Should Social Media Play a Role in Punishing Offensive Actions

[DC Al Fine]

In light of the recent Cecil the Lion controversy. This deserves examination.

No for me.

Social media is akin to the mob, arbitrary and vicious. There is no justice in it.

[dead0man]

It doesn't really matter if it should or shouldn't, it's going to play a role and it's only going to get more....bigger?  I for one like a little public humiliation for people that funk up, it's just that the public is often misinformed and quick to judge and jump on people for sh**t they don't need jumped on for.

[SteveRogers]

Meh. The court of public opinion existed long before twitter came along. Like pretty much any invention, social media and mass communication can be used for great good or for great evil depending on the circumstances.

[PJ]

I don't think lynch mob mentality is something to be praised, given how often people can overlook facts or nuances about a situation, but it's always going to exist as long as social media does, and depending on the situation, it can shed light on events that don't normally get as much attention as they should. 

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

It is ominous, but seems to be unavoidable. Social media is just the catalyst to that very human instinct to join in with the mob.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Certainly not, but I see nothing wrong with them bringing attention to these offensive actions so that they can then be punished through appropriate vehicles.

Obviously most social media activism is awful and moronic, but it can still do some good at times.

[Cory]

I don't think lynch mob mentality is something to be praised, given how often people can overlook facts or nuances about a situation, but it's always going to exist as long as social media does, and depending on the situation, it can shed light on events that don't normally get as much attention as they should. 

[DemPGH]

Most certainly not, and in fact I think it would be a detriment to justice. But if people want to get on the Internet and rant and rave, I think that's absolutely their right.

[Goldwater]

Whether it or not it "should" is pretty irrelevant, it will and there isn't really anything that anyone can do to stop it.

[TJ in Oregon]

No, of course not. But as Goldwater said, that whole freedom of speech thing includes the lynch mob.

[I spent the winter writing songs about getting better]

Depends on if the action is actually offensive. Good example is those awful middle school students who filmed that video bullying the bus monitor from a couple years back. The backlash they got was punishment itself, the suspension was just icing on the cake. Also set a good precedent before any other idiots got the idea that filming a video of them bullying would be so hilarious. Another great example is that idiot woman who filmed herself being a racist bitch at a Dunkin' Donuts, had to delete basically her entire online presence afterwards and got fired from her job. To be fair though in both cases the perps posted the incriminating evidence themselves...

But there have been some people who have been lynched for misunderstood jokes or things blown way too far out of proportion, like that South African PR executive who posted a somewhat politically incorrect but clearly tongue-in-cheek tweet about AIDS and blew up Twitter on her flight being unable to delete it or the woman who had the Facebook photo mocking a sign at Arlington National Cemetery who got targeted by veterans' groups over that. I've hated veterans groups already for attacking John Kerry and Family Guy, but that incident was beyond the pale.

[🦀🎂🦀🎂]

I have to say, it does remind me of this:

http://www.clickhole.com/article/justice-last-when-girl-was-cyberbullied-classmate--2219

No, of course not. But as Goldwater said, that whole freedom of speech thing includes the lynch mob.

I think the law should crack down on death and raps threats though? And protect the underage?

[angus]

It doesn't really matter if it should or shouldn't, it's going to play a role and it's only going to get more....bigger?  I for one like a little public humiliation for people that funk up, it's just that the public is often misinformed and quick to judge and jump on people for sh**t they don't need jumped on for.

pretty much my thought as well.  We could quibble about the use of the plural "media" instead of the option of a singular "medium" and I had a multiparagraph rant prepared, but you summed up my thoughts fairly succinctly so I'll just quote your post and nod.  I'll also emphasize that effective jurisprudence does depend upon a well informed public, despite attempts at sequestration.

Anyway, I voted yes. 

[Antonio the Sixth]

Depends on what the action is.

Bill Cosby, for example, has arguably already suffered enough punishment from social media/other media alone. Virtually everyone except for possibly his wife and kids now thinks, even when just merely glancing at a picture of him or hearing his name, "oh, that's the rape guy."

So you think public shaming is a sufficient punishment for rape and an appropriate substitute for jail time?