Chen's writing style is sophomoric, as is the danger of his thesis. I am dismayed that a forum like NPR's Marketplace would allow itself to be trolled [using the most common use of the word] by Chen. I don't defend the Reddit poster's actions. Before this article, I didn't know what a Reddit was, or what many of the poster's actions [repugnant to me] were. However, it is clear the poster Chen outed was creating subreddits -- communities of their own. He was not going into a community and disrupting it by strikingly irrelevant posts. That is the common use of the term "troll", not Chen's usage. What is disturbing about Chen's usage is that: "trolling" seems to be posting anything which offends anyone else, and that the powerful press should create a chilling effect in communities, not just against the thing which offended the would-be journalist, but also against any other speech someone might be nervous about being linked to. The argument is that outing this one poster suggests that any poster can be outed by powerful figures [or would-be powerful ones] in the press. A post someone makes in a subreddit makes little ripples, but an article picked up by Marketplace is much more powerful. In this case, it is a clear case of powerful entities attacking a private citizen in their own interests, which might or might not be the same as the law. Now, let's assume another, more powerful, news organization decides they don't like "church v. state" posts created by prominent but heretofore anonymous clergymen, or decides to out gay politicians, or decides that folks in China or another country who are pro-democracy need to be outed.

Short answer: Chen comes across looking like someone who doesn't understand the importance of anonymity. He also comes off as someone with a creepy "methinks he doth protest too much" interest in the subject matter he covers. He possibly ruined a human's life who was begging him not to out him, who was even offering to delete posts or change his ways. I understand and agree with judging posts which are morally offensive to a person, but Chen drew more attention to those posts than they had before. A good measuring stick for journalism might be: don't create a chilling effect on the freedom to express legal things [some would say: even illegal things in totalitarian states]. Otherwise, you get confused for being against democratic expression. I'd recommend contacting law enforcement if laws are broken, but otherwise not remora-ing onto these stories for self-aggrandizement at the cost of one man's job and possibly life and, more largely, the sense that even I posting here could be outed by Chen or Marketplace and have my life destroyed over comments disagreeable to others but not necessarily illegal. Chen needs to recite "In Germany first they came for the Communists" a hundred times and then get some classes in journalism.

What anonymous internet speakers seem to desire here is consequence-free speech, which is different from "free speech" protected by the Constitution. The First Amendment only means that the government cannot prohibit (or criminalize) most speech. Those who hear your message, however, have always been free to make their own judgments and take their own actions in response. Provocateurs have always risked being marginalized or ostracized. Most people avoid provoking others precisely because they don't want to bear the social cost.

If we consider that this discussion is not about a right to speak, but about whether an individual has a right to negate others' reactions to his speech, it seems less controversal. There may be some decent justifications for internet anonymity, but its value as a tool to avoid social accountability for speech that angers and provokes others seems like an awfully flimsy justification.

Thanks for giving this important topic your time and attention. I have been following this issue (online harassment/trolling) for some time now. It's of particular interest to me as a woman, who uses social media and gets most of my news online. As a reader, I like to be able to engage in social discourse. As a woman, I find that is frequently not open to me online.
Adrian Chen's coverage of Reddit shines a bright light on the topic of free speech, and the privileges and consequences of it. While Michael Brutsch (aka Violentacrez) and Reddit wrap themselves in the cloak of free speech to demand their anonymity, the right to free speech in this country does not provide for a right to anonymity and no consequences for what occurs when you exercise that right. Frankly, Reddit's reaction to Adrian Chen's article just proves that they wish free speech and civil rights for some, but not for all.Where was the concern for civil rights when Redditors were posting photos of innocent and unsuspecting women and children online? And encouraging the sexual stalking of same? What about the rights of citizens to assemble, and travel freely in this country? Is that not a right that we should also have? If we cannot stand in a public place, or use public transportation, without threat of having surreptitious, sexually suggestive photos taken of us and posted online then no we do not have the same civil rights. If we cannot post our thoughts and comments online without having a firestorm of threats posted against us (threatening and/or encouraging sexual assault and violence) then no we do not have the same civil rights, and including that of free speech. When we are objectified and harassed simply for appearing in public, then what difference is there between us and those countries were women and girls are required to wear burkas and travel with male companions for protection - or risk being classified as prostitutes?Reddit has allowed it's website to be a safe haven for the promulgation of hate crimes, and now that they are being exposed they want to shut down the free speech of those who oppose them. This is bigger than Adrian Chen vs. Reddit; this is about civil rights protection for all and not just for privileged white male programmers who sit behind their computers and use fake names s to promote sexual assault of women and children, and violence against blacks, Jews, and any other minority they see fit to hate. The time has come for online trolls like Michael Brutsch to have to face the consequences of their hate crimes.