14 
Instead of laying low for a bit, maybe changing his name, growing a beard and moving house, hugely perverted Reddit superstar Violentacrez is now using the social site to advertise his skills as an available Perl coder.
49-year-old programmer Michael Brutsch, who was sensationally outed by our brother site Gawker as dodgy gonzo porn-loving Redditor Violentacrez, has re-registered himself on the site under the username mbrutsch. His first posts revealed he’d been “terminated” by his employer due to the revelations, also claiming he’d received death threats and has recorded an interview with US news site CNN.
But, looking on the bright side, he has started advertising his skills as a potential Perl programmer someone might actually want to hire and be associated with, asking for employment within the adult content industry. His online CV makes no mention of Reddit, but presumably that’s something potential employers would learn about when Googling him before the interview.
Feedback to the move among Reddit users appears to be a little mixed. Some are congratulating him for fronting it out and using his notoriety to hopefully gain work, while others are querying who’d want a globally shamed mega-perv managing their business servers. Even porn sites have standards, surely? [Guardian]
Shamed Reddit Perv Speaks to CNN About "Character" He Created
Working In the Advertising Industry Ain't Easy
The 9 Weirdest Places in Reddit
My favourite quote from the source (emphasis mine)
AJ Daulerio, Gawker’s editor-in-chief, who took over in January this year, said the site now does more long-form, original reporting of the type that exposed Brutsch. He said the site allocates one person to the snarky click-bait stories that made it famous, giving other writers more time to work on original stories.
“This way if we can stabilize the traffic elsewhere and have the rest of the team occupied with these longer, reported pieces it’ll hopefully make a better, more literate Gawker,”
So that’s Jesus’ job now?
Bit unnecessary
I’ve never been on Gawker before but Jesus Christ, that article looked like it was from the Daily Mail. Such ridiculous sensationalism!
It seems that they have missed the point of this Violentacrez character completely: he is taking the piss out of everyone on Reddit who takes themselves too seriously; the people who think they’re social activists just by upvoting something bad; the people who have an objection to shows like Top Gear and websites like Sickipedia. Gawker is writing about him as if he is Hitler, encouraging violence and paedophilia. But really he is just a troll hitting an easy target, as shown by Gawker’s reaction.
I have never been on gawker or reddit and whilst i agree that it was sensationalist, and whilst i also agree that he was a troll, there is no excuse for posting pictures of under-age kids (i am on about pics used for sexual gratification, before someone says about people posting pics of their kids on facebook)
a section called jailbait, is not trolling or ironic, its a lure for sick people to encourage their sick needs.
if he was just trolling then he wouldn’t have became as involved with reddit as he did, he was on a power trip and it was just feeding his ego.
and whilst i support free speech, there are limits.
Just my humble opinion
That maybe the case (and I agree with you), but if what he was posting was legal, I don’t see where the public interest is in outing him like this.
i get your point being legally wrong and morally wrong is a big difference.
I think the public interest is, that giving the amount of status he had on reddit and the fact he was creating groups with questionable sexual content, which was used by people including himself to promote and share under age sexual material. i reckon as he was not controlled he would have gone as far as he liked.
Also i think it was a good warning shot to those who promote hatred and nasty stuff on the internet, thinking they are safe behind a username.
I am all for free speech, but if your principles are that strong for or against something then you be prepared to promote those opinions or principles and make a difference
and yes i see the irony of us discussing this using usernames lol
I understand what you’re saying, but this is someone’s life we’re talking about.
I’d say that he’s been able to go about his business like this for years. He hasn’t gone any further even without any restriction. That’s not to say he wouldn’t in the future, but we only have the evidence to go by, and he hasn’t.
Up to this point I’ve been playing devil’s advocate, I don’t really care what happens to this guy.
However.
He has a wife and child. The wife is disabled, and relies on him to not only take care of her, but for his income, and his son is going into the military. They are also affected by this, and I personally think that by outing this guy and getting him fired puts them/their prospects at risk. Surely that makes Gawker no better than him?
Not that Gawker media is new to being hypocritical, they’ve spent the entirety of the US presidential race slating Romney for using the same tax dodging techniques they do!!
totally agree about gawker being as bad, especially as i bet the reason for outing him is publicity and hits etc.. rather than some legal or moral reasons.
Do you not understand the concept of Jailbait? The whole point of jailbait is we’re talking about underage people who are sexually attractive, i.e. straddle the line between what’s LEGALLY allowed and what isn’t.
So someone who is 1 day away from 16, or 18 or 15 depending on local law is jailbait in that jurisdiction, but legal in another.
Getting outraged at people finding jailbait sexually attractive is sensationalist. Jailbait perfectly highlights the total arbitrarity of age of consent laws and such. Morally, everything should really be judged in context – people mature at different ages both physically and mentally.
Automatically calling people who might look at any “jailbait” image and find the subject sexually attractive “sick”, is simply naive.
Everyone has seen the occasional 15 year old girls who physically look about 18-20. Trying to convince yourself that they’re suddenly not sexually attractive because they haven’t turned 16 yet in the UK, is just denial about the facts of life and growing up.
The key point I want to make is this – I’m willing to bet (never seen so speculating) that a good deal of the ‘jailbait’ on that site was of girls around 16-17, which in the UK would make them legal (15 in France, 13 in Spain). So calling people sick is really very sensationalist.
Caveat – I have no idea whatsoever what the content of these pictures was, I’m imagining 14-17 range, but if we’re really talking children then that’s not really jailbait, more just child porn or inappropriate images of children. I’ll leave you with the definition of jailbait from wikipedia:
“Jailbaitis slang for a minor who is younger than the legal age of consent for sexual activity, but physically mature enough to be mistaken for an adult, with the implication that a non-deviant older person might find them sexually attractive.“
ok am willing to accept that my understanding of jailbait, is anyone who it is illegal to have sex with, and therefore for me that covers from birth to the age of consent. and is wrong
hence the term sick.
however i am happy to concede that point
This is a difficult area, because although jailbait is morally questionable, I would not go as far as to say that anyone interested in it is “sick.” Jailbait by definition means people over the age of 16 (in most places) who look adult, and Violentacrez made sure that nothing illegal (i.e. pornography under 18) was ever posted. And this isn’t like child porn, which is undoubtedly harmful for the victim (hence why it’s illegal), this is almost a victimless crime.
Others have argued that jailbait is an evil we must accept because it lures people on the borderline between “I like ‘em young” and paedophile away from child porn and towards a media in which nobody is at least harmed.
All in all though, it’s a very grey issue, and even if (I don’t think he was) Violentacrez was morally bad, it was undoubtedly a bad thing for Gawker to ruin somebody’s life by exposing him like that. What’s worse is the way the writer of that article tries to pretend that he’s exposing Violentacrez for moral reasons: anyone cynical enough and with half a brain can see that this was nothing more than an attempt to gain page hits and hence money (something which Gawker may regret in the long term, considering many subreddits have banned Gawker links now.)
Somehow Gawker’s come off worse from this than Violentacrez himself.