1) We are not anonymous on the internet. We may think we are, and it may feel like it sometimes when we hide behind a handle or a burner account. The only difference between shouting on Twitter and standing on a soapbox in the park is that no one can directly see your face.

2) Free speech does not == freedom from consequences. There's an argument for legal repercussions for bullying, but we don't even need to go there for this. It is perfectly within the rights of the school and employer to refuse to associate with these guys. Just because the law says you can say anything doesn't mean nothing bad will happen socially.

3) The justice system is not prepared to handle situations like these. We don't have clear-cut laws outlining the limits of anonymity, cyber-bullying, and doxxing. And until it is prepared to handle these things, we're going to see more cases of vigilante life-ruining. A part of me sympathizes with the father simply for the reason that his only other legal alternatives were to 1) do nothing, or 2) go to the police who would do nothing.

+1 underrated since we don't have a +1 Perfectly Stated.

Yeah, damn. Mechavolt slams it out of the park on that one.

I'm not sure there's anything the state can really do re: #3. Maybe education in the form of "Talk digital shit, get digitally hit." type PSAs. The open nature of the internet doesn't really allow for halfway approach to things because of it's open nature. You can't legally destroy anonymity on the web without locking the whole thing down and you'll still have holes guys like me can slip through. Even in this situation you've only really got what, lewd comments about a minor and maybe harassment or something? It would probably fall more under twitter's responsibilities than the police...

The open nature of the internet doesn't really allow for halfway approach to things because of it's open nature.

I thought it was because of its open nature.

I don't think standing on a soapbox in the park is the same as internet forums or twitter.

Twitter is not just speaking into nothingness like screaming in the park. You scream in the park and people ignore you. They all see your face. You go to internet forums and read twitter because you want to. I don't want to hear a guy standing on a box shouting in a park. :)

I've always felt uncomfortable with limiting speech, or drawing lines between what is considered hate speech and 'regular." Who determines the distinction and why? I found this looking for something addressing the legal and constitutional differences and definitions. Exposing people can be construed as no different than going to their house and stalking them. Or outing a gay person (if you believe homosexuality to be a sin). Which is also a no, no. doxxing is a prickly subject, I think.


#3. People like the fact that they can use the internet to have both a positive and negative impact on peoples lives. It empowers them, and there is something anarchistic/libertarian about being able to bury somebody in social media with no consequence, even though people are starting to not care if you know who they are.

Lastly, a culture of polarity lacking tolerance is what causes vigilante life ruining, cyber bullying, and hate speech. People do it because they can. The technology just reflects what we are.

Should those that generated the emails be doxxed?

http://www.npr.org/blogs/codeswitch/2015/03/04/390725377/here-are-the-racist-emails-ferguson-officials-passed-around

More and more reasons to eschew social media entirley.

Trolling is fine. Directing lewd, hateful comments at a teenage girl while hiding behind a pseudonym is pathetic. "The bravery of being out of range."

And these lonely assclowns were in college; old enough to know better. Fuck 'em.

Hateful comments are fine. Threats of rape are a different ballpark.

All porn stars are someone's sons and daughters, that doesn't mean you should talk about anyone's son or daughter like they are a porn star.
I'm not conflicted here at all (says the person behind a pseudonym) because this is asshole behaviour, and i've lived through experiences of making bad public statements under my real name. As he says in the article, once followed by "i'm an idiot, that was really rude, sorry" would be treated with a different response that this.

"Anonymity is a privilege and not a right" straight from the NSA phrasebook.

Um... where did you get the idea that there's a right to be anonymous?

as a subset of privacy.
As part of government.
Journalistic sources.
Whistle blowing.
Being a member of a jury.

Tests.
Donations.
Opinion pieces.
Research.

Tests? What kind? Medical tests are private, but medical tests aren't the equivalent of being anonymous for everything you do.

Not all donations are anonymous. Some are required to be divulged by law. For political campaigns, I think this is a fine idea.

Opinion pieces? Like posting threats against someone or a group I don't like for whatever reason?

Research has a right to anonymity? In what capacity? That it's being done at all or that you participated? If it's participation, that falls under doctor-patient privilege. Sometimes anonymity is part of making sure the data isn't skewed (the researcher doesn't know who you are or even what you look like), but I doubt this is what you mean.

I really think you're confusing the concept of anonymity with privacy, which are two separate things.

But not mutually exclusive at all.

If you want to discuss individual merits

https://www.eff.org/issues/anonymity
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anonymity

State the issues with much more grace than I can.

Privacy is quite different from anonymity. You have a right to have your voting choice remain secret, but not the fact you actually voted.

Being a journalistic source/whistle blower is different than posting rape threats on the internet, or posting on the internet at all. Being a witness doesn't automatically put you in witness protection.

Being anonymous on a jury is a special case, given review in each instance. For example, if the defendant is part of an organized crime syndicate.

Still- I don't find privacy and anonymity to be mutually exclusive and I think the government is using technology to erode those rights. People are allowed a certain amount of privacy and sometimes that privacy includes the ability to be anonymous.

And I fancy, with all due respect, the burden of proof is upon your position. I'm merely arguing there are cases when someone has the right to be anonymous- especially as it relates to privacy.

