Internet and Responsibility: A New-ish Moral Conundrum

With the passing of Hurricane Sandy, both in real life and online, a new problem rears its ugly head: the lies spread by anonymous people, and the lifting of their anonymity.

In other words, some jerk maliciously spread lies during the hurricane, thinking he would remain anonymous behind his Twitter handle, @ComfortablySmug.  But someone discovered his real name and wrote about it.  Now the man has quit his job as the campaign manager for a New York congressional candidate and apologized online for his behavior.

Some people think ComfortablySmug should be protected by the First Amendment, and that no one should have outed his name.  Other people want to know why (a reasonable question, in my opinion), and think that ComfortablySmug should be charged for any damage he did.  Either way, the question remains - how do free speech, anonymity  and the Internet go together these days?

I don't have a definite answer to this question.  I know that in some countries, people need anonymity to protect themselves, because their government would arrest or persecute them for dissenting beliefs, thoughts, or ideas.  Even in the U.S., a person who lives outside the societal norm might want or need anonymity to protect their job or reputation.

For instance, ViolentAcrez was a Reddit user who likes looking at very young woman (16 or 17), likes incest,  promotes violence against women, and made a name for himself as a creepy old man Internet troll.  A journalist for Gawker figured out that ViolentAcrez is really Michael Brutsch, a 49-year-old software programmer in Texas with kids.  Since being outed, Mr. Brutsch lost his job.

Now, I personally think that Michael Brutsch deserves whatever he gets, because he spent a lot of time combing through Facebook and other places to find pictures of teenage girls and then repost them without getting permission.  He also started a subreddits called Rapebait, Choke a Bitch, Rape Jokes, and Pics of Dead Kids.

But after Gawker outed Brutsch, several Reddit users called foul, claiming that somehow Brutsch's activities fell under Free Speech.  Well, if Brutsch is covered by Free Speech, so is the article outing him.

Yet, ViolentAcrez and ComfortablySmug are the extreme cases of a person using the anonymity provided by the Internet in a way to do harm.  What about the moderate cases?  What if someone wants to complain about a boss at work, but doesn't want to get fired?  What is a student doesn't like a teacher, but feels scared to air his or her feelings?

When does being anonymous help a person and/or society, and when does it allow for criminals and miscreants to do harm?

(BTW, you can watch CNN interview Michael Brutsch here.)

Responsibility in Society

As with drinking and driving, our society in general has drifted from individual responsibility to passing the buck of responsibility to whoever is least able to defend themselves against the accusations.  And by "least able to defend themselves" I mean poor people, immigrants, and anyone else who the legal system treats unfairly.

The trend starts in childhood. Children are not held responsible for their own behaviors.  When a child earns a bad grade in school, parents ask the teacher why she gave their child a bad grade.  When a child performs poorly in a sporting event, the parents' blaming encompasses the other teammates, the other parents, and the coaches, but not once do they even consider that maybe their little ray of sunshine just needs more practice.

On the flip side, a good grade or good behavior report from a child causes the parents to claim credit for "doing a good job".  Either way, the child never gets credit (or censor) for grades or behavior.

As a child grows up, the parents remove more and more responsibility from a child and assume it themselves.  Parents watch over homework, pre-grading papers to find and fix any errors.  Teenagers have no real privacy, as their parents track them through GPS on cell phones and stalking the kids' social media.  These trends continue through college, with professors getting phone calls about "failing"  poor students.  I even read an article about parents submitting resumes and attending job interviews with their children!

When will this generation ever learn to be responsible for themselves?

The young adult generation shows the damages of this type of child-rearing.  I hear people complain about cops who give them tickets (driving 15 mph over the speed limit notwithstanding).  It's the boss' fault if someone gets fired - not the fact that the person spent 4-5 hours a day texting and perusing social media.  (Note:  If you have to hide your cell phone from either coworkers or your boss when they want to see you, you might be messaging or using FB too much.)

While no one wants to admit to a mistake, no one is perfect.  Therefore, everyone makes a mistake.  But instead of owning up to a mistake and moving forward, it feels as though a vast number of people refuse to own up to their actions, steadfastly blaming everyone but themselves.

I know that the answer for future generations starts with parents who let their children assume responsibility for their own lives.  But I struggle with how to help the intermediate generations, the ones raised on pedestals.  How do we get these people off their pedestals and back on solid ground?  

The Insanity of the Law for Drinking and Driving

A while back, I read a news article about a woman facing jail time for giving her car keys to a drunk man.

The twist in this story?

The woman knew she was too intoxicated to drive, so she asked her boyfriend if he could drive for her.  He said yes, had a car accident, and now she's at fault.  The logic here is that the boyfriend was too drunk to refuse to accept the car keys, so the law holds the other drunk person at fault.  The worse part here is that if the woman had driven her own car and gotten into a car accident, she would be facing less severe penalties.

I wonder if we, as a society, could get more screwed up over drinking and driving.

In my opinion, the problem is that we view the decision of whether to drive or not at the point of departure.  But the real decision point is not after a person drinks, but before.  A person is responsible for arranging transportation to and from a bar (or house or wherever) before that person takes a single drink.  If a person chooses not to make arrangements, then it doesn't matter what the circumstances are afterwards.  It doesn't matter whether a bartender serves them several drinks.  It doesn't matter if that person downs part of a keg.  By not providing for transportation while sober, that person is guilty of drinking and driving.  Period.