ProblemDefinition

Publicshamingisanaturalhumanurge.Itwasacommonformofpunishmentinthe
earlyAmericainthe18thand19thcenturiesandwasslowlyphasedoutinmoststatesaround
1900.TheInternetsubiquitymakesitaperfectvehicleforpublicshaming,though,and
destroyingalifeandacareerbecomesaseasyaspushingabuttonandexposingan
illconsideredmessagetomassesofangryhordes.
Digitalshamingis,atbest,areflectionofthevoiceandpowerthatsocialmediahas
giventothedisenfranchised.Ittakesalowlevelofprivilegeanddigitalliteracytobeableto
publishatweetindividualswhowouldusuallybesilencedbytheestablishedpowerstructure
canpublishinjusticesthatmayotherwisehavegoneunnoticed.Atthesametime,itcanbea
weaponofdigitaldestruction,capableoftorpedoingapersonsentirelifeinamatterofhours.
Digitalshamingcanalsoharmotherpeoplewhoaredirectlyorindirectlyconnectedto
theculprit.Forexamplepeopleconnectedinbusiness,iftheculprithasbusinessthen
employeesworkinginbusiness,familymembers,friends,andrelatives.Regardlessofhowbig
themistakeorcrime,personsbothpersonalandprofessionallifeisruined.

HistoricalContext
Fromthecreationoftheworldwidewebduring1990,theabilitytoreachandgive
informationhasbeentransformedforever.However,usingtheinternetasawaytoshamea
personwasntuseduntiltheinterneterareallybloomedintheearly2000s.Popularsocial
mediasiteslikeFacebookfoundedin2004andTwitterfoundedin2006havebeenabreeding
groundforpeoplesopinionsonanything.Before,newspaperswouldgooutanditwashardto
seeeveryonesopiniononthematter,orifsomethinghappenedacrosstheglobe.Now,people
areconnectedinstantly.Internetshamingstartedwhenpeoplewouldsharetheiropinionson

otherpeopleontheweb.Asenseoffearthatcausingasmallorbigcommotioncanleadintoa
hugeproblem.Thismakespeopleawareofthinkingtwicebeforesharingordoingsomething.
InDecember2013,PRconsultantJustineSaccopostedontwitter,
GoingtoAfrica.
HopeIdon'tgetAIDS.Justkidding.I'mwhite!.ThiscausedJustinetonotonlyloseherjob,but
alsobeingnotabletogetanotherone.NearAugust2014,anattackongamedeveloperZoe
QuinnontheGamergateincidentcausedmanydeath/rapethreatspostedonherdoorstep.On
theFresnoPoliceDepartmentwebsite,89peoplehadtheirpicturespostedsinceOperation
RevealsdebutonMarch3rd,2014.Theywereavailableforeveryonetoseefor15days.
Recently,WalterPalmerkilledaprizedlionCeciloftheHwangeNationalParkofZimbabwe.He
receivedmanydeaththreatsandhisdentalpracticewasshutdown.Eventhoughitjustrecently
reopened,therearestillmanyprotesterswhosupportinshamingWalterPalmer.LuckyStrike
serverLauraRamadeifeltamalecustomertouchherass.Atthemomentofincidentshedidnot
tookanyactionbutlatershefoundthemansprofileonlinefromthereceiptthatshehadand
sheshamedthatmanonsocialnetworkingsite.Someofthelawsthatinternetshamingis
challengingisDefamation(Sayingdamaginganduntruethingsaboutsomeone),Intentional
InflictionofEmotionalDistress(Veryseverestalkingandharassment),andmanyCivil
harassmentlaws.

Stakeholders
Stakeholdersofinternetshamingincludeofvarietyofperspectives.Thereistheperson
beingshamedsinceitaffectsthempersonallyandeverywheretheygo.Thereisthefamilyand
friendsofthepersonbeingshamed.Theywillbeaffectedbyassociationwiththepersonsuch
aslivinginthesamehouse.Itwillgenerallyaffecttherelationshipofpeoplewiththeshamed
person.Anotherstakeholderwouldbethebusinessthatemploystheshamedperson.Suchas

