it funny, being he the Person he is on Reddit. The only enforced rule across different subreddits I remember is not posting personal info.
- 14y ago

by omgsean 14y ago

Violentacrez is a scumbag and the fact that redditors are willing to stand behind him as some sort of show of reddit brotherhood is a large part of the reason why I don't go there much anymore.

danielweber 14y ago

0. Violentacrez sure seems to be disgusting, based on his online persona. 1. If you stand for free speech, you are going to be defending assholes and thugs and people who say disgusting things. We don't need free speech for people who emit rainbows. The ACLU defended the KKK's right to march, not because they thought the KKK was a bunch of nice guys or that the KKK would ever return the favor if the ACLU were in trouble. 2. It's more about the doxxing, which seems to be the one legal thing that isn't allowed on reddit. Either they have the policy that doxxing is horrible or they don't.

eli 14y ago
I absolutely believe the KKK has a right to march. But I also wouldn't participate, even as a spectator.
- girlvinyl 14y ago
  What about publicly naming and shaming KKK members who did participate?
  - Evbn 14y ago
    Sure, but not by posting that info on Reddit with a link to the shamee's Reddit username. This is one of the only rules of Reddit, and it is for your protection, so people don't say "girlvinyl is KKK member and here is her legal name and address".
    - girlvinyl 14y ago
      Right. It wasn't posted on reddit, it was posted to tumblr.
  - danielweber 14y ago
    Depends on your policy. You can have a policy of "we are not allowed to publish personally identifying info of anyone." You can have a policy of "we are allowed to publish personally identifying info of anyone at will," but you need to realize that it will also affect people you like as well as people you don't like. What doesn't work is "we are allowed to publish personally identifying info of people that a sizable minority of the community thinks sucks."
girlvinyl 14y ago
Re: Freespeech. No one is asking the government to censor reddit. Users are taking things into their own hands because the private company that owns reddit refuses to moderate completely inappropriate material. The system is working just as it should.
- prodigal_erik 14y ago
  Free speech is meaningless if anyone sufficiently unpopular can be unmasked. This guy's life would probably be in danger over thoughtcrime.
- potatolicious 14y ago
  This is a fairly typical position - i.e. private corporations are under no obligation to protect free speech, therefore censorship in a private context is okay. Which is an argument that flies legally, but not morally depending on what you believe. If you believe in free speech, then using the fact that your website is private to censor others is not a violation of the law, but it certainly seems like a violation of your own declared ideology. Which is to say, you would support free speech until it got inconvenient. Reddit as a community seems to place a high value on free speech, so while they're under no legal obligation to keep things open, it would be a violation of its own declared ideology if they started censoring. Note that I don't miss the creepy subreddits at all, but if you're one of the people on /r/politics, /r/atheism, or whatever who are quoting Voltaire all the time, it seems hypocritical to call for censorship.
  - girlvinyl 14y ago
    The speech of these users is still free, but there are consequences to what they say. For example, the consequence here is that their creepshots results in others naming them and exercising their own right to speech as well. I'm also not at all calling for censorship. As I said, the creeps want their free speech and are getting it, as well as others exercising their rights too. I do think it is quite unfair that the tumblr with names was deleted, but again, Tumblr has a right to police their site as they see fit. Ultimately, I think it is exploitative of the reddit corporation and their masters to allow completely disgusting and clearly immoral content. This is 2012. The internet isn't the wild west anymore.
rmc 14y ago
If you stand for free speech… There are numerous different defintions of free speech. Some countries draw the line in different places. E.g. in the USA, you cannot say "shout fire in a crowded theatre", and there are various laws against revelaing some USA military knowledge. All "right to free speech" laws have limits, as they should. It's more about the doxxing, which seems to be the one legal thing Here's a thought, in the EU, we have data protection/privacy law. It's illegal to release personal details of people unless it's within the law. I wonder is doxing illegal?
- rmrfrmrf 14y ago
  I'd hope that a woman's underwear and vagina are just as protected under that law as some scumbag's address and phone number.
- Millennium 14y ago
  Common misconception. Shouting "fire" in a crowded theatre is not a crime. The crime is causing a panic without cause: if you've got a good cause (for example, if there really is a fire) then you've done nothing wrong. The crime in releasing classified documents is in the breach of trust, not in the leak itself. Libel and slander are types of fraud: the crime comes from the falsehood, not the statements themselves. Free speech should be absolute and sacrosanct, but this doesn't mean it should protect people from breaking the law. The folks in creepshots and its kin are in fact doing something against the law, and they should be shut down accordingly. This is not a free-speech issue.
  - rmc 14y ago
    But don't you see, that's the point. There are limits on "free speech", you just declare something as illegal. This kind of thinking is how many other countries have laws banning certain speech, which USA courts would probably view as protected. E.g. in EU you have the right to privacy, so there are various laws that say you cannot report things about some people without their consent. That sort of thing might be protected in USA. But the EU say "Wrecking someone's privacy is a crime, and we have free speech". Saying "All speech is protected, but if there are some laws then the thing doesn't count as speech and hence isn't allowed to be protected", is misleading, because loads of countries follow that rule, but have different free speech rules. Every country decides where to set it's limits, the USA is almost certainly the one that has a few limits as possible, but it has limits, it has set the line somewhere/
thwest 14y ago
Regarding point 1: You are absolutely misguided. I have no obligation to defend them disgusting things until it is the government that is prosecuting the speech, rather than the community. We have a moral obligation to protect free speech from government intrusion. We have an equal or greater moral obligation to personally confront the KKK, and sexual predators in order to enforce moral standards within our community. The government's job is to make sure we both get to speak, and don't kill each other over the disagreement. The first amendment has nothing to do with protecting KKK members from public shaming and expulsion for the views they profess.
- danielweber 14y ago
  I wasn't talking about the government. "You" wasn't "you, thwest." It was to the reddit admins and their own desire to have a community of free speech. Once they, the reddit admins, decide that they, the reddit admins, want a community of free speech, then they, the reddit admins, are going to find themselves supporting the rights of assholes to speak.
  - thwest 14y ago
    If the reddit admins want to shoulder the same burden as the government in regards to free speech, I still believe in community self-policing of reddit by users. The admins won't shut down assholes, but neither shall they shutdown shaming of assholes.
koeselitz 14y ago
>> 2. It's more about the doxxing, which seems to be the one legal thing that isn't allowed on reddit. Either they have the policy that doxxing is horrible or they don't. I guess the question is whether that is a sensible policy. It may make sense to protect anonymity - I can see that - but does it make sense to protect nothing else? Is anonymity really the only true community value?
tzs 14y ago
> If you stand for free speech, you are going to be defending assholes and thugs and people who say disgusting things. Violentacrez's speech rights do not automatically trump the privacy rights of his victims. His ideas and opinions can be communicated via speech that does not violate the rights of others, and so when balancing his speech rights against their privacy rights I'd favor the privacy rights.
- danielweber 14y ago
  This is true. I was mostly offended by the "he's a bad person so who cares about his rights" argument.
watty 14y ago
Free speech? Free speech would be not banning Gawker and allowing Gawker to doxx the scumbag. Free speech, right?

