Trolling Doesn't Pay

Justin Hutchings is an example of the law of unintended consequences.

He's been fired from his job with a London, Ont., clothing store after posting an intentionally cruel comment on a Facebook page dedicated to Amanda Todd, the Vancouver-area teen who killed herself after years of bullying in school and cyberspace.

According to the Toronto Star, Calgary mother Christine Claveau spotted Hutchings' post — "Thank God this bitch is dead" — and emailed his employer, Mr. Big & Tall Menswear, to complain.

"Our company ethics are based on tolerance, respect and fair and honourable treatment of all individuals, internally, with our customers and the population as a whole," Kamy Scarlett, senior vice-president store operations and corporate human resources of the store's parent company, Grafton-Fraser Inc., told the Star.

Claveau said she didn't intend for Hutchings to be fired but then again he probably didn't intend it either when he gratuitously insulted a dead girl he'd never met and poured salt in her family's open wound.

Hutchings' reaction to his outing wasn't contrition; it was rationalization.

He was just trying to "stir up the pot," Hutchings told the Star.

"It was more or less a social experiment than anything. Just to see if I could put the most blasphemous thing on there," he said.

Well, you win, man. Your prize is a pink slip.

"I did this because if there was so much caring and so much emphasis on the fact that people actually care now that she's dead, then how come society didn't step in when she was alive?" Hutchings explained.

That's an excellent point. Why not just say that? Expressing joy at Todd's death perhaps was a little to hard for most of us to grasp as your critique of the hypocrisy of society.

But I'm not sure I buy the explanation, anyway. It's more likely Hutchings was part of that large community of Internet trolls who enjoy trying to get a rise out of people.

Well, it worked, but he forgot the first rule of trolling: Ya gotta stay on the down-low, dude! Most trolls post anonymously.

But it turns out even that's no guarantee your nastiness won't come back to bite you. Just ask Michael Brutsch. The Texas financial services employee was fired after an article on Gawker.com exposed him as "the biggest troll on the web."

Brutsch, who lives in Arlington, Tex., posted on the popular site Reddit under the handle Violentacrez. According to Gawker's Adrian Chen, he was catholic (here meaning universal and comprehensive) in his range of targets.

"If you are capable of being offended, Brutsch has almost certainly done something that would offend you, then did his best to rub your face in it," Chen wrote, as noted in an article on the outing on Salon.com.

"His speciality is distributing images of scantily-clad underage girls, but as Violentacrez he also issued an unending fountain of racism, porn, gore, misogyny, incest, and exotic abominations yet unnamed, all on the sprawling online community Reddit. At the time I called Brutsch, his latest project was moderating a new section of Reddit where users posted covert photos they had taken of women in public, usually close-ups of their asses or breasts, for a voyeuristic sexual thrill. It was called 'Creepshots.' "

Chen's investigation revealed Violentcrez to be a 49-year-old programmer with a disabled wife. After trying to persuade Chen not to expose him — even offering to become Chen's "sockpuppet" as a mole on Reddit — Brutsch posted the news himself on Reddit under his own name.

It not only cost him his job but also the health insurance he and his wife needed.

See, there's those unintended consequences again.

Brutsch's outing sparked a fierce debate on the web, according to Salon, on whether Chen had broken the "Internet code" by publishing personal information about a troll who was doing nothing illegal, however despicable it might have been.

In the end, though, Brutsch took responsibility for his activities and their consequences.

"As for deserving it, VA [Violentacrez] did go out of his way to make people mad, even if it was only on the internet," he wrote on his Reddit post, according to Salon. "I really have no one to blame but myself."

malkav11 said:
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it is appropriate for employers to be disciplining or firing employees based on things they do in their private life, at least provided those things are legal and do not affect their work performance. Even when it's reprehensible shit like that mentioned in the article.

malkav11 said:
I'm uncomfortable with the idea that it is appropriate for employers to be disciplining or firing employees based on things they do in their private life, at least provided those things are legal and do not affect their work performance. Even when it's reprehensible shit like that mentioned in the article.

Coyotemike said:

In both of these cases, keeping the trolls on staff could have hurt their businesses. I certainly wouldn't want to do business with either company, knowing that I could be in contact with that person.

cpkz said:

In the first case, 100%. The guy was using his real name to insult people. He may have of had his place of employment listed, and even if not, his acquaintances could certainly know where he worked and link that behavior to the store.

The second account, the guy deserved it... but would his name had ever gotten out if it weren't for an investigation? Would it ever come to light that he was a notorious asshole?