thedentalpracticewithWalterPalmerontheCeciltheLioncase,beingshutdown.Walter
Palmerhimselfstatedhewasdeeplysorrytothepeoplewhoworkedthereandalsothepatients
thereaswell.Peopleintheonlinecommunityarestakeholderstoowhethertheyaretheones
beingshamedortheonesdoingtheshaming.Thelawenforcementalsohaveastakeholder
regardingtheFresnoPoliceOperationRevealcasewheretheyarepublicallyshamingall
arrests.
Despitethenegativecontextthatcomeswithinternetmobcontext,inaway,thereis
somegoodthatcouldpotentiallycomeoutofit.Forone,itsalargegroupofpeoplegathering
aroundandspeakingoutagainsttheinjusticestheysee.Itssomewhatofasenseofunity
peoplegetwhentheycalloutattentiontothesesortofissues.Mostoftheseissuesareflatout
ignoredandneverspokenaboutintherealworld,duetodifferentopinionseasilyclashingand
causingreallifearguments.Andwhileitcouldbesaidthatpeoplejustneedtolearntheartof
debateinsteadoffighting,online,peoplesvoicesareheardandareusuallyfollowedbysounds
ofagreement.Evenwhenargumentsfollow,itsaloteasiersociallytocounterargueonline
becauseyouhavetimetoformulateyourwordsinsteadofgettingdefensiveallofasudden
makingitanactualdebate.Sowhileunfortunately,therearethosewhoruininternetmobjustice
bychoosingtoexploitanddoxxthepeopletheycallout,thereisnodenyingthegoodthatit
couldpotentiallydoofferaspaceforpeopletovoicetheiropinionsandfindlikemindedpeople
thatwillstandupwiththem.

CompetitiveAnalysis
Informationiswidelyavailableforthepublictogetaholdofasinternetshamingtakes
placeonline.Thereismanyinstancesofinternetshaminggoingoneverydayhoweveronlythe

mostseverecasesinvolvingphysicalharmmakeittothebreakingnews.However
America/USAisnottheonlycountrythathascasesofinternetshaming.Manyothercountries
withaccesstotheinternethascasesaswell.Forexample,inSouthKorea2005,awoman
refusedtopickupherdogswastes.Manypicturesofherwerepostedonlineandsoonafterher
identitywasrevealed,shewastargetedbythepublic.Theharassmentgotsoseverethatshe
hadtoquitheruniversity.AnotherexampleisChinasgovernmentasofJuly2015,beganto
publiclyshamepeopleonlinewhosmoke.Ifthepersonwascaughtbreakingtherulesofno
indoororpublicareasmoking,thentheyweresubjecttotheonlineharassment.Thiswas
reviewedasaverypositiveenforcementintermsofgettingdownsecondhandsmokingtoa
minimuminChina.
EconomicFactors
Theeconomicfactorstobeconsideredwouldincludebusinessesthatwereclosetothe
personwhoisbeingshamedontheinternet.Forexample,inthestorywiththedentistthatshot
Cecilthelion,thedentistmorethanlikelylostclientsbecauseoftheincident.Thisnotonly
meansthatthepersoninvolvedmightlosemoney,butalsothebusinessesassociatedwiththe
businesssuchasemployeesorclientsthatdependoftheshamingtargetforaservice.This
lossofrevenuecouldbegoodbecausepeoplewilllooktoadifferentsourcetoreceivegoodsor
services.Ifpeoplestopgoingtoaspecificdentist,anotherdentistwillmorethanlikelyreceive
newpatientswhichisagoodthingbecauseitallowspeopletohaveadifferentexperiencethan
before.Aneconomiclossishelpfulfordeterringpeoplefrompartakinginunfavorableactivities
inthefutureinordertoavoidbeingshamedontheinternet.

TechnologicalFactors
Ibelievethemosttechnologicalactionthatshouldbetakenwhenitcomestointernet
shamingisforsocialmediawebsitestosetupabetterreportingsystem.Mostwebsitessuchas

Facebook,Tumblr,andsuchclaimtohaveageneralsystemwhenitcomestoreporting
harassmentsuchasdoxxingpeople.However,Idonotbelievethattheyeverreallylookintothe
peopleorpagesthatarebeingreported.Thiscouldbebecausethereportingsystemissimplya
quickscandonebythesiteitselfthatlooksforspecificbuzzwordssuchascursewordsorslurs.
However,thisdoesnothelpwhenitcomestosomeonewhoisputtingsomeonescontact
informationonlinetohavethepublicshamethem.Perhapssocialmediasitescouldbeginhiring
actuallypeopletolookintoharassmentclaimsandpagesthatviolatethewebsitespolicy.That
way,wecouldactuallybegintakingactionagainstthosewhothinkitisrighttoputsomeones
safetyatriskjustbecausetheymayhavemadeamistakeordidsomethingtheydisagreedwith.

