53 Comments »

Alby said:
best couple of lines I have ever read on the interwebs.
“There is no freedom in pure freedom. Your words and actions online can have a dramatic affect on people’s in real life lives. FREE SPEECH is not about speech without consequence or responsibility :: it can’t be … or they’ll have the excuse they need to take it away from us.”
WINNER!! ::   +11
[Reply]

mirele Reply:
October 18th, 2012 at 8:05 pm
@Alby, Truer words were never said.
There’s a group of us who were “doxed” by a notorious space-alien cult (rhymes with “Lyintology”). Several of us had an online discussion about Violentacrez over the weekend. We know what it’s like to be “doxed” and we have experienced effects from same. In our cases, we knew we were on the side of the angels (or Xenu). (The website is still up, but I like to tell people, “oh yeah, I’ve been trashed by a notorious space-alien cult. Wanna see?”)
In the case of Violentacrez, his actions led to these consequences. Those of us who have been on the butt end of attention from the cult of Xenu don’t have a lot of sympathy.
As for Gawker, Nick Denton opened up a whole new world of going after “Lyintology” by refusing to take down the 9 minute video of Tom Cruise talking about how he’s such a big Lyintological being–and dared Lyintology to sue. Lyintology didn’t. Since then, the press has had a lot more freedom to expose the cult of greed and power. So I can forgive Gawker quite a bit, and I can’t say I’m unhappy about a guy who was putting up pictures of young women without their permission for purposes of “fapping” getting what’s coming to him.
  +4
[Reply]

KoolThing Reply:
October 21st, 2012 at 3:32 pm
@Alby,
Freedom = slavery!
We’re lucky for the things “they” don’t take away from us.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Think
  +2
[Reply]

Wyrd Reply:
October 21st, 2012 at 3:44 pm
@KoolThing,
Doublethink is doubleplus ungood.
  0
[Reply]

pigs trotters Reply:
October 21st, 2012 at 4:01 pm
@KoolThing,
Greetings from Airstrip One, where we are seeing ol’ George’s imaginings becoming more real every day.
  +1
[Reply]
# 18 October 2012 at 6:45 pm

prequilla said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
a prequel? Lacy, let me tie up the neighbors!
Can’t wait patiently enough, can you?
I am on edge for some saltiness – though I do hope I can be punished for it later.
LOSER!! ::   -4
[Reply]
# 18 October 2012 at 11:50 pm

Wyrd said:
Well that was a good-weird article.
Yeah it seems Gawker and Reddit are both doing a lowest-of-the-low kind of thing.
I,wonder how long it will take the Reddit loyalists to realize the. contradiction between arguing free speech to post inappropriate pictures of girls and getting all mad and censor-y that their biggest leader got outted.
BTW the Gawker sight might be nothing more than a more fact-based version of National Enquirer aimed at hipsters, but that article by Adrian Chen that did the actual outting was pretty good. I wound up reading all of it.
With all those subreddits out there dedicated to niche/not-mainstream topics I wonder if there’s anything covering the evils of cult-indoctrinating scamminess. Probably not since nothing was mentioned. That seems a shame to me.
Also disappointing to read about Hogan endorsing James Ray.
And those articles by J. Ray on HuffPo– man that’s scary. See I’m used to seeing J. Ray only the way he’s presented here as a sick, psychotic cult of personality cult leader guy.
To see samples of him playing article author is scary because it’s seeing him inside his normal person costume. That’s the tamed public part where he could potentially convince me he’s just some normal guy. *awkward shiver*
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
  +4
[Reply]
# 18 October 2012 at 11:55 pm

Yakaru said:
Kind of strange that Rick Calvert somehow forgot to add a link to The Salty Droid or to the post he quoted from. I’m sure he would have done, but he was probably traveling or stuck in an elevator, or got his finger wedged under a hamburger and by the time he got it out he’d forgotten what he wanted to do next….
WINNER!! ::   +10
[Reply]

Alison Reply:
October 19th, 2012 at 7:39 am
@Yakaru,
For someone whose lifeblood is social media, he sure did seem to be away from his email an awful lot. It’s almost as if he didn’t want to address the seriousness of the issues SD brought up. I feel certain I’m mistaken regarding his motivations, though.
WINNER!! ::   +7
[Reply]

Yakaru Reply:
October 19th, 2012 at 4:37 pm
@Alison,
Yes…. He acts as if he thinks the most serious issue is Salty’s bad language, but I don’t think he’s that stupid.
  +5
[Reply]

