When Douchebaggery Goes Viral
The Internet is public and forever. But maybe it shouldn't be.
TBogg brings us the delightful tale of a previously unknown man who tweeted some vulgar comments at Sandra Fluke, had them go viral when Fluke retweeted it and TBogg and others reposted the exchange elsewhere, and now is threatening to sue FireDogLake and Google if they don’t take his comments off the Internet.
As most readers know, the Internet is forever. If you have a reasonably distinct name, people will be able to find out all manner of stuff about you via Google if you’ve done something that makes you Internet famous. Even if it was a one-time thing and totally out of character–it’s just there.
Thankfully, I’ve always grasped this intuitively. It helps that the Internet as we know it, the World Wide Web that sprang up with the advent of the Mosaic browser and graphical interfaces, emerged when I was in my late 20s. I’ve been a rather avid user since pretty much the beginning and thus not only grew up with the medium but also came to full adulthood without it. That is, I am not only “aware of all Internet traditions” but experienced it as something new and thus a change from what existed before.
I’m not sure that people in their 20s really understand it in the same way. They see it as a social conversation tool and share all manner of things in public that we used to keep private. People put things on Facebook, personal blogs, and Twitter with no real awareness that they can come back and bite them in the ass later.
Now, in this particular case, it’s hard to feel much sympathy. Using such vulgar epithets in the manner that this individual did is surely an indicator of deep-seated misogyny; it just doesn’t come off as an aberration. Then again, while he might be the kind of douchebag that thinks that kind of thing all the time, he might not be the kind of douchebag that says that kind of thing. Those are very different categories of douchebaggery. Maybe he had a bit too much to drink. Maybe his girlfriend had just dumped him. Maybe it was just a particularly bad day.*
But here’s the thing: Sandra Fluke is, through her choice, something of a public figure. A very minor and tangential one, so one still off limits in my judgment from the full onslaught of the media fray. But she’s a grown woman fully aware that she’s making statements in public and indeed intentionally engaging the public. Her douchebaggy interlocutor here, is a purely private actor aside from his rude interaction with Fluke.
So maybe there ought to be some way for this douchebag to get his indiscretions off of The Google and his permanent record. I haven’t the foggiest idea how to implement that, much less whose call it should be. But maybe the Internet shouldn’t be forever for everyone. For public figures–especially elected politicians–it should be. But for random doucebags who had a particularly douchebaggy day on Twitter? Maybe not.
*UPDATE: There’s mounting evidence that the individual in question is a serial douchebag, lessening my sympathy for his plight in particular even further. But the essay really isn’t about this particular douchebag but the permanent infamy of the Internet age.
There is a way: never write them in the first place.
Not aware of the exchange and I don’t agree with Sandra Fluke’s premise that a private catholic university should pay for birth control, but the person who engaged her is learning an excellent life lesson. Sometimes there are consequences to our stupidity and those consequences can really suck.
Sorry, James, but one doesn’t get a second chance to make a first impression. George Tierney, noted douchebag, called Sandra Fluke the C-word. In writing. He gets no sympathy from me and shouldn’t be getting any from you. Rather than sending lawsuit-threatening messages to FDL and the Google, George Tierney’s time would have been better spent sending apologies to Sandra Fluke
@Chad S: @Dean: @Nikki:
Sure. As I presume the headline and content of the post make clear, I agree that the conduct here was deplorable.
I’m using it to ask a larger question beyond the particular incident: Should this be permanent?
It’s only because it occurred on the Internet that it’s a matter of permanent public record. Even a decade ago, this sort of thing was local knowledge, tempered by the general reputation of the person in question. Now, it’s not only universal but completely divorced from context.
BTW, that his first response was to issue threats of lawsuits rather than apologies for being said douchebag says a helluva a lot about his character. So eff him.
If George Tierney (Jr.?) of Greeneville, South Carolina is familiar with the Old Testament, there are plenty of examples in the book of Proverbs on the wisdom of avoiding rash speech.
@Nikki: Fine. But let’s change the example. Instead of some yahoo using misogynistic language on Twitter, let’s say he got drunk at a party and allowed some unfortunate photos to be taken of him that got posted to Facebook. Would that be different in your view? What if the he were a she?
