Fun fact: these two douchebags knowingly allowed scumbag violentacrez/Michael Brutsch to create subreddits like r/jailbait, r/n*ggerjailbait, r/rapingwomen, r/beatingwomen, etc. and fill them with child pornography and horrifyingly violent, racist, and misogynistic material. Brutsch brought Reddit a ton of traffic in its early days. Reddit eventually got bigger, but all the pedophiles and assorted other scumbags remained on the site. It was only after intense public pressure and a media campaign that Reddit agreed to take down r/jailbait and other child porn subreddits. Brutsch was also involved in moderating r/creepshots, which was also the subject of much controversy a few months ago.
Look at these smiling motherfuckers. Erik Martin and Alexis Ohanian got their start with the degradation and exploitation of children and women (and these things still exist on Reddit—the administrators refuse to remove anything unless forced). Yet media outlets continue to write laudatory pieces about them and their terrible website. Fuck the whole lot of them.
This is a very good essay that doesn’t just dismiss free speech arguments defending creepshots as irrelevant (since Reddit is a private company), but examines the cultural context of such arguments. The invocation of the free speech argument is essentially an attempt to legitimize creepshots in our culture, to normalize predatory behavior by men. Those who invoke free speech rights to defend Michael Brutsch and other creeps are essentially telling us they think the rights of creepy men outweigh the rights of the women they prey on.
Why should we value the freedom of men to take suggestive pictures of women without their consent more than the freedom of women to go out in public without having such pictures of them taken? Why are these men’s rights and freedoms automatically more important than the rights and freedoms of women?