Damon Poeter at PC mag takes a more rational view than Redditt. (Probably 99% of human beings take a more rational view than Redditt.)
This isn’t very complicated. Posting pictures of people without their knowledge is both an invasion of their privacy and a form of outing them to the Internet. Doing so may be protected speech, but it doesn’t mean it’s good speech, or speech that shouldn’t be shamed from the hilltops as an exercise of one’s own free speech. What’s more, Adrian Chen himself didn’t “do anything illegal” by exposing Michael Brutsch (and yes, Redditors didn’t do anything illegal by blocking Gawker links, etc., etc. — the Ferris Wheel can go round and round, but at some point we have to get off and take a stand for something, I think).
If you live by the sword of exposing strangers to ridicule, contempt, and objectification on the Internet, it’s pretty rich when you throw a hissy fit when the other side of that blade swings your way.
Preeeeeecisely.
The last refuge of Violentacrez and his supporters is the claim that upsetting people’s sensitivities via trolling is socially valuable in that it breaks down cultural taboos and pierces the grim veil of political correctness. Perhaps, in some instances. Trolls come in many shapes and forms, some much more aware of the subversive nature of their activities than others, as explained quite well by Whitney Phillips over at The Atlantic.
Well, there’s a difference between rick-rolling someone, disrupting the flow of an online conversation, or even pointing them to goatse, and actively invading people’s privacy IRL. There’s a difference between using anonymity to speak more freely than you otherwise could and using it to bully, smear, and slut shame others.
Well actually there isn’t, not literally. That is, using anonymity to bully, smear, and slut shame others really is using anonymity to speak more freely than you otherwise could. The description fits. That means you have to make the distinction in a different way. You have to point out that “more freely” is not all there is to it; you have to note that “more freely” covers a lot of territory, and not all of it is good or valuable or fair.
I think that distills my thoughts on the matter (which I know certain people will detest *shrug*).
Like in many things moderation is what is important. This level of trolling is completely *IMMODERATE* and is a destructive force.
Can someone please explain to me how a picture of someone is “speech.”
It’s been a little while since I had familiarity with law as it relates to publishing photographs, and since I am not an attorney, usual caveats apply. It was my understanding that if a photograph is used for commercial purposes, the persons identifiable in it must have granted their consent (usually in the form of a model release, for which there may be compensation) OR be a “public figure” OR the setting subject and/or contemporary events make the photograph newsworthy.
It is my understanding that, generally speaking, if a photographer is in a place where he/she has a right be, and the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in a public restroom, then the picture may be published provided it meets one of the exceptions above.
So the blanket statement about “posting pictures of people without their knowledge” is a little off the mark. This is why, for better or worse, we have paparazzi. What they do, as long as they comply with other laws, is legal. It is legal to take, and publish, a picture of your married city council member exiting a motel with his mistress. It is also legal for anyone with a camera to photograph ordinary people in public, within the constraints above, but not necessarily to publish them without permission. it depends on whether the photograph is newsworthy or makes an artistic point. Taking a picture of a sea of scantily-clad bodies on an usually-warm Spring day, but taking a close-up of a bikini-clad sunbather on that same beach, even with her knowledge, probably may not be published as a pin-up poster without her permission (and presumably, compensation). These rights were not well understood by the 70s rock group Kiss when they tried to hide from the fans’ cameras in the mad dash from the limo to the venue, then had their gorillas destroy any shots that were successfully captured.
It is not legal for someone to hide a camera on a boom and take pictures up skirts of unaware (and unwilling) women, but it IS legal, if disgusting and distasteful, to take pictures of Britney Spears flashing her thong as she slides out of her car, or long-distance as she sunbathes topless.
It’s also not legal to use a distortion-correcting lens to photograph a nude ESPN reporter through the peephole of her hotel room, as in that case there is a clear expectation of privacy.
If I have misinterpreted something, I would be delighted to be corrected by an attorney with more knowledge of this subject than me.
I dunno this whole anonymity thing on the internet doesn’t really seem any more different then going outside. The internet is basically just a big collection of virtual strip clubs, stores, bars, sports parks etc.
For example.If I go outside to the park down the streets and tell anyone who asks my name is Rusty Shackleford its pretty much the same as online. I’m going around a public area under a false name a and there’s nothing particularly illegal about that. Nor is there anything really illegal about someone asking around and finding out my real name. Then shouting it loudly the next time they see me or gossiping about it to the other people in the park.
@michaeld
Not really, since people can recognize your face, so whether or not you go by an alias or your real name, there is a core feature of your identity that can be traced to you as an individual.
Cause enough trouble under your alias, then you won’t be allowed based in certain places or able to associate with other people again.
This isn’t the case with online anonymity. Online one can be as venomous or trade in the worst kinds things one can imagine, and largely be insulated from any consequences as an individual.
This is especially true as one can just change “identities” without anything to link them to one another.