I think it relates to what snowden mentioned in his ama- civil progress is often made by people that don't follow rules and people that break the law and I think a little anonyminity is kind of oil on the gears of society. Too much oil is a hazard- but so it none. I'd argue our society would be weaker without it (as perhaps it would be with too much)

That said I have no issues with this kid being doxxed. I'm just saying you can't toss out anonymity as a whole. (Which lets be honest you're not arguing) the position that it's NOT a right but it's still a necessity in our society is a legitimate one.

But I reckon that it's important as it relates to free speech and is kind of like the modern day equivalent of the right to bare arms to prevent government tyranny.

Government surveillance and being able to remain anonymous are also two different things. I think one's shield of anonymity, whatever its source in legal terms, can be rightfully breached if a threat of violence is involved.

I don't think the NSA recording everything we do is at all a good thing, even beyond the constitutional violations it represents. It's a waste of resources, it's obviously doing nothing to make our country safer, and it's been shown to be ripe for abuse. At least the flimsy fig leaf of the FISA courts required some justification for breaching privacy.

From what you typed, I was gathering that you thought anonymity was an absolute. If that's not the case, then I don't think we have a lot to disagree on.

You and I, we are not so different friend.

Mommy...what's a "consequence"?

I'm having trouble seeing the grey area in this one. These guys need to flip burgers and sweep floors until such time as they understand that other people are not to be treated this way. I don't like the thought of any of these subfucks ever becoming someone's boss.

They're for other people who can't get Rhode Island to cough up a $75 million loan that a former baseballer and self-proclaimed Libertarian knows won't be enough to finish work on that guaranteed no-fail money-making enterprise, an MMO.

I have no sympathy for what these people did to his daughter, but I have a hard time finding any sympathy for ol' Kurt himself. He ought to be flipping a few burgers himself at this point.

Doesn't really matter who the father was, the conduct his daughter was subjected to is unacceptable and the father did exactly the right thing.

FYI, the Freudian slip in your second paragraph kind of gives you away.

I'm not saying it does. I just find it difficult to be sympathetic to him as a person.

And what Freudian slip? Does flipping burgers have a meaning other than "working a menial job in fast food"? If so, I'm unaware of it, so you can take your cigar out of my anus, thenkyewveddymuch.

"I have no sympathy for what these people did to his daughter"

You probably meant to express something like "I don't endorse what these people did to his daughter" but what you typed instead is more consistent with the "they deserved it" oeuvre you're working on.

Whatever Schilling's prior history, his response in this case was appropriate and very much needed by the internet in general. You can keep the cigar and any other passing objects that happened to fall in there lately.

How is that in any way Freudian?

And your attempt to frame my comments is about as well-crafted as me assuming that your use of "oeuvre" means you're a French art major.

I imagine because one SHOULD have sympathy for what was done to his daughter. That was a shitty thing to have happen.

You probably meant no sympathy for the bullies for being doxxed. Its not Freudian, its just poor grammar.

Not French, I just really like eggs. Freudian slips don't have to be sexual or have anything to do with your mother. When you're trying to say one thing and you subconsciously mess it up in a way that suggests a different meaning (which Freud asserts implies your true meaning) that's a Freudian slip. Admittedly your slip would have been a more classic example if it had been sexual AND had something to do with your mother.

hmm, i am not a dad, a boy, a young man, or a husband. nice blog, bro.
also, what the fuck did he think was going to happen? i prithee, sir, that i may be so blessed as to come a'courtin your fair maiden upon her social blossoming at salve regina?
idiots, all the way down.

Yeah what an idiot, posting good news from his family on his own twitter feed. Totally asking for it, amirite?

i'm just surprised that he's surprised that this happened.

he's got a public persona which i imagine drives his twitter feed; i'm not sure how much his daughter's relates to his public persona. then again, i dont really understand twitter.

his daughter is the victim, not him. and i do really feel bad for her. i;m not saying any of this is ok, it;s just fascinating and angering to me that (and i am not awake yet, so this is gonna be incoherent) that the female in this situation is being fought over. by men. the blog post is directed only towards men, and not really supportive of the fairer sex except to be protective (ok there;s something in the ps at the end). and he put her in this situation, without thinking about how it might affect her.

He's a Republican.

I thought he was a libertarian.

Except when he needed a bunch of money from the state to pay for his gaming business startup. Then when it failed, he blamed the state for not giving him even more millions.

Well that was a piece of trivia I didn't know. I played KoA for well over 100 hrs, great game. Their open-world MMO did look pretty good, but probably would have fallen victim to the "I'll wait til it goes F2P" crowd anyhow.

Listening to him on the DP show this morning...man. He sounded determined to track each and every one of these people down. You don't fuck with a man ('s daughter) who has a lot of money and little to do.

Are you like, the graham from the other place similarly named?

Does he think these people will do what they tweeted?

who were you on ToS?

Fuck those assholes. I'm glad they finally learned that shit isn't acceptable.

In such cases I'd suggest an alternate strategy. Instead of just all-out doxing the offending trolls- contact them first, address them by name, scare the shit out of them by making it clear that you know who they are etc and are prepared to dox them. I'd wager in most cases they would be appropriately contrite and apologetic. If not, let fly the dox of war.

You're probably correct in that Schilling could have wrung contrition out of these turds privately but I suspect the potential future deterrent value would have been significantly reduced by taking that course of action. I doubt that a brief consequence with complete public deniability would be as effective in modifying the attitude of these turds as a lingering consequence with public accountability.