G. Reply:
October 23rd, 2012 at 3:46 am
@Yakaru,
He’s stupider.
But in a non-obvious way. It’s like the guy who steals your wallet when there are only two of you in the room. He can’t conceive of consequences past his next bite of burrito.
  +4
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 2:04 am
@Yakaru ::
Yet on the first comment I left over there … he found the time to disable the commentluv plugin and delete the link to my site in the name field. Because Rick’s read so much of this site that he obviously understands how important SEO is to my keynote success. SEO is HUGE :: like a second mother to me … everything I do I do for SEO because SEO is #1 forever!
@Alison ::
I thought it was really awesome of Rick to print an email of mine where I was inquiring about things related to your ongoing situation … without first asking me how that might impact on said ongoing situation. I’m sure he felt that it was the only fair and “objective” thing he could do after everything he’s done {gotcha style} to help expose the Naomi problem :: which festered for too long unremarked until Rick Calvert bravely went there with his conversation starting … consequences be damned.
Are we being sarcastic right now?
[Reply]
# 19 October 2012 at 7:27 am

Omri Shabat said:
Poetic justice- James Arthur Ray once hang with a big dude wrestler and today he is probably wrestling with many big dudes.
  +1
[Reply]
# 19 October 2012 at 9:47 am

Sundog said:
Waitwaitwait…you’re kidding about Andy inviting you to his wedding….right? He couldn’t…
  +3
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 1:08 am
@Sundog ::
If he had … this post would have been much funnier.
I could have sat with John Reese :: cause I hear he’s a big fan of mine … or is it that he pisses his bed in fear of my fearsome macbook typing? It’s one of those … and we could have sat together for fun and profit either way.
[Reply]
# 19 October 2012 at 11:03 am

Deuce Monkey said:
Damnit Salty, I’ll never get that awful image of Hulk’s ass out of my head.
  +2
[Reply]

Yakaru Reply:
October 19th, 2012 at 4:46 pm
@Deuce Monkey,
The quickest remedy for that would be to watch James Ray interviewing him, but I don’t think you’d want to do that either. At least Hulk’s butt looks kinda human.
  +4
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 2:24 am
@Deuce Monkey ::
Maybe you should go over to Etsy and have it cross stitched on a tote bag?
[Reply]

Elaine B. Reply:
October 26th, 2012 at 1:39 pm
@SD, Regretsy material.
  +1
[Reply]
# 19 October 2012 at 2:48 pm

Mason Ryan said:
Great read….You really shed light on the Hogan sex tape leak situation!
  -2
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 19th, 2012 at 4:36 pm
@Mason Ryan ::
Oh did I?
I hadn’t noticed.
[Reply]
# 19 October 2012 at 4:30 pm

Karen Friesecke said:
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
As tasteless as Violentacerz stuff was, nobody has to look at it if they don’t want to.I didn’t even know about that guy until just a few days ago. I don’t care what people kind of pictures people post, as long as a human or animal isn’t being hurt and it isn’t kiddie porn, post away!!
I’n my opinion, Gawker posts a lot of tasteless stuff, so wasn’t doxing Violentacerz like the pot calling the kettle black? They only did it because of that CNN piece and it got them a lot of press.
LOSER!! ::   -4
[Reply]

Dolly Dox Redux Reply:
October 20th, 2012 at 9:10 am
@Karen Friesecke,
Karen, sorry but I have to (perhaps ironically anonymously) disagree. I might agree with you if it was just people that were posting their own images but [IM buzzword alert] ‘curating’ other peoples’ images changes their context. It also relies on the poster (ie Violentacerz) being trusted to judge their legality and whether anyone’s being harmed.
He also supposedly posted images of dead teenage girls – if the right to free expression comes down to this we’re all fucked whatever the outcome.
I’ve tried to avoid the obvious ‘what if it was your daughter’ question as that perhaps doesn’t help but its hard to do. I hope that no family member of any of the dead girls know about the Reddit posts.
As an aside, I’m not a fan of heavy handed copyright enforcement but who owns the rights to these images. I haven’t tried to look as basically I really don’t want to, but imagine they must come from official police etc sources – are they copyright free? If not I would have no issue with Reddit getting some legal attention.
I hadn’t heard of Gawker before so don’t know anything about them – only came across this story on their site due to a tweet from the rather lovely Lauren Laverne (Communist BBC Radio 6). No point in mentioning that but worth a listen.
Anyway, off to try to not think about this.
  +6
[Reply]

