Americans are confused. No, I am not a communist or a self-loathing civilian, but it is the truth, and Americans are confused on an issue that cannot be ignored: The First Amendment. The First Amendment protects free speech from government action, not privatized company action. About two weeks ago, Reddit, the self-proclaimed “front page of the Internet,” an online forum driven by user participation, edited their site following a report from the news blog Gawker. Gawker outed an infamous Redditor (online lingo for Reddit users), posting under the handle Violentacrez, who gained his notoriety from his tendencies to start forums based around the uploading of child pornography, misogyny and violence. Instantly, Internet users demanded an explanation regarding Reddit’s violation of the First Amendment. The only problem is that Reddit is privately owned and capable of silencing whomever it pleases.
When there is public outcry over a company rejecting an opinion and silencing an opposing view, the ignorant criers are the ones who need to be silenced. Instead, the cry should be pointed in a different direction; people should ask where private companies cross the line and go from moderating their material to sterilizing it.
Reddit prides itself on anonymity, allowing users to freely post the sick, demented, yet most of the time funny and/or newsworthy thoughts that pop into their heads. Redditors, including staffers, exploded with anger over the violation of this ideal of anonymity. In their minds, Gawker broke the most important rule: respect the sanctity of anonymity. To many, Gawker crossed the line by revealing Violentacrez’s identity, effectively censoring the material he is willing to publish and turning him into a martyr for free speech on the Internet. But bloggers, racist or tolerant, Republican or Democrat, dog lovers or cat lovers, need to realize that there is no such thing as a black ski mask on the Internet. Post at your own risk. I mean, c’mon. Who really believes that they can remain anonymous on the Internet? By now, anyone who can lift their head has experienced the Internet in one way or another. Over 50 percent of the United States population has a Facebook account. That’s more than the NPR reported percentage of Americans that consider themselves religious. Americans are more connected to Facebook than faith.
America’s digital footprint is incredible. It is so large that it would be ludicrous to think that if you infuriate entire communities, not one person will follow your trail and expose you. The question must be asked if it is ethical to expose someone who explicitly states their desire to remain masked. Also, when does it become excusable to break the rules of a private website, like Reddit’s, that encourages and protects anonymity among its users? More than federal law, Gawker broke web-culture code, which is arguably more significant than the former in today’s society.
Web culture is becoming so powerful that it is beginning to undermine United States law. Until news broke of Violentacrez’s true identity and people erupted as if a war hero had been brutally murdered along with a box of kittens, Reddit had allowed child pornography to run rampant throughout the website. Child pornography is an offense that can get you shunned faster than if you killed a man in cold blood (looking at you, Ray Lewis). Just weeks ago, it could be found within seconds on a website that had over 40 million unique visitors last month alone. Yet the law has not touched the website.
The line of censorship in my mind must be drawn near the “yelling fire in a crowded theater” principal. Violentacrez’s child pornography ring should have been shut down immediately and Reddit dropped the ball on that one. But if behavior on the Internet is not bringing harm to other individuals, I say let it happen. Let the information grow and let opinions be heard. Until they start causing trouble, how can one interest group silence another in good conscience?
Violentacrez, in all of his twisted glory, exemplified what the Internet has become: a place to speak and act freely. But he must be prepared to deal with the consequences of his actions. If someone calls his views into question and can follow his trail of crumbs, they have the right to expose him. Anyone making remarks and posting photos that carry that kind of weight should be able to stand by their opinions in the public light as well as in the shadows of cowardice.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