These two cases, along with a few other high-profile cases of massive assholes (such as the teacher who posted that he hoped Gays would all get AIDS and die) make it easy to say "Yeah, a company should do that!"

But it is a slippery slope. We already know that potential employers are looking at people's public profiles, and in some cases demanding to have the passwords to access private information. What's stopping Chik-fil-A, or other conservative based operations, from scanning out "Sinners" or evil "liberals." Whats stopping the Koch brothers, who are already trying to push their employees to voting Republican (and they are far from the only company to do that) to using Facebook for further intimidation?

Again, the assholes mentioned in the article deserved what they got coming. But currently, this isn't some form of Karma just kicking the trolls... its effecting all of us.

"In a phone conversation, Brutsch admitted to being the Reddit user named Violentacrez, who created or moderated sections dedicated to pornographic and violent images, including subreddits called r/rapebait, r/incest, r/picsofdeadkids, r/jailbait, and r/chokeabitch."

Coyotemike said:
I am really uncomfortable with this whole "freedom from consequences" idea that has become very popular in the last while. Think back to the Rush Limbaugh/Sandra Fluke thing. He said horrible, and horribly incorrect, things about someone. Limbaugh himself cannot be touched by boycotts; he produces no product, and those who would stop listening to him don't listen to him anyway. So, people boycotted companies that paid for ads on his show. Limbaugh's defenders said "boycotts are infringing on Rush's freedom of speech." Which, of course, was not true.

Now, I can only comment on the Reddit guy because the other one is Canadian and I don't know the laws up there. But, down here, freedom of speech really means "Freedom from imprisonment/prosecution/arrest because of speech." It is protection from the government interfering with citizens' right to criticize the government.

It does not, however, protect people from the consequences of their speech. Look at SG as an example. We all come here and say all sorts of things, usually about boobs. But, when someone goes too far, says certain things, their statements can be erased and they can be removed from the site (no refund). And it is perfectly legal.

Private citizens and private companies simply do not have the ability to interfere with someone's freedom of speech. Nobody is required to provide anyone else with a platform from which to pontificate their ideas.

Now, as to making their names public. The Canadian idiot did that himself; he used his own name on his own facebook account, which listed his employer as well. No brainer there. As to the other guy, that comes up against the Freedom of the Press. Trolls act in the public sphere; they put themselves out there, entering into the public discussion, voluntarily. Nobody forced them. It is the chance each of us take everything we step out the front door: that we're going to do something stupid and it ends up on the evening news.

mydogfarted said:

I'm curious to see if Brutsch has grounds for a suit against Gawker and Chen, since outing him has caused him financial harm.

motorfirebox said:
Based on my comprehensive and unassailable knowledge of law stuff, it seems like Brutsch's only shot might be publication of private facts. He'd have to prove that his identity isn't newsworthy, though, and I don't think that's going to sell very well.

Clidna said:
Exactly. Most places of employment have guidelines regarding the use of social media, particularly if the person works with the public. I'm in banking, and I can't very well be giving people advice on their investments and debt, and running around being an complete asshole publicly on the internet. If I was walking up to people on the street being an asshole, and they complained to my boss, is that any different? My actions shouldn't put the company in a position of potentially losing money or clients, unless it's something protected (ie. if I was speaking out publicly for LGBT rights, or something to that effect).

malkav11 said:

It's perfectly appropriate for employers to have guidelines about their employees use of social media while on the job or representing their employer. If you were providing incorrect or inappropriate banking advice online (or in person), I think that could fairly be construed as representing your employer in your case. I don't think it's appropriate for them to take action based on things you do (even if they're inappropriate or offensive) in your capacity as a private citizen, even if those things occur in the public sphere (on or offline).

There's a reason that I don't talk very much about the work I do online, and it's because I don't want to give the impression that I am speaking (or rather, writing) on behalf of my employer or that they are in any way supporting my views or beliefs.

malkav11 said:

It's perfectly appropriate for employers to have guidelines about their employees use of social media while on the job or representing their employer. If you were providing incorrect or inappropriate banking advice online (or in person), I think that could fairly be construed as representing your employer in your case. I don't think it's appropriate for them to take action based on things you do (even if they're inappropriate or offensive) in your capacity as a private citizen, even if those things occur in the public sphere (on or offline).
.

You may be fired for being ugly, a Republican, right handed, wear too little make-up, or the boss woke up in a bad mood and wants to fire someone. So posting that you are glad that someone died or a 15 year old in a swimsuit is at your own risk.