@James Joyner:
I would agree with you for moments such as college kids posting inappropriate photos of themselves that can affect future job prospects. For general douchiness, such as that committed by George Tierney, no. He’s an adult who should have learned a long time ago to respect women. Eff him.
James, I know what you are trying to do here and, for the most part, I agree. It’s just that George Tierney is entirely the wrong guy to use as an example. Now he’s used the N-word.
@James Joyner: He can delete the tweets at anytime.
Btw, he also used the N-word a lot on twitter.
I think the case can be made that this person doesn’t deserve to be punished forever for his speech. The problem that I see is how something like this can be turned into an workable policy. First, would it be a law, or are you just suggesting that it be a policy that is adopted by Google and Twitter? How does it apply to screen captures done by a 3rd party? Can/should Google index the screen captures, or are those also “erased” from the Web?
It seems that there are also free speech issues. Suppose Fluke wants to write about this, with attribution and screen captures. Is she now prevented from doing so? Suppose someone is harassing you and leaves a signed note on your car. Are you now prevented from scanning and posting said note?
The only problem with letting folks wipe their inter-tube history…is that people like Romney would be able to really Etch-a-Sketch away his entire history and re-invent himself daily. Perhaps hourly.
Two things from my POV:
1, George Tierney of Greeneville, South Carolina has made multiple sexist comments over multiple days. I’m fully sympathetic to the “one drunken night” theory that one or two indiscretions should be allowed to quietly go away. But this guy is clearly hostile to liberal women in an emotionally violent way. Look over his past tweets about keeping women out of Augusta (for membership). As a guy, I’m sympathetic to the “If women have Curves and YWCA, why can’t men have their own private groups?” argument. But it doesn’t consume my every waking hour, and I don’t despise people on the other side of the discussion.
2. George Tierney of Greeneville, South Carolina now has seen the Streisand Effect (Google it) in full. If he had just clammed up, or better yet shut down his twitter account, this would have blown over. Because he threatened Firedoglake with a ridiculous lawsuit, the whole thing blew up in his face. There’s a lesson to be learned there, George Tierney of Greeneville, South Carolina.
What you brought up here is the “digital footprint” problem -period.
If it doesn’t go viral, and assuming the posters are friends, it can still be rectified by just asking them to remove it. It will also eventually drop out of Google’s cache. If it does go viral, then I agree that it’s unfortunate. Could a law be crafted in such a way as to be constitutional yet still effective? I don’t know.
@James Joyner:
Technology makes this a moot point. There is just no way to erase everything we have posted or appeared in from the permanent record. As individuals, we just have to be more vigilant and careful in what we post or how we might be seen.
@Hey Norm: I think James is suggesting that it not apply to public figures. Their Internet history is permanent. If I recall correctly, there already is legal precedent for the concept of a “public figure”.
In an absolute sense, I agree. However, it would be technologically feasible for Google to do something like remove all search results that contained certain keywords together, such as “george tierny sandra fluke”.
@Hey Norm: …and we only really want to preserve that privilege for President Obama anyway.
@Nikki: Again, I’d think the multiple use of variants of “douchebag” to describe this guy makes clear my view of him and his behavior. I’m not particularly sympathetic to this particular fellow especially if, as the comment thread seems to indicate, this was more than two mean spirited tweets that went viral but rather a pattern of conduct.
As with most incidents involving random yahoos that I otherwise wouldn’t care about, the specific incident sparked a larger question. Which is why the post avoids entirely the specifics of this case and talks about the larger issue.
If George Tierney of Greeneville, South Carolina becomes a better person, doubtful as that may be, this incident will fade away eventually. Or if not George Tierney of Greeneville, South Carolina can become a right wing radio talk show host.
IIRC, there’s some sort of digital privacy law in Germany that allows you to drop off from search engines after a certain period of time, and one of the Google guys thinks that you should be allowed to get a new identity at 25 or so.
But that’s not going to help this anyone like this guy when they spew this kind of crap every day.
I didn’t think Rush Limbaugh was previously unknown … ?
@ Anon…
Public figures like Romney will be able to wipe their history long before you or I.
I suspect that Korean dog poop girl is now going about her life without too much difficulty. Eventually, the same may be true for George Tierney. If he had handled this matter differently, it already would be.