Recommendations
Forthepublictocontinuetoonlineshameanindividualfortheirinappropriateactions,
theirwordsmuststillcomplywithhowtheconstitutionhandlesfreedomofspeech.The
constitutionstrictlystatesthatfreedomofspeechdoesnotprotectagainstdefamation.Written
defamation,knownaslibel,isoftentakenmoreseriouslybycourtsthanspokendefamation,
knownasslander,sinceitlastslonger.Foranysortofonlineshamingtobeconsidered
appropriate,firstitmustadheretothefirstamendment.Fromtheperspectiveoftheperson
beingdefamed,theymustprovethatanystatementsagainstthemwerepublishedandfalse,
injurious,orunprivileged.
Anystatementspokenagainstapersoncanbeinspoken,written,oreveninagestured
formhence,whyflippingpeopleoffisnotprotectedbythefirstamendment.Ifanythirdparty
hasbeenexposedtooneofthesesocalledstatements,inanyoftheaforementionedforms,
thenitisconsideredpublished.Therefor,publisheddoesnotnecessarilymeanthatthe
statementwaswritteninabookandsharedthatway.Thestatementjustneedstohavereached

someoneotherthanthevictimandthepersondoingthedefamingviaaloudconversation,
television,radio,anonlineposting,andanyotherwaythestatementcanbespreadthrough
media.
Thestatementmustalsobefalseonallaccounts,otherwiseitisnotconsideredtobe
damagingtheperson.SimplystatingthatthedentistillegallykilledCecilthelionisnot
consideredaviolationofthefirstamendmentsinceithasbeenproventobetrue.Thesame
canbesaidifacriticwroteascathingreviewaboutarestaurantandsaidthatitwastheworst
placetheyhadeatenatallyear.Suchastatementcannotbeprovenfalse,andthereforeis
completelyvalid.
Aninjuriousstatementmeansthatwhatwasstatedmusthavecausedamagetoa
personsreputation.Onlyafalsestatementcanbegroundsforsuingsomeone,anditmustbe
provenhowtheirrelationshipswithfamily,friends,orneighborstheirjobwaslostortheywere
harassedbythemedia.
Forastatementtobeconsideredunprivileged,thestatementmustbemadeinacontext
withoutcertaincircumstances.Forexample,witnessesincourtcannotbesuedforafalse
statementalthoughtheymaybetriedforperjuryiftheytestifytosomethingthey
know
isfalse
becausethelawmakershavedeterminedthatfreedomofspeechmustbeupheldsothatthese
witnesseswontwithholdinformationunderfear.
Ifonlineshamingistocontinue,thenhowindividualsapproachsuchactionmustbeheld
inacivilizedmanner.Thereneedstobemoreaccountabilitysincethereisnocurrent
accountabilityintheonlinerealm.Perhapsthereshouldbeahighlymoderatedforuminwhich
advocatescanpost.Themoderatorsdetermineifthepostsandcommentsadheretoastrictset
ofpoliciesthatfollowtheconstitutionsdefinitionoffreespeech,andthusinsurestheperson

whoseactionsaredeemedshameworthyhasnoreasontotryandfileasuit.

ProsandCons
Therearemanybenefitstointernetshamingsuchasbringingawarenessaboutanevent
tothegeneralpublic.Thisishelpfulbecauseitensuresthataneventreceivesmoremedia
attentionthanitnormallywould.Sincetheeventwouldbewidelyknownduetointernet
shaming,itwouldalsohelptodeterpeoplefrombehavinginthesamemannerinordertoavoid
beingshamed.Lastly,internetshamingmighthelpcompetitorsgainadditionalincomebecause
customersnolongerwanttoreceivegoodsorservicesfromapersonbeingshamed,sothey
seekalternatives.Somenegativesassociatedwithinternetshamingwouldincludealossof
revenueforapersonorbusinessassociatedwiththepersonbeingshamed.Thisisnothelpful
becauseinnocentpeoplemighthavealossofmoneyjustbecausetheyareassociatedwith
someonebeingshamed.Anothernegativeofinternetshamingisthatittarnishesapersons
reputation.Peoplewhoareshamedonlinebecomeknownonlyfortheactivitytheypartookin.
Thisisunfortunatebecausesomepeoplecouldhavehadverysuccessfulcareersbeforethey
wereshamedthattheyareforcedtogiveupduetobadpublicity.Lastly,becauseinternet
shamingisnotregulated,itisverypossiblethatshamingcampaignscouldgotoofar.
Examplesofshamingactivitiesthatcrossalinearesendingdeaththreatsorverballyharassing
thepeoplebeingshamed.