TGAP Dad:
Am I correct in assuming you have made a typo with respect to whether people have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public restroom. 🙂
As I noted in another thread, posting people’s pictures without their knowlege or consent is how social media sites like Facebook work, and legitimate news sites, for that matter. Damon Poeter seems to be ignoring this fact to artificially bolster his argument. The issue in the case of Reddit is the **context** of the posting, not that the images were posted. For example, a teenager posts pics of a beach party with friends to Facebook. There is no permission from all of the friends to post them. But that is generally considered ok. The issue of Reddit is when creepy people take those same pictures and post them to the “jailbait” photos forum, or whatever it is/was called on Reddit. That is the creepy part.
The fact that it is the context, not merely the posting of pictures without permission, that is the issue makes this more complicated, but it is a key part of the problem. Because if permission to post photos to the net was the issue then much of the internet would have to be shut down, including a lot of babies with that bathwater. Thus it is important to define the difference between babies and bathwater accurately, and the difference is context not permission.
@6
Technically things are a little more muddled then you put it I could get costume make up or cosmetic surgery in real life. Online people generally leave some electronic finger prints like their IP address online unless they really work on it. Similarly if I act like a total jackass at the local bar or in this forum I could get ejected from the bar by the owner or by Ophelia.
I do agree that like all metaphors there are confounding factors when it comes to real world application. However I don’t think that the ethics around them are particularly different (I will not speak to the legalities). Like that there is some right for me to keep my anonymity on this forum or in my park example.
Scote, you’re comparing a situation of implicit consent (pictures of the party shared among friends) to one of explicit lack of consent (creepshots). It doesn’t do your argument any good.
“the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in a public restroom”
What??? I took some journalism classes and from what I remember you must get a model release unless the is a person is out in the street, walking in a public area. A restroom isn’t out in the street. What could be more private that going to the restroom? Just because it’s a restroom in a public place, it doesn’t make the restroom a place a person can’t expect privacy. Why do they have doors and locks?
But I still don’t understand how a photo of someone is another person’s speech. Men express their speech with women’s bodies?
@Stephanie
The problem is that when pictures are “shared with friends” and it’s publicly available – it wasn’t just shared with friends, it was shared with the internet.
And the internet can do bad, bad things. 🙁
@11
“and the subject has no reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in a public restroom,”
I think the intent is that the restroom is an example of an area with an expectation of privacy.
No, jhendrix, the problem is when people using the internet decide to do non-consensual things with those consensual pictures.
Stephanie,
Here’s what is at the heart of this issue – what you say is true morally, but not legally.
To quote Facebooks Policy
“When you publish content or information using the Public setting, it means that you are allowing everyone, including people off of Facebook, to access and use that information, and to associate it with you (i.e., your name and profile picture).”
Legally, when someone publishes pictures on Facebook (or most other photo websites) publically, it’s fair game for someone to take that photo and use it elsewhere.
This gets worse when someone is out in public, as you can’t prevent others from taking pictures of you, and the person taking the photo owns the photo and can do whatever they want with it.
There’s also the practical problem, even if the content owner could get the pictures removed (if they were found out) from reddit or whatever hosting site legally, the damage is already done.
You couldn’t ban the posting of images, then the perps just pretend to be some user, or just link to the origianl URL of the publicly shared FB/imgur/flickr/etc photo – the effect is the same unfortunately.
No, jhendrix, what is at the heart of this issue is individuals not taking responsibility for what they’re doing. There is no “internet” that does things to people, except in as much as it fails to deliver their packets. These are people who are taking these actions, not some nebulous system where we can’t point to the people who are knowingly acting without someone’s consent.
Let me put it another way. “It wasn’t illegal or nothin'” is not a defense. It is an admission that one needs a defense.
Stephanie,
I don’t disagree that the problem is that people are abusing free speech and doing something morally wrong. I also agree that there isn’t a defense for what they’re doing.
The problem I wasa talking about is at the other end where we want to stop these people from doing this is that we can’t identify them. And we can’t make what they’re doing illegal without stopping other protected activities that we otherwise consider involitale.
This comes down to simple ethics. Ethics 101: Do not harm others except to prevent them from harming others. If a teenage girl poses for a photo or video in a sexual, nude, or otherwise revealing manner, she is not harming anybody. If she sends such content on to her friends, even doing so via social media without using proper privacy settings, she is not harming anyone and does not deserve to be harmed*. However, it is absolutely harmful to her for someone to deliberately share that content with parties other than who she expected to view it. Ergo, the creepers are doing harm to somebody who has not harmed them, and absolutely deserve to be harmed (“doxxed” in this case) to prevent them from continuing to do so. Of course, any harm done must be in compliannce with the laws of society, which effectively set the boundary conditions for these situations. So “doxxing” = okay; hunting down the creepers and burning their house down = not okay.
*Analogously, it is very naive to ride a bicycle without a helmet. However, though it may be prudent to warn somebody of the dangers of doing so, it is NOT okay to push them off their bikes to demonstrate that danger.