I don’t think we need to change the medium to protect jerks of the temporary or permanent variety from their own indiscretions. Indeed, I would respectfully submit that episodes such as this are part of the societal adjustment to the internet as a mode of communication and it will even itself out in a few decades.
@James Joyner:
James,
In many ways this has largely always been the case within any community. Gossip about bad behavior tends to get around. It’s just that the rate and reach of that circulation has greatly increased.
Every office has that person who we all know imbibes a bit too much at parties. And that information tends to circulate beyond that office. Likewise, embarrassing pictures have always had a way of circulating (and often coming back to haunt people around major birthdays and other life events).
I think the big difference is that one used to be able to move away from such rumors if you weren’t in a job that has a (inter)national network. Google searches tend to mean you can’t run away from things.
Generally, I’m all for people being associated with what they write — I do think it tends to encourage more civil dialog. I also expect that our understanding of what counts as “embarrassing” material is going to continue to shift as more and more people accumulate this sort of baggage (or realize that they’re one posting away from accumulating it).
When Fluke first made her Congressional testimony, she was not a public figure; she has since become one, albeit at a moderately low level. Tierney was being a private citizen, albeit a terrible one, when he first tweeted back to Fluke. It wasn’t until he _repeatedly_ tweeted rude, disgusting, misogynistic crap to her that she re-tweeted him to her 36,000 followers. By continuing to be an overt, vocal douchebag, George Tierney, Jr of Greenville SC has also chosen to make himself a public persona, and he is deserving of no sympathy whatsoever. Period.
@Dean: her insurance company not the church.
At a certain point when googling someone we have met — either socially or through work or whatever — we also have to realize that sometimes people do stupid things. If you don’t have an Internet trail of drunken photos and poorly considered remarks, you’ve just been keeping a low profile in your stupidity.
And then there’s George Tierney, Jr of Greenville SC, who is just a douchebag.
The solution isn’t to figure out how to erase the Internet, but how to use the information that is out there better.
I see some kind of service, which will track people, categorize their idiotic behavior, and then render a douchebag score, with a detailed report. It would be like the credit agencies, but for douchebags.
@Gustopher: disgracebook
@James Joyner:” Imagine you were 17. Imagine you were immature and foolish. But I repeat myself.” (Mark Twain, redone.)
Is a puzzle. On the one hand, we don’t want to have one foolish remark end up following someone like a bad smell forever; on the other hand we don’t want to give people the leeway to remake themselves every few weeks (or, like Romney, every half-hour.)
I think I’d probably leave the situation as it is. As time goes on, one would expect that the earlier foolish episode would be shoved down to the bottom of the search result list and be replaced by comments which are (hopefully) more moral, virtuous, and adult. And if they are only replaced by other similarly misogynistic/racist/whatever remarks, that’s also a datum future employers might in interested in as well.
I do, however, find it singularly appropriate karma that frat-like law school males who chose to post piggish comments about the sexual attractiveness of their female classmates will find said remarks following them around for quite some time as said males try to find employment….
Oddly enough, Sandra Fluke doesn’t think that either. She thinks the insurance company should cover it for students, as it does for faculty and staff.
Oh, and people? Please click on the link to Tbogg to read his report in all the ineffable Tbogg-crispy goodness. The remarks are a howl as well.
@John Cole:
And who do you think pays for the insurance? The Easter Bunny?
@Doug Mataconis:
The employee since its part of their compensation
Lovistar,
And which part of the Constitution says that employers are required to subsidize in full the cost of contraception?
@Doug Mataconis:
Who said anything about the Constitution, I see you’re trying to playing the old GOP/Conservative game of strawman.
Most companies when hired give you an employee handbook where under the compensation chapter their is a section called benefits. Listed in the benefits section along with your vacation time is the medical, dental and life insurance that the company will provide you in lieu of additional salary. So as I said you are paying for your own insurance as a give back in lieu of a higher salary.
Lovitar,
The point is that there is a difference between saying “women have a right to the birth control of their choice” and saying “women have a right to have demand someone else pay for the birth control of their choice.”
I agree wholeheartedly with the first, not the second.
@James Joyner: Wait. Did you _read_ his messages? He deserves all the infamy he will get for them. Sure, youthful indiscretions and all, but the guy’s an utter douchenozzle and deserves his new-found reputation.