Karen Friesecke Reply:
October 21st, 2012 at 11:50 pm
@Dolly Dox Redux,
We can discuss copyright and ethics ’till the cows come home, I’m just not a fan of doxing unless someone is doing illegal stuff.
Two years back, I personally caught a troll red handed. This person did not like something that I wrote about the pet blog world and was doing their best to say all kinds of nasty things about me, in private on Facebook, and left very nasty anon comments on my blog.
Through a little detective work on my own, and friends sending me scuttle butt, I found out who this person was and discovered that they made their living in the pet industry. If I would have doxed my troll, it probably would have seriously impaired that persons ability to make a living. Did I want to out that person? Hell yes! Would it have made me feel superior that I caught my troll? Sure. In the long run would I have felt good for ruining someone’s life over some nasty words left anonymously on my blog? No. Revenge is fun, but sometimes living with the consequences isn’t.
So instead, in a few private email conversations & told my troll to lay off the bullshit or things might not end on a happy note. My troll apologized, the drama stopped and life quietly went on for both us. Despite my dim view of “people” , I guess I’m really a second chance kind of girl.
  +5
[Reply]

G. Reply:
October 23rd, 2012 at 4:03 am
@Karen Friesecke,
I think only two type of people are as “forgiving” as you. One of them are the saintly Ghandi types. I have highest respect for them as they are like magicians to me. The other are people who are dirty themselves in some (or more) ways and scared to be exposed themselves.
A guy posting pictures of dead little girls?
Are you fucking kidding me?
For my money doxing and losing his job is getting away lightly for that piece of shit. And I can’t say I have any respect for you, given your views on the matter, or any hope that you are Ghandi like either.
  -2
[Reply]

Karen Friesecke Reply:
October 23rd, 2012 at 11:03 am
@G.,
Hey, I’m not advocating what that guy did, I just gave my own personal anecdote about my own doxing experience and when it came down to pulling the trigger, I wouldn’t/couldn’t do it. Am I trying to break my arm patting myself on the back for being a “good” person? No. Maybe when it came down to the brass tacks, I was just a big pussy. I just didn’t feel right about outing someone because they pissed me off with words I didn’t like.
Was Violentacrez a total vile piece of shit? Sure. But when did Gawker become the morality police? They have pictures of Kate Middleton’s tits on their blog. I just find this whole situation ironic. One dirt bag outing the other.
I also find it ironic that the only people that have replied to my comments have done so anonymously. I have no secrets, well okay, I do like to drink pickle juice when nobody is looking.(I know, gross, but I’m trying to get help for my addiction) In fact, I’m pretty boring. The only thing I am pretty ardent about is using my real name to post comments on other’s people’s blogs. Don’t like what I have to say? Fine. Just have the courtesy to use your real name.
  0
[Reply]

Dolly Reply:
October 23rd, 2012 at 6:26 pm
@Karen Friesecke,
I don’t particularly want to get in a ding dong with you (that’s probably not a good phrase) but just didn’t agree with your comments that people should just post what they want. This is slightly different to the doxing issue which I’m probably closer to you on. I do though find it hard to care about that happening in this case, especially given his apparent revelling in his albeit limited celebrity at meetups etc. But if honest mostly due to what he was doing. Intellectually weak perhaps but c’est la vie.
There is the slim chance that this doxing might cause others to consider what they say or post online. While this may not be the most healthy deterrent to people posting images of women getting beaten up or of dead teenage girls for entertainment (i.e. having a sliver of a soul and a glimmer of empathy would be nice), anything’s better than nothing.
I do believe in the right to privacy, online or not, which also includes the rights of those people, dead or not, whose images were posted by Violentacerz.
I was aware of the irony but just don’t understand why commenting anonymously is in itself discourteous.
  +5

