A few weeks ago, one of my Unitrans coworkers posted a video on our Facebook group of a bus driver running over a snowman in the street. A few guys had built the snowman in the street as a joke and videotaped it. This bus driver’s employer saw the video and proceeded to fire him. As a result, a Facebook group was formed to protest this action and save the driver’s job. This sparked my interest in finding out what usually happens to an unsuspecting individual when a video of them committing a crime is posted, without their knowledge or consent, for the world to see.
It turns out, Internet vigilantism is often a result. These Internet vigilantes attack and put to shame any “culprit” in these videos of individuals performing unlawful or unethical acts. The vigilantes do so in an effort to bring the perpetrators to justice--similar to a citizen’s arrest. Although these vigilantes seek justice, they attempt to administer it by using two unjust methods. Firstly, they dig through every detail of the “culprit’s” life to discover their identity, which is effectively stalking. Secondly, the vigilantes follow up by turning these “culprits” in to the authorities, while also effectively labeling them as criminals for the world to judge.
One popular example of this is the South Korean woman deemed “dog poop girl,” who was attacked by Internet vigilantes and then felt so much shame that she left her university. She refused to clean up her dog’s mess after it defecated on a subway train, and a passenger recorded this on video and posted it online. Internet vigilantes worked fervently to glean information from the video and other Internet sources to learn of the woman’s identity. These Internet vigilantes blew a minor offense out of proportion, convinced that this woman’s actions necessitated her humiliation.
Another article showed that Internet vigilantes can actually lead to justice being served. Almost two years ago, someone posted a video of a 14-year-old boy abusing his cat. Again, online groups and Internet vigilantes analyzed the video with enough detail to determine the identity of the boy and where he lived. The local law enforcement charged the boy with animal abuse after they were prompted to investigate him. Even though the same process was used in both of these situations, in the case of the cat-abusing boy, the proper authorities were subsequently able to administer justice.
As a result of today’s online culture and our constant connectivity, Internet vigilantism is developing across the world. Internet vigilantes tear apart a “culprit’s” identity and put them to shame before finally turning them in to the authorities. These vigilantes assume that the “culprit” actually committed a crime. Although Internet vigilantism usually results in the administration of justice, the question of vigilantism as a whole arises, whether it takes place over the Internet or on the street. Do we have the right to incriminate someone online for doing something that society doesn’t agree with, even if they haven’t actually committed a crime? This anarchical administration of justice is actually a miscarriage of justice in many cases.
Photo credit
3 comments:
I have never heard of Internet vigilantes before but I find the idea very interesting. It certainly crosses the lines of privacy, yet I am sure that vigilantes have helped bring people to justice. However, this is a very thin line. The case of “dog poop girl” is certainly tragic. This woman did nothing illegal and was unsuspectingly grilled for doing something that may be considered rude, but certainly not illegal. There is no way that this woman could have known that her actions were being captured on film, and I agree that her privacy was completely overstepped.
In my opinion, I believe that people should be allowed to record whatever they want to, so long as the recording itself is not illegal, for example, filming people having sex, going to the bathroom, or changing. However, I think it is what the people do with these recordings that should be regulated. If someone happens to record illegal activity such as the the boy abusing his cat, I think that it is right for people to submit their recordings as evidence to the proper authorities. In any other case, I think that people should be able to record things for their own amusement, and only for their own amusement. I do no think that these things should ever be permitted to be shown online, or spread in any way, because they are humiliating and overstep people’s feelings of safety and privacy.
Internet vigilantism is very much needed to patrol the internet. I recall an incident last year in the dorms in which two people were caught abusing hamsters. Although they foolishly posted the videos on Facebook, it took a courageous vigilante to present the evidence to the authorities.
In some sense it may have overstepped feelings of safety and privacy, but one ought to be mindful of unacceptable behavior in all situations.
As soon as I read this post I thought about the incident Eleanor mentioned in the dorms last year. I know I was glad that people had patrolled the internet close enough to report the two students involved. While I agree that internet vigilantism can be taken too far and can be used to humiliate people, I still think it is important and causes a greater positive outcome.
Post a Comment