Yes, we can identify them if we take the responsibility for doing so. Yes, we can make smart, nuanced laws if that’s the way we decide to go. We can do all sorts of things if we stop spending so much time bullshitting about why we hand-wringingly “can’t”.
Morally is what I’m talking about. Jeezis. Yes, jhendrix and Scote, I’m aware of the Constitution. Thank you. I am not talking about The Law.
Daily reminder to the Internet that reddit inc is a wholly owned subsidiary of Advance Publications, Inc, a multibillion dollar international media corporation. Incidents like these will continue until the parent company is sufficiently embarrassed to make them stop. Perhaps it is time to organize a public shaming of the executives of Advance Publications, Inc. and boycotts of Advance Publications Inc. media properties for allowing this behavior to continue unchecked.
And enough with this “the person taking the photo owns the photo and can do whatever they want with it.” Nu uh. The person can’t give it to a contract killer for the purpose of IDing the victim, for instance. Or set fire to it and stick it up someone’s nose. Or pick a lock with it. Or snort cocaine with it.
Besides, I hate it. It’s bratty toddler talk. Bratty libertarian talk. Bratty bully talk.
I must admit, I’ve yet to see a difference between bratty toddler talk, bratty libertarian talk, and bratty bully talk.
Oh my fucking dog, ya’ll.
Just because one can do something doesn’t mean one should. Nobody has a lick of sense these days. *muttersprofanity*
Also, I googled “goatse.” Fortunately, I did not click any of the links. The description was enough.
Anonymity for a purpose. To fight an oppressive government and not get arrested is understandable.
To hide your identity to because you are showing photos of people who have no power and cannot fight back is another is it not?
This is what I’m saying – what 25, 26, and 27 said.
Not the farking law.
Reddit’s terms of service do not in any way guarantee users’ privacy, and anyone who thinks their privacy is protected when using the internet is an idiot anyway. The only privacy that actually *matters* here is the invaded privacy of women and girls having their images exploited without their consent, which is morally reprehensible regardless of its legality. John Scalzi wrote something particularly clear and scathing on this topic yesterday: I encourage all to read it.
The key idea that deserves attention here is that protection of privacy — even anonymity — has a purpose: Whether legally or morally speaking, that purpose is NOT to protect people from the consequences of their actions. Rather, the purpose is to protect people from unwarranted, unjust negative consequences from morally blameless actions: We ought to protect the anonymity of whistleblowers who expose corruption because they are doing something good that might cause them to suffer bad consequences. We ought to protect the privacy of medical records because it’s good that people feel free to seek medical care (especially mental health care) without fear of social stigma or job loss or other negative consequences. We ought to to protect a sphere of private life from the intrusive monitoring of government because powerful institutions have both the motivation and means to abuse that information in ways too numerous to contemplate.
In contrast, we have no sound moral reason to protect the privacy of creeps who use anonymity as a shield from the negative consequences for their own antisocial behavior. More generally, it is rank moral idiocy to argue that anonymity ought to shield someone from the consequence of morally blameworthy actions.
Free speech (as Scalzi points out) isn’t relevant to this discussion at all in any legal sense: Reddit is a privately owned website, not a government institution or public forum. However, in the broader sense that silencing unpopular opinions can be a form of tyranny of the majority, it is potentially relevant: But even John Stuart Mill, the most ardent and eloquent defender of free speech in this broader sense, never argued that freedom of speech even slightly implied freedom from the consequences of your speech. If your speech reveals you to be a loathsome creep with no respect for other human beings and you suffer the natural consequences — that others loath you, lose respect for you, and shun you — you have no grounds for complaint.
Of course, the speech of Brutsch is not truly minority opinion at all: It is the speech of the powerful, the message of patriarchy and rape culture, the voice of the abuser and oppressor. It would be downright hilarious to watch Brutsch and his fellow travelers claim the role of victimhood in this situation, if only there weren’t so many loathsome idiots willing to accept their claims of victimhood at face value.
Need that comment.
callistacat (#3) says:
What? You’ve never heard that a picture is worth a thousand words? Kidding aside, a photo of a scene is comparable to a description of a scene in words.
Suppose, hypothetically, someone posted a picture of Mitt Romney beating one of his employees or a picture of Paul Ryan in an BSDM club. How would a photo of each be different from reporting both events in words? To me, the difference is that the photo is irrefutable, words can be. Both are still speech.
If you want a real events and not a hypothetical, how about Antonin “Scum Liar” Scalia? He was photographed making an obscene gesture to a photographer as he took a picture. Is posting that photo online free speech? Most certainly it is, the photo was taken in a public place and Scalia knew the camera was there as he directed the gesture AT the photographer. He had absolutely no expectation of privacy.
But being the Scum Liar and moral coward that he is, Scalia used his influence to have the photographer fired and blackballed.
http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2006/03/how_do_you_solve_the_problem_of_scalia.html
callistacat – “speech” is more general than just the words that come out of people’s mouth. Images can be “speech” in this sense. Posters or placards with pictures of people’s faces on can make a political statement if the person is a dissident or other figure that the state does not approve of, for example.