Should Vancouver rioters be publicly shamed? No

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 21/04/2012 (5144 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

Every year, the University of Manitoba’s Centre for Professional and Applied Ethics, the department of philosophy and the Free Press sponsor a Manitoba high school ethics essay competition. More than 100 students from across the province submitted essays this year on the topic “Is it right to shame Vancouver rioters publicly online?” The winning essay, answering “yes,” was written by Eric Fleming. The second-place essay, answering “no,” was written by Natasha Comeau.

No

An estimated 100,000 people crowded the Vancouver streets where two giant screens had been set up, a city beaming with Canuck pride in the hopes of a Stanley Cup victory. A shameful act occurred that evening, June 15, 2011, following the upsetting loss to the Boston Bruins. Rioters surrounded the Rogers Arena and spread across the city. Police cars were set on fire, shops were looted and glass was smashed. Clearly, a mob mentality was thriving.

The Internet was rapidly flooded with photos and videos of the rioters, a fantastic demonstration of our digital age. Before long, contact information for the rioters entered the public domain, putting them at risk of losing their reputations. Some even received threats. The online publication of these photos shamed many, but raised the question: Does shame act as proper punishment?

My answer is no. Public online shame is a dangerous and inappropriate form of justice for the individuals involved in the Vancouver riots.

Society is becoming submerged in a world of multimedia, where anyone can take out a cellphone, capture a photo or video and share it with people around the world in a matter of seconds. This creates a risky environment because everything becomes permanent as soon as it is posted online. Due to such tools as screenshots, there is no future opportunity for it to be erased.

The risk here is that the permanence of the video/photo published online is forever going to act as a potential discredit to their reputation and could make it difficult in the future for them to get an education or be hired for a job. Especially if the person is still young, their future prospects may be blighted because of a foolish act of adolescence.

The vast number of photo submissions from the public overwhelmed the Vancouver Police Department’s online server. This may be seen as a positive aspect of rapid information-sharing, because people are responding to defend their community against totally unwarranted violence, theft and hooliganism.

This widespread public “snitching” against other citizens, however, also has the potential to tear that community apart by destroying trust.

It’s perhaps too easy and safe to shame others while remaining anonymous oneself.

Part of my fear is that the Internet could easily become a dangerous source of intelligence in a “surveillance society” that threatens personal liberty and promises vigilante justice. We could easily become a society where fear is instilled in people. Would we really want to live in a society where everyone in the back of their mind feels apprehensive that their neighbours have the capability of causing them great public embarrassment? What would this do to community bonds and community solidarity?

The case of Nathan Kotylak, who, along with his family, became the target of serious threats, illustrates this danger. A photo published online, which subsequently appeared on the news across Canada, captured Kotylak, 17 at the time, lighting a police car on fire.

Now, as most people will recognize, this was a truly bad thing for him to have done. He was quickly identified. Soon, his phone number and personal address appeared on social networking sites and, as a result, his family was forced to evacuate their house in order to escape threats directed at them.

Kotylak thus far has not been charged with a criminal offence. But in spite of that, he has been suspended from the national water polo team for two years, potentially destroying any dreams of his to be part of the Olympic team.

Many will think his actions were reckless and wanton and that his suspension from water polo was an appropriately severe punishment. However, online publication of both his photo and his contact information also led to inappropriate (and criminal) threats against him and against his family. This is surely not how anti-social behaviour should be dealt with. Essentially, one form of illegal behaviour has been replaced with an equally destructive form of illegal behaviour.

Assisting the authorities to identify wrong-doers seems appropriate. Vigilante justice does not because it tends to be disproportionate and is often aimed at innocent people, including innocent family members.

Public shaming online, preferably without generating threats of violence, is inevitable. This form of shaming is unavoidable because it is impossible to monitor and control people’s online postings. Theoretically, online shaming by means of posted photos and videos could work both as a social penalty to people who behave in a highly anti-social way and as a general deterrent to others, but it is in no way an appropriate form of punishment.

Online shaming risks being unfair, because it has the potential to be wrongly targeted, as photos do not always tell the truth. Photos can show people that appear to be involved in the riots, but are in fact completely innocent and attempting to stop the violence or theft. Or they can lead to excessively harsh punishment when they do, in fact, tell the truth and citizens rather than law enforcers decide to take matters into their own hands.

Whereas a courtroom setting is carefully organized so that calm judgment can be exercised, people seeing photos of illegal acts online are often angry and ready to deliver justice “on the street.” Street justice can easily be very unjust.

Although the Internet can have its positive aspects, online shaming is a dangerous and inappropriate form of punishment. Justice for the individuals involved in the Vancouver riots will best be delivered by our court system.

 

The second-place essay, Justice in the Digital Age, was written by Natasha Comeau, a Grade 12 student at Balmoral Hall School. Sponsoring teacher was John Kerr.