Imagine this: Someone says something unfortunate or offensive at a crowded street corner. Another person hears it and launches into a righteous indignation frenzy. I'll call him the Lead Bully. He stirrs up others. Very soon this turns into a physical attack and the speaker ends up in the hospital with serious injuries.
In this case anyone would easily conclude that the Lead Bully and a number of others should be brought to justice and suffer financial damage for their transgressions.
Well, a lot of these online attacks are not far from my hypothetical scenario. They are launched and stoked by a Lead Bully and stoked by them and perhaps a small group of friends and followers. These attacks result in serious and significant damage spanning from physical and emotional to financial.
According to the article, in Justine Sacco's case the Lead Bully was Sam Biddle, editor of Valleywag. This person single-handedly unleashed the hordes on Sacco. Given his position and following it is impossible to imagine he did not understand the potential consequences of his actions. He ruined this woman's life and quite possibly scarred her for a long time, if not for life.
Much like the street corner beating scenario, he ought to be liable for his decision to affect someone's life. He had at least two choices in front of him. He took the one he knew would stirr-up a hornet's nest.
The case of the guys at the tech conference is similar. Adria Richards decided to be the Lead Bully and, as a consequence, cost a father of three kids his job and caused much pain. I happen to also have three kids. If you are single you have no idea what that man felt at that moment. You can guess, but you can't know. It's horrible.
Did these people say stupid things? Probably. The way to deal with them isn't to ruin their lives. In most cases at a street corner they would be ignored.
When I was younger a mentor said something to me that stuck. He said: Having freedom and being free does not mean having freadom or being free from the responsibility for your actions or what you say.
This cuts both ways. The person who utters or tweets a potentially insensitive remark deserves to be responsible for what they said IN PROPORTION to the nature, degree and context of the statements. The people choosing to eviscerate them using social media ought to also be responsible in proportion to the consequences of their actions. That would be just and fair all around.
The proportional response to offensive speech is a rebuttal.
It is not stripping away the other's anonymity. It is not convincing their employer to fire them. It is not ostracizing them and all their immediate associates from civil society.
If someone tells a horribly offensive joke, there are several acceptable responses. One is "We are not amused." Another is "The Aristocrats!" Grabbing torch and pitchfork, and marching to the castle to demand that the monster be let go--and without even a letter of recommendation--is not.
Think before you act, yes. Think before you speak? That seems a rather lofty expectation, even in 2015. There is no ill-considered thought so swift that it cannot be hunted down with a remorseful apology.
Imagine this: Someone says something unfortunate or offensive at a crowded street corner. Another person hears it and launches into a righteous indignation frenzy. I'll call him the Lead Bully. He stirrs up others. Very soon this turns into a physical attack and the speaker ends up in the hospital with serious injuries.
In this case anyone would easily conclude that the Lead Bully and a number of others should be brought to justice and suffer financial damage for their