So before I read this article, I was, for the most part, pretty much OK with repercussions that people have to deal with after saying/doing/posting something stupid and ignorant online. After all, the classic cliche states "you made your bed, now lie in it," so if you do something not particularly tasteful, you should have to deal with whatever happens afterwards, right? Obviously, we all know that using the internet to bully people is immoral, but not many people feel all that sorry for the lady that had the nerve to dress up as a Boston Marathon bombing victim or the guy that had to move to a new city because he was rude to a Chik-Fil-A worker and posted it online. If you were like me and automatically dismissed these people as idiots that pretty much asked for it, then I suggest that you take a few minutes out of your day to check out the article at the bottom of this blog.
The article focuses mainly on how public shaming has morphed based on all of the technology that surrounds the internet: various forms of social media, quick and instant video sharing, and unlimited access to a variety of reports and articles that may or may not be credible. The article outlines instances of people who were caught saying the wrong thing at the wrong time or were recorded doing something that is looked down upon and how the viral effect that the internet created changed these people's lives. Public apologies, which are often viewed by said public as not genuine, mean very little to the companies that fire these individuals, the people that threaten these individuals, and the strangers that shame these individuals.
While there are, of course, repeat offenders that seem to always be saying the wrong thing *Kanye*, most individuals that deal with public shaming have only said or done something stupid (for lack of a better term) once.
To go back to Alicia Ann Lynch's case (the lady who was dumb enough to dress up as a Boston Marathon victim), a case that I consider to involve one of the most tasteless actions that I've read about, I still believe that the public shaming went too far. Yes, she's clearly an idiot, and yes, that was proven not only when she dressed up, not only when she showed up to work in the outfit but also when she posted the photo online; but still, even an idiot of this magnitude doesn't deserve to receive "threats of death, mutilation, and rape." This case is also an excellent representation of how public shaming can entangle innocent people who were not involved, as her parents (who, for all we know, are not idiots) received these same types of threats. While I've used the word 'idiot' probably half a dozen times so far in this article to describe this woman, I can't imagine how someone could actually threaten a person's life over a photo that reveals something that those threatening probably wouldn't even been aware of had it not been for the internet.
There is no doubt that the comments and stories that lead to large-scale public shaming involve poor decisions made by those who said/did whatever the incident in question is, but I do believe, after reading this article and hearing how public shaming has evolved with the use of the internet, that there needs to be some fashion of line drawn about appropriate and inappropriate reactions.
To further prove this point, think of the dumbest and most insensitive thing you've ever said. Did you not mean it? Did you say it when you were angry or when you were absolutely kidding? Did you say it ironically or sarcastically? It doesn't matter. Put it in written words, slap it somewhere on the internet, and prepare yourself for all hell to break loose. Chances are, we've all said or done something that would make us look really really bad if it were put on the internet, and while those publicly shamed aren't entirely undeserving of some of it, it's important to retain some amount of consideration.
http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/woman-behind-boston-marathon-bombing-costume-blasts-critics-article-1.1508156
Michelle, I agree with what you wrote here. I agree that this person did something extremely classless, but that does not mean she permits herself to harsh profanities as you mentioned above. I think the biggest problem in this scenario is that when you put something on the Internet, that's a public-private domain. Public in the sense that everyone can see it, private in the sense that you hide behind an IP address. As we've seen there's no true privacy on the Internet, but apparently the veil of privacy or anonymity is enough for people to shoot off on others.
ReplyDeleteSimilar rules of freedom of speech apply in the physical world: you can peacefully protest and have your own opinion, of that no one is denying you. But once you get physical or threaten someone, that action no longer falls under the first amendment. Similarly, in the digital realm you have the right to voice your opinion, but when you begin receiving comments regarding rape and death, that is most definitely NOT OK. If these threats are made in the physical world, there is police involvement. I am interested to know what kind of action the authorities take here with regards to the threats.