Peroni 14y ago

Anyone who attempts to defend the guy's actions on Reddit is an idiot and it was only a matter of time before someone brought their anger into the real world HOWEVER an individual is one thing, a reputable, established company is a totally different situation. Sure they are media and sure the media loves a witch hunt but the bottom line is that their actions are threatening and it's blatant blackmail. In my opinion their actions are as disgusting as their targets online activity.

Evbn 14y ago
Implies that Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson are idiots.

thedrbrian 14y ago

Who is violentacrez?

rmc 14y ago
A reddit user who deleted their reddit account. They used to be moderator of some pretty sleazy subreddits like r/creepshots r/incest, etc,.
Peroni 14y ago
A prominent Reddit user who has been on the site for years and accumulated shit tons of karma and a proportionate amount of controversy. He established really questionable subreddits such as /r/jailbait and /r/incest and was extremely upfront about his motivations (claims it was more about exercising his right to free speech than being a pervert). The fact that he deleted his account is considered a big deal in the reddit world given his "reddit fame" and the fact that he was always willing to defend/justify his actions and never back down from said defence.
- Adirael 14y ago
  It's not very clear for me with all the drama around, but they were threatening him with revealing his real identity, didn't they? It's easy to defend and justify stuff being anon.
  - Peroni 14y ago
    You're right about the anon bit but my own personal view is that unless someone has committed a crime (that can be proved beyond doubt) then posting people's real world identities is fucked up.
    - Adirael 14y ago
      It is, I just found it funny, being he the Person he is on Reddit. The only enforced rule across different subreddits I remember is not posting personal info.
14y ago