Public Shaming

[Mike]

When (if ever) is publicly shaming a person a good thing?

[Kyle]

I think the various contexts that could give rise to it are too numerous to actually come up with a black and white rule. As Lucy and I were just discussing, there are very good times that satire and "mocking" commentary are useful and desirable-- i.e., often in the context of politics. But there's others where it wouldn't be-- i.e., a movie that just talked about how dumb Tom Cruise's kid's hair looks.

Haha! Just kidding. I'm coming for you Suri Cruise.

[Zen]

If it is an adult public figure who is harming others with their actions, that is one thing.

However, the posts of parents "shaming" their kids for things on social media? Those are never appropriate. (No matter how funny they are.)

[Kyle]

I think that's where I draw the line too, Zen-- those that put themselves out in the public eye (which is why politicians are often the victims of satire and "public shaming") know that they could be subject to this kind of scrutiny. Someone's kid-- like Tom Cruise's kid-- didn't ask for your view to be drawn to her and has a right to be left alone.

Haha! Just kidding. You know what you've done, Suri Cruise.

[FlameBlade]

When it comes to Kyle, then yes.

[Phoebe]

This is one of those issues where social media and the internet really make a huge difference in the consequence of public shaming. It used to mean something different. Now a relatively minor action taken by one person who doesn't have much power or influence in the larger scheme of life can be pounced upon and blown up into a huge event that may result in things like job losses and personal crises. You've all heard of some of these cases which received national media attention, but it also happens on a smaller scale in things like a particular industry. Maybe the general public isn't paying attention, but the public shaming that e.g. happens to someone in a Facebook post can cause major ripple effects and damage within the small pond of that person's employment or circle of acquaintances. I've seen dozens of examples and the result is, I'm even more opposed to that kind of public shaming than I was before, which I already was. It almost always involves distortions of the truth, too - in theory it wouldn't have to, but that makes it even worse.

So when can we publicly shame people? When they are already public figures by their own choice, imo. But even then, people have privacy and limits. If they are deliberately acting in public, then they have to own what they do. If they're committing crimes in private and those get exposed, a la Anthony Weiner? Fine, that's the price you pay for doing what you do and also being a criminal. But if we were going to expose naked pictures Weiner never sent to anyone else illegally? No way.

[Kyle]

[bralbovsky]

Same rules of engagement as other combat, otherwise it's just cowardice.

The opponent must be in the fight on purpose. A public figure who chose the spotlight is absolutely fair game. One who didn't choose, but enjoys its benefits also counts.
The opponent must be armed or otherwise prepared. This doesn't mean he can't be sleeping, unawares, etc. Imbalances of power sometimes require strategic initiative.

If those two conditions are met, it's a clean kill.

[Kyle]

Okay- but what about non-public figures that are doing terrible things? KKK members, for example. Aren't we okay with calling out and publicly shaming someone who is secretly an insidious racist? I think I am.

[Mike]

What if you shoot and kill Cecil the lion?

[Phoebe]

[Kyle]

Yeah- so I'm not sure. So if someone calls a woman at Walmart the n-word and says a bunch of racist stuff to her, and someone tapes that- should we publicly shame that person? I think, in certain circumstances we should. And I don't think that's acting publicly- that's just someone saying something to someone else- albeit terrible things. They certainly didn't think they were putting themselves in the spotlight.

[bralbovsky]

Saying something to a woman in line at Walmart is absolutely a public act. The shame deserves a boomerang in that case. Escalation is beside the point.

[Phoebe]

Yep, harassing people by yelling at them in a public place, right in front of everyone, is public.

[Kyle]

No, you all are injecting into it something I didn't say. I'm not saying a woman "yelling in line at walmart" I'm talking about someone saying terrible things to another customer in an aisle at Walmart. This could seem like a private conversation, except that she's being taped without her knowledge by someone else.

I know the inclination is to say, "That's a public act" because it makes the bright line rule easier to apply-- but one-on-one coversations with people aren't what we normally consider people putting themselves into the public sphere.

So are we okay with public shaming in this example? I am. What I'm trying to figure out, then, is where the line is. Because it's not just a bright line: public figure/private figure line.