Lanna Oberammergau Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 12:20 am
@Karen Friesecke,
I’ve been hesitant to jump into this conversation because my viewpoints are complicated – and perhaps hypocritical.
I agree with SD doxing people who come here and try to inflict pain or influence opinions without admitting their involvement – Internet Marketers, PR or law firm employees, Tim Brownson. But I myself do not want to be doxed. And I’m not sure doxing was the right response to Violentacrez. I think the right response would’ve been for Reddit to censor him way back when.
I read the entire Gawker article, and I followed the links and read Chen’s previous articles about Violentacrez and his subreddits. I wanted an answer to the question “Who made Adrian Chen the Reddit police?” But that’s so close to the questions n00bs and trolls ask here. “Who made SD the MMO police? Why does this guy care so much about those assholes?” It’s easy to assume there’s some sort of personal vendetta driving it, rather than a professional interest, whether as a journalist or an activist.
Chen writes that he had not planned to confront Brutsch (yet?). So perhaps when Brutsch started offering bribes, Chen felt that the only way to maintain his journalistic integrity was to go ahead and publish Brutsch’s name. I still think it’s a dick move to dox a guy over his Internet behavior knowing that it will cost him his IRL job – and health insurance for his disabled wife. We are able to separate our IRL behavior into personal and professional buckets; why not the same online?
And why do the names on our government-issued ID trump the names we choose for ourselves online? What magick do these “true names” hold over us? In the infinitely, permanently archived and searchable online world, doesn’t it make sense to separate our job-application names from comments that show our viewpoints frozen at a particular moment in time? Isn’t this why doxed individuals continue to use their handles? And how “anonymous” are the commenters who use handles here but link to websites with their IRL names?
What twisted logic led Gawker to show us Violentacrez and insist this creature is called Michael Brutsch while simultaneously showing us Terry Bollea’s naked ass and saying this creature is called Hulk Hogan?
  +3

G. Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 3:02 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Karen Friesecke,
Uh…I see you are also retarded. I have used my real name, and my website domain IS my real name and it’s all linked on my reply.
Then again stupidity does go hand in hand with lack of ethics. So far you are 2 for 2 on that count.
And you DID defend the shitbag that posted pics of little girls.
You said:
I don’t care what people kind of pictures people post, as long as a human or animal isn’t being hurt and it isn’t kiddie porn, post away!!
So it’s ok for him to post a picture of your dead little daughter and say he wants to wank over it? Because that is what you are saying essentially. It sure as shit is not ok with me and I don’t care HOW he gets stopped or by who. If gawker does it by “outing him” when he’s one of their own, I see it as one drug pusher getting killed by another drug pusher. No tears shed here.
You remind me of Rick Calvert with all your “justifications”.
LOSER!! ::   -10

SD Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 3:30 am
Good points anonymous person that I’ll call @Lanna even though we now know each other IRL.
@Karen Friesecke ::
I actually think we’re all saying mostly the same thing here. Your story about not doxing your troll is just why trolls don’t usually need to be doxed. 99/100 of times I catch a troll … they agree to fuck off in exchange for me not attaching their real names to their shameful actions here … and the problem is solved before it ever really becomes a problem.
Trolling is not meaningful speech … it’s a distraction and obstacle to meaningful speech.
It was on Alexis Ohanian and the other honchos at Reddit to do something about this bullshit long before the knownothing losers at CNN noticed it. Anyone caught ceding the moral high ground to CNN should spend a month in Tibet doing some serious self-reflection.
Gawker doxing another site’s trolls :: while constantly bathing in their own version of useless filth … risked opening a hypocrite black hole with the power to eat the whole Earth.
Reddit mods blocking Gawker in the name of free speech … was the cherry on top of the hypocrite black hole sundae.
The whole thing is just weak balls … and bodes ill for the current state {and future} of free speech on the web. The only positive I can see is that someone is called “Bubba the Love Sponge” … that I support unconditionally.

Wyrd Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 8:02 am
@everyone in discussion,
One side-positive I see from all this is that so far, I haven’t heard any push for additional laws regarding what Violentacrez did or what Gawker did.
(Btw, Folks, this is a little like what lawlessness would look like–two or more non-neutral parties each trying to get revenge on the other for past real or perceived wrongs done to them and no recourse to a higher authority to restore order and a peanut gallery of spectators debating about which party was more wrong.)
But of course the free speech situation isn’t actually one of lawlessness. There are, in fact, many kinds of things you can’t say with impunity. Part of the draw of saltydroid for me is to watch someone expertly use the rules of permisable free speech to make important points that matter.
Violentacrez, and more troublingly his band of followrs, of course, weren’t doing any of that. And for the most part neither is Gawker.
They can snarl and snark on each other till the cows come home. I’m just glad, AFAIK, neither Reddit nor Gawker has tried for some sort of Internet-precedent-setting legal action against the other.
Free speech is way more important than the vile crap that arch troll Violentacrez did or the awfulness of Reddit allowing it or the tabliod-style rag crap that Gawker trades in.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
  +2