Can’t believe Doug hasn’t come in with a “both sides do it” post yet…
oh, there it is.
@Anon: Re “removing all searches” no, not really. It becomes a rapidly escalating problem. What about “Tierney Fluke C*nt” ? And you seem to equate “remove from Google” with “remove from the internet”. The internet doesn’t work that way.
As far as James’ bigger point, I bring you back to Wheaton’s Law: Don’t Be A Dick.
That is all. TBH, it would have made Moses’ trip down the mountain easier if God just put that on a single, much smaller tablet. The One Commandment.
Re: the “larger issue”
I think there’s a case for allowing people to erase/block/somehow censor things that are posted on the Internet about them by a third party, assuming it’s libelous or causes proven damage. This is already an issue with other forms of publishing, right?
However, it seems fair that content one freely chooses to publish about himself is, well, fair game. How could it be wrong to hold people accountable for their own actions, whether they’re done out of drunkenes or just stupidity? I’m talking about adults, mainly.
I think you’re right that kids these days may not understand what privacy means and why people want it (especially since most believe they don’t exist if they’re not represented online somehow.)
In the eyes of our legal system, children are treated differently and are sometimes able to keep indiscretions off their permanent records. So, there could be an argument that they should be able to erase content they posted that could hurt them later. But the Internet is worldwide, how can we really discuss regulating it according to the US constitution? Is that even possible?
(These aren’t rhetorical questions. I’m not a lawyer or politician or expert of any kind.)
@Gustopher I like your idea! It would put the douchebaggery in context, so someone isn’t haunted by a single mistake.
@Doug Mataconis:
Obviously to become a douchebag you’re don’t have to take reading comprehension test. Either that or you’re again trying to play the GOP/Conservative strawman game.
Where or where does anyone say that women have a right to have demand someone else pay for the birth control of their choice. Whats being said is that as part of my compensation that you promised me upon hire is the ability to access all reasonable medical care as prescribe by my doctor.
Now as a self proclaimed Libertarian I would think you would whole heartily agree with that statement. The free market has determined the level of compensation, the two parties enter into a contracted agreement and the individual makes an independent decision for her/his personal medical well being without the interference of any government agency. In fact the governments only involvement is to intercede to make sure that one side of the contracted agreement adheres to the contract.
@Loviatar:
Employees and employers are free to enter into whatever agreement regarding non-salary compensation such as health insurance that they wish. What I don’t support, though, is the idea that the government should be mandating the terms of that contract in any respect.
Lovitar,
Anyway, we’re pretty far off topic here. I was merely responding to Cole’s incorrect statement that “insurance companies” pay for contraceptive coverage. They don’t. Employer premium payments do.
@Doug Mataconis:
What you’re failing to notice here, Doug, is that the logical conclusion of your argument is that every individual employer would have the power to decide what is and is not “medically appropriate” for their employees – one of the main arguments in Ms Fluke’s favor is that contraception is _not_ solely prescribed for purposes of sexual activity, and allowing/requiring employers to delve into their employees’ behavior to the extent necessary (assuming they even had the medical background to make such decisions – which they do not) is absolutely terrifying.
In short, while you may not like the idea of the gov’t doing this sort of regulation, the alternative “free market” response would be vastly and demonstrably worse for every single American.
@legion:
Since employers who wish to provide insurance coverage will be required to choose from among the policy plans provided by the insurance companies able to write group policies for them, the hypothetical you posit is completely unrealistic fearmongering.
Then again, we get to the point that employers shouldn’t be required to provide health insurance coverage to begin with
Doug: “I was merely responding to Cole’s incorrect statement that “insurance companies” pay for contraceptive coverage. They don’t. Employer premium payments do.”
Tax subsidies cover part of that payment, which means we do too. So, no, it’s not just the employer paying for it.
@Doug Mataconis: If you want to argue for people to have a choice between single payer and “you’re on your own with whatever the private industry comes out with”, I’ll be cheering all the way.
I’ve BEEN under national health care systems. Both Japan and the U.K. And I have to say that compared to either of them, our present U.S. health care system STINKS.