[El Jefe]

The bright line issue, alongside public/private, gets even more complicated as a generational and technical knowledge issue. There's an expectation of privacy that comes from people who lived the majority of their lives in a less accessible environment (whether age or lack of exposure) which doesn't match reality. That conversation Kyle mentions, back in the sporting goods section, between two customers...it wasn't an issue in the not-too distant past. There wasn't a likely possibility of exposure, outside of a "Well, you won't believe what Bob said on Sunday..." moment.

I don't think we can define that line right now. I think we need to live and grow through the clash of expectations that we have now. There's people assuming that social media privacy and security settings should imply the same kind of protections as a locked diary in a locked drawer in your home. Law enforcement, notable celebrities, athletes, etc. have put multiple "generations" (in the "graduating into the industry" sense, not actual timeline generations) into their fields with a frequent expectation that off-the-record is something that is both automatically assumed and assured. Until the wildly varying expectations clash, duke it out, and find a new happy medium, I think you're stuck with the mess that we currently have. Outdated expectations clashing with laws struggling to catch up; smashing against a public that has very little understanding of the long-term ramifications of carrying database-accessing cameras (with "always on" network connectivity) around everywhere we go. We'll find and define a line. But not now, and not near-future.

[Kyle]

I wish there was a like button to hit on your post, Jeff. I agree with everything you said.

[El Jefe]

That philosophy has become the key for my own interactions. Operating under the assumption that recording, editing, and reviewing anything I say or post, at any and all times, helps keep me out of Bulldrek troll mode (well...less frequently anyway) and more in a place where I'm comfortable with what I'm putting out there. I've found myself much happier assuming a state of total and complete surveillance with zero expectations of privacy.

[El Jefe]

That whole technology/expectation/law interaction gets even more complicated when you start to look at SERIOUSLY outdated libel and slander laws. I don't have the legal knowledge to dive into that one with anything resembling accuracy, but it's a point worth mentioning.

[Mike]

Yeah, if you are a public figure by choice, you seem to be fair game. I think I'm cool with that.

If you are not a public figure, but you are broadcasting bad behavior publicly, like posting it on YouTube or screaming it at people in a public place or otherwise acting badly in a place where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Sure.

But Kyle makes a good point, what if you're not a public figure, and you are in a place where you absolutely have a reasonable expectation of privacy, and you do or say something that is recorded by some third party without your knowledge? That WalMart video was a screaming match with witnesses and escalated into an altercation with WalMart employees, so it was pretty public, but what if it's someone at the next table trying to record your private interactions? What if it's a recording device planted in secret to catch your private conversations?

Oh, regardless of public/private figure status, kids should not be included. By definition, they are not legally responsible for their actions, despite the many states that are perfectly fine with trying minors as adults. Teens at 16 or 17 may pose a gray area, but I haven't thought about it.

But here's the next question I have: what behavior is deserving of shaming? I was serious about Cecil the lion. That dentist was vilified for that and harassed on many levels for weeks, and pretty much had his life ruined for his actions. Was that justified, and what purpose did it serve? I think the easy line to draw is that when it devolves to personal harassment, it's certainly out of line, but even without those personal attacks, the level of public shaming made him infamous for his actions and was enough to ruin his life.

Or the woman who got drunk and climbed into the tiger cage at the zoo. She got injured by a tiger and had to be rescued and hospitalized (minor injuries in the grand scheme of things). Social media crucified her for that. Crucified her for being an idiot, for terrorizing those poor tigers, for not dying from the attack like she deserved. I'm sure there's a PSA in there about drinking too much and doing stupid shit, but did she deserve the level of attacks that she got? Did it serve a greater purpose?

And on the other hand, is there anything to do about it, really? Or do we just have to accept that this is what the social landscape looks like now? When people say or do stupid shit that is recorded in any way, they always open themselves up to the possibility of attack. There's always a chance of trolls latching onto something and destroying your life for speaking your mind. There's always the chance of something going viral and leading to a mass-shaming. There's always a chance that some little thing is going to come back to haunt you in unexpected ways years from now. Therefore, we all have to accept it and be better about policing ourselves. Is that where we are?

I know for sure that many of the trolling behaviors that involve personal attacks and harassment need to be illegal (if they aren't already) and need to be taken seriously by authorities. But beyond that, I don't have answers to most of my own questions here.