Karen Friesecke Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 11:45 am
@G, I fully accept your criticism of me being a retard. I bow my retard head in retard shame, I should have looked a little harder.
People are confusing my unemotional statement with me not giving a shit about heinous crap. I’m just trying to look at the bigger picture without emotion getting in the way. If someone is doing stuff on the internet that does not involve the criminal code, no matter how distasteful it is, they are free to do so. Nobody has the right to get on their moral high horse and disregard someone’s privacy simply because it offends their sensibilities.
I am an ardent supporter of privacy. People have different reasons for posting anon and whatever that persons reason is, I respect it without question. Gawker outed Violentacerz because he was a distasteful dirtbag & troll all rolled into one that everyone could hate. They did it for sport and nothing more. What I have a problem with is the real implication of their outing which was that someone has no right to privacy if enough people don’t “like” what they are doing.
What happens when it’s someone that is doing something “good” like Salty? Those horrible IM people tried their best to dox him because they don’t “like” what he says about them. A person without knowledge of the law might have crumbled under the legal saber rattling and went away. I like what Salty does, I have learned a lot about the “interesting” world of IM. It would have been a real shame if someone like him would have been silenced because of a doxing.
Anon for one, anon for all. As long as someone is not doing anything criminal, there are no exceptions.
@Salty Bubba The Love Sponge was on Sirius Satellite radio for a few years with Stern. He’s a pretty fun guy to listen to. If you want to give him a boo, he’s on the radio in Tampa now.
  +4

G. Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 1:46 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Karen Friesecke,
Well, you gained a point back for the bowing in shame, but I think you have me confused with someone who is “getting emotional” over the issue. That doesn’t happen to me pretty much never when it comes to arguments and situations, especially on the net.
Your premises are flawed from the start.
You need to check them. Maybe read Lysander Spooner’s essay on Natural law.
Firstly: A law that is not ethical has no power over me at all.
Secondly: A law is nothing more than a “rule” imposed on the populace by some other human who thought he would know best. Historically, no human tends to be better than another just because he went to get a fancy bit of paper in a University. Especially from an ethical perspective.
So as to your: “If it’s not against the law it’s FINE!” Is…sorry to be repetitive, but…a retarded argument.
It was once “the law” that black people could not sit in the same bus or enter the same locales or use the same beaches as non-black people. But I guess that made it okay huh?
Let me put it another way that maybe will enlighten you. Say a convicted pedophile with violent tendencies, who has been jailed for many years but has now been released as he has spent his time in jail as required by the law, turns up at your front door and tells you that he has been really watching your child and can’t wait to play with him/her very much. Hey, he’s just talking right? It’s his first amendment right, he hasn’t DONE anything…. Are you ok with that? Or say your child has died and he comes to your front door and shows you a picture of the horrific accident it happened in and tells you he masturbates to it every night. That ok with you?
I sure am not ok with it.
I could explain it to you in really simple terms that even you would understand but in order to do that I would have to ask you that we continue this conversation somewhere other than SD’s blog. I promised him I would not express my personal views regarding certain things and I will keep my word. This issue is important I think and I can discuss it with you without continually calling you a retard (if I really must) so let me know. You know where to find me as per my linked site above.
But either way, your argument is seriously flawed on basic logical issues and flawed premises.
LOSER!! ::   -7
[Reply]

Karen Friesecke Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 2:26 pm
@G., Laws change all the time, especially laws that regard human rights. No it was NEVER okay for black people to sit at the back of the bus.
Now that Mr. Pedo expressed his first amendment rights, he gets a free ride in a police car! While I’m not up on pedo laws, I believe that he violated the terms of his parole by being a certain physical distance from a minor(ie. just going up to the house), covertly observing a minor and expressing his desire to have contact with a minor.
I believe that example #2 would be considered harassment, which is a criminal charge, too.
  0
[Reply]

G. Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 3:49 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Karen Friesecke,
Who ever mentioned parole?
He is out. Done his time in full. Who said he observed your child covertly? He did it in the full light of day at the playground you take your child to. It seems you are unable to simply deal with the facts but must “alter” them to fit your views when they become a bit “uncomfortable” because they expose the kind of “thinking” you practice?
As for example 2 would it be better if he did it in the street instead of knocking on your door?
Oh wait…I think I see the problem…none of these things are OK if they AFFECT YOU!
How convenient huh?
You are seriously saying that because he didn’t break the law then he should be allowed to remain anonymous. When he was posting pictures of dead children for his own (and others’) sick entertainment.
I guess it’s a good thing we are not in the 1700s and you don’t have slaves huh? Cause you sure would have hobbled them uppity slaves if they tried to escape right? I mean…it’s the law!
LOSER!! ::   -8

Karen Friesecke Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 5:00 pm
@G
Where is your argument going? You sound like you’re going to blow a gasket, or something…I was simply discussing people’s right to privacy on the internet.
  0