@Doug Mataconis: Employers *arent’* required to provide health coverage to *anyone*. However, since ERISA was implemented, employers who want to provide *tax advantaged* health coverage must provide that coverage to all employees. Since most companies want tax advantages *and* most employers don’t want to be the only employer amongst their competitors *not* offering health insurance, they *voluntarily* comply with the government regulations, and in great numbers.
As a result, employer-sponsored health coverage has become the way that most working-age adults and their dependents obtain health coverage. This has made it all but impossible to find an insurer that offers individual or small-group plans with a large enough risk pool to make said insurance affordable to anyone of working age who does not qualify for poverty-based or disability-based insurance unless they are in pristine health.
Stating that people are free to go into the market place to find coverage not provided from their employer ignores the fact that a real market for individual health insurance doesn’t exist for all of the reasons mentioned above. You may not like that system, you may not like the role that ERISA played in creating the current lack of marketplace, but that doesn’t mean that you can contruct arguments that pretend that the situation on the ground is something other than what it is and have a rational expectation that they will be treated by others as arguments made in good faith.
@Doug Mataconis:
Now I know why my grandmother used to say don’t argue with fools and douchebags.
Again, please show me where anyone says the government is manadating the terms of the contract. The government is saying that the contracting parties have to abide by the terms of the contract; the religous institutions in lieu of higher pay agreeded to pay for their employees medical insurance.
Did you fail reading comprehension all the way through to your rightwing law mill degree or are you playing the typical GOP/Conservative game of lying about the facts?
The premium that the employer pays for insurance IS IN LIEU OF SALARY. It is part of the employees compensation.
@Doug Mataconis: Employers may or may not contribute premiums. Said premiums are tax exempt to the employer. Therefore, all taxpayers are also contributing to employer contributions to health coverage. Additionally, employer contributions are considered internally to be part of the hidden cost of employee compensation – expenses that they must incur in order to hire and retain competent employees, which would otherwise be due directly to employee as wages if the benefit were not offered. On top of that, most employees who obtain health coverage through their employers also contribute a portion of the overall premium out of their paid wages. Again, these premiums are tax exempt, put all taxpayers even more on the hook.
At the end of the day the employer may be the smallest contributor to the employees health care premiums out of the three groups of contributors.
Actually, the employees do, as it is part of compensation packages offered in lieu of cash.
We have a winner!
Doug will now change the topic.
I’ve come again to the realization that arguing with Doug (and most conservatives) is useless. He has his preconceived prejudices and he will misstate, muddy the waters and flat out lie to make the argument fit his prejudices.
How do you argue with someone that lacking in ethics and morality? You can’t, you push back against their lies and you treat their every utterance with disdain. The sad things is that they could bring so much to the table as far as trying to make this a better country but instead they would rather spend their time reinforcing their prejudices and the prejudices we have of them.
Notice how for the most part the right doesn’t have any problem with the government mandating that employers provide at least one plan that covers a wide array of basic medical services, except for contraception? The only possible explanation for this is they believe the government should enforce their particular religious beliefs on every citizen. They are theocrats, pure and simple. And Doug is their libertarian apologist. How does it feel to a tool for the church, Doug?i
@swearyanthony: You could block the results of a set of search keywords. Would it be foolproof? No, but I don’t think that’s the goal. Of course it wouldn’t “remove them from the Internet.” But removing them from the search results of major search engines would be good enough in most cases.
Note that I am only discussing whether or not it would be technologically feasible. From a policy standpoint, I don’t think it would be a good idea.
(Note that one possible workaround would be simply to use images of text, which would be hidden from Google, at least as it currently exists. Of course, it’s possible to use text-recognition technology to “read” images of text, but as far as I know Google does not do that now, and does not have any plans to do that.)
1. I think this particular douche may be mentally ill.
2. Doug: the employer and employee both contribute. IIRC, our company pays 70%, and we pay 30%. And that’s w/o taking the tax situation into account. Employers only provide health insurance because it saves them money to do so (at least it does for large employers). And it’s a frigging part of one’s compensation package, so even the 70/30 split isn’t really the employer paying 70%. That 70% is taken out of your salary. Ever heard of “total comp” ?
So it boils down to this:
1. want to keep your weet, sweet tax preference? Cover contraception w/o copay.
2. Much whining and screaming ensues. Tyranny, etc, etc.
3. Lawsuits.
We’re so f*cked.