G. Reply:
October 25th, 2012 at 2:28 am
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@SD,
heh, well at least your directness always makes me laugh.
As for the Ad hominem, I maintain my position re formal logic. I think it was clear from what I wrote that the retard comment was given for a merited retarded action and it had no actual value or intent as any kind of “demerit” on the argument Karen was making itself. Probably not clear to anyone but me (and karen!) it seems though, so fine. My point here was simply that the “retard” part was clearly distinct from the rest of the argument and was not in fact a way to try to “distract attention” from her main argument. Weirdly enough, it seems the only people that got that were me and Karen, but whatever, let me make clear once more my retard comment had no bearing at all on her points and if that confuses people, fine, let me dispense with it.
As for my belligerence, well, it’s a matter of taste I guess. I find your own belligerence entertaining, but there ya go :)
As for the topic of free speech being “very complicated”, I guess I don’t see it as complicated at all, I think it’s pretty clear and obvious that your right to free speech (in polite company) ends where it begins to injure the sensibilities of others. Again, in polite company this is generally obvious. Even if your political or religious (or whatever) views differ widely from someone else’s, *when you are being polite* you will tend to keep your mouth shut rather than hurt a stranger’s tiny little brain, no matter how *wrong* you may feel they are. In this respect, free speech is very simple to understand. If you decide to dispense with politeness, well…then anything can happen to you. And sometimes it will. Pretty easy to understand really.
You could also argue as to the validity of any free speech on purely objective merits. This is admittedly a little more complex, but still doable. It would be hard to argue that the “contributions” made by violentacrez had any merit to society and if we are going to say that they need to be allowed anyway becuase otherwise censorship takes over, I would say that is the only valid argument we can really say applies to the case, at which point I return to my original view that, sure…you can say what you want. And if someone takes action as a result of it…oh well.
As for the statement that everyone deserves anonymity, I don’t agree at all. In a perfect world no one would require anonymity. Of course we do not live in such a world, and so some people may require it and it would be a “good thing” for them to have it. Violentacrez was not not such a person, and his outing is instead a “good thing”. Once again, the position is similar to free speech. You can say what you want (and reap the consequences) and you can try and be anonymous (and someone will try and out you). Such is life.
PS: Not sure how your reply button works but it’s non-functioning in some places so I can’t always reply to the right message directly.
LOSER!! ::   -8

Wyrd Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 2:28 pm
@G.,
I think you’re seriously misreading what @Karen Friesecke wrote, and I think you’re seriously misunderstanding her position.
Show me where @Karen Friesecke ever said something like: what Violentacrez did is just fine.
She never said that. She said “he was free to do so”. She never said she agreed with him posting those things or that she condoned him posting those things. I think she’s simply affirming that he has a legal right to do it, and that she believes that he should keep that right.
Surely you’re familiar with the argument that free speech is messy? That, in order to defend the right to free speech, we also have to defend really horrible speech?
I think that’s all @Karen Friesecke was trying to say there.
Her next point was that she didn’t like that Violentacrez was unmasked–that she felt that was some sort of invasion of privacy.
That’s a separate issue from the first, @G.
But I’m guessing maybe you’re point is that, because Violentacrez did those horrible things that he did, he somehow lost his right to privacy and therefore fully deserved his unmasking (and worse).
@G, you said you’re not getting emotional, but the nature of your post feels, to me at least, to have been designed to attempt to elicit a reactionary, emotional (and not a logical) response from the person reading it. Your example with the pedophile on the doorstep is supposed to bring about a strong emotional reaction from the reader because now it’s personal and stuff… and that would be a strong point, probably… except that I feel you’ve almost entirely missed whatever point(s) @Karen Friesecke was actually trying to make.
@G, maybe before you go on pointing out logical fallacies that you believe @Karen Friesecke or others might be making, you should go read up on the fallacy named Ad hominem. Because, um, calling her a retard, is like a perfect example of that particular fallacy.
–
Furry cows moo and decompress.
  0
[Reply]

Kerry Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 3:02 pm
@Wyrd,
why is it okay for violentacrez to use photos of people who did not give permission to do so and in some cases did not give permission for a photo to be taken?
Also, some very interesting thoughts regarding free speech and speech as violence @ http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/eikonoklastes/
  +3

G. Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 4:10 pm
Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.
@Wyrd,
1. You really need to educate yourself a little more. You are using ad hominem wrong. Apart from calling her a retard for doing retarded things and specifing them explicitly, (which could be seen as merely stating the facts and is only arguably possibly considered ad hominem) I have not used any ad hominem attacks. You need to be learning up on that there Latin friend.
Ad hominem is when you try to impugn the character of a person in order to distract onlookers from the fact they are kicking your ass with raw logic. None of that going on here. Her logic is appalling.
2. I have misread nothing. You on the other hand…
3. When basic and simple objective logic does not work to show someone the error of their illogical ways it is because of one of these reasons:
a) the person lacks the basic understanding of logic and is uneducated in the subject matter
b) the argument is deeply complex and contains many fine nuances at the edges of what can be known (not the case here)
c) the person is what I call a “functional retard” that is they may APPEAR to be a normal functioning human, by either by design of a poor education system, bad genes, faulty brain matter or some other unfortunate event, they are actually pretty much INCAPABLE of doing logic because they EMOTE all over the place, like big, juicy, wet sponges of irrational emotion.
In order to educate these unfortunate individuals, (type c) one must use the appropriate tools. If by providing them with enough emotional fodder one can show them they are being complete idiots and hypocrites, they generally take offence and go away sulking or descend into ad hominem attacks, or sometimes go stir crazy I guess, but in general, although they will not be grateful in the least, they will think about spouting the same idiocy around a few seconds longer.
Type a) if mostly free of “functional retardation” can simply be pointed in the direction of some basic texts on formal logic.
Now as to free speech being messy, that’s irrelevant. Messy I assure you is not anything that can ever dissuade me. I have a very simple and very clear position on free speech. I can’t express it here in detail for the reason I gave Karen, but let’s just say I fully and truly do believe in free speech. I also believe you are fully and wholly responsible for all the consequences of your free speech that come your way.
And I do believe there can be and sometimes definitely should be consequences for certain free speech.
Now that I have answered your rather blah objections let me further add that I have been reading this blog for a long time and I am very familiar with your comments. I do not think much of any use for either of us will come from further discourse between us. I have formed an opinion of you over time and I am of the opinion that you simply like to talk (write) a lot of important sounding words and want to be part of the conversation almost at every turn, but in reality, from a couple of years of reading your comments, I feel you have very little substance as a true (IRL to use the net buzzword) human being. I might be wrong of course, but I seriously doubt I will change my opinion of you anytime soon, and I am pretty certain you are similarly unlikely to change your views based on my comments so…don’t get all offended if I tend to ignore you like…a lot.
LOSER!! ::   -10

SD Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 4:48 pm
@G. ::
He’s not using ad hominem wrong …
“Apart from calling her a retard for doing retarded things…”
So your argument is :: “apart from the ad hominem I’m not resorting to ad hominem?” … because there’s a name for that sort of fallacy too. But there’s no need to parse language :: or to get mired in the jargon of rhetoric … because it’s just totally fucking clear that you’re being a dick to Karen.
If you’re going to be a fucking prick :: don’t bother denying it … it’s unbecoming of a prick.
I don’t agree with Karen’s first comment either … but so what? This is very complicated topic … and ALL genuine contributions to the dialog are welcomed by me. So you are welcome to say stupid ass shit like “@Wyrd has little value as a commenter, or as a human being” … and I’m welcome to tell you that your belligerence and ignorance are worth less than nothing to me.

G. Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 4:15 pm
@ Kerry,
thanks for that link. Kinda made me say “halleluja!” And I’m not even religious in any way!
  -1

Karen Friesecke Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 5:04 pm
@Wyrd, Well, I kind of was a retard. It wasn’t very polite of me to say that replying anon to my comments was discourteous now that I think about it. My apologies.
  +2

Wyrd Reply:
October 25th, 2012 at 12:51 am
@Karen Friesecke,
Your humility is commendable and could serve as an example to others.
Possibly to me. Or possibly to others.
  +2

Karen Friesecke Reply:
October 25th, 2012 at 10:35 am
@Wyrd,
I call bullshit on animal welfare orgs. from time to time so I should probably call bullshit on myself when I do something dumb. When I sat down & thought about it, it was pretty dicky thing of me to say when we’re having a discussion about online privacy.
  +2
# 20 October 2012 at 12:38 am
The Troll Who Revealed Freedom of Speech is a Double-Edged Sword said:
[...] freedom of speech advocate, the Salty Droid, has some excellent answer for this conflict: There is no freedom in pure freedom. Your words and actions online can have a [...]
  +6
# 20 October 2012 at 5:09 am

Kerry said:
Another free speech article by the same writer as above, this one is about violentacrez: http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/creepshots-and-the-self-fulfilling-prophecy-of-free-speech/
  +2
[Reply]

SD Reply:
October 24th, 2012 at 5:24 pm
@Kerry ::
… love it!
[Reply]

Dolly Reply:
October 25th, 2012 at 3:31 am
@Kerry,
interesting articles – the conspiracy theorists may enjoy the fact that an Adrian Chen is shown as an Associate Editor for that site who may or may not be linked to the Gawker article.
  0
[Reply]

Kerry Reply:
October 26th, 2012 at 9:55 am
@Dolly,
True. I hadn’t noticed. I follow TNI, but do not follow gawker. I suppose one could see a conspiracy in all this, but TNI isn’t a news outlet. Aaron’s piece is clearly editorial in style, and I believe his argument holds up regardless of any affiliation with gawker.
  +1
[Reply]
# 24 October 2012 at 3:22 pm

Elaine B. said:
Lori and I were just talking about this. Some idiot in facebook decided it would be funny to create a page about the guy who shot his wife and 7 others in a spa. The sicko doxied himself out. Yet it doesn`t matter how many times you report it to facebook, facebook gives you that canned answer… “Sorry but this page doesn`t violate anything.” Yet in that same page people are asking for victim pictures, disrespecting the dead asking for ‘race wars’ to commence, telling commenter they hate ‘white people’ and the like.
Sad to see that nowadays, a tragedy is just a opportunity to victimize the victims further and rejoice.
  +2
[Reply]
# 26 October 2012 at 1:26 pm

SD (author) said:
Death Ray’s whole Youtube page was taken down.
Wows!
That makes me happy … anyone know what happened?
[Reply]

pigs trotters Reply:
January 3rd, 2013 at 4:27 am
@SD,
He’s probably thinking ahead to his release date, cleaning up his visible act to show what a penitent reformed ex-scammer he is, prior to hopping back on the bandwagon and following the Trudeau model.
Or maybe I am just being an irremedial cynic.
  0
[Reply]
# 2 January 2013 at 4:29 pm

Say Something!

{ commentators }

{ subjectories }

Aaron Parkinson Andy Jenkins Angel Valley Anik Singal Anthony Morrison Bill Harris bleep bloop BlogWorld Bob Proctor Boiler Rooms Brad Fallon Brian Clark Chicken Soup for the Soul China Chris Brogan Colleen Conaway Copyblogger copyright credit cards Crystal Cox Cults Dan Kennedy Darren Rowse Dave Navarro David Schirmer David Sipes Dean Graziosi Decor My Eyes Dennis Karganilla DMCA Don Lapre Eben Pagan Ed Dale Ed Magedson Eliot Bernstein Featured Frank Kern Free Speech FTC Gary McCaffrey Get Motivated Google Greg Hartle Harlan Kilstein Headline Herbalife Hope HSBC IM Warfare Internet Marketing Interviews Ivy Capital Jack Canfield James Arthur Ray James Chartrand James Malinchak James Ray Trial Tweets Jeff Johnson Jeff Walker Jennifer Horton Jeremy Johnson Jimmy Davis Joe Vitale John Assaraf Johnny Truant John Raygoza John Reese John Swallow Josh Fredrickson Julian Assange Kajabi Kevin Trudeau Lanny Morton Laura Roeder Lawyers Leonard Coldwell Magic Bullet Maria Andros Mark Fabiani Mark Shurtleff Mark Victor Hansen Matt Bacak Matt Cutts Matt Harward Megan Fredrickson Michael Johnson Michael Martine Michael Savage Michelle Goulet Mike Dillard Mike Filsaime Mike Koenigs minions Mitt Romney MLM Munger Tolles & Olson Naomi Dunford Oprah Pat O'Bryan Paulie Sabol Perry Belcher Peter Diamandis Peter Wink PowerPay Professional Marketing International Prosper PushTraffic PZ Myers Rachael Acklin Randy Garn Rhonda Byrne Rick Calvert Rip-Off Report Robert Hirsch Russell Brunson Ryan Deiss Scams Scamworld Scientology Scribe Sean McAlister Sean Stephenson Secret Millionaire Senen Pousa SEO Sheeple Sonia Simone Stephen Pierce StomperNet Tedd Johnson Tellman Knudson the media The Secret The Syndicate The Tax Club Tim Brownson Tony Alessandra Tony Parinello Tony Robbins Trolls Twitter Utah Video Vorys Sater Seymour and Pease WikiLeaks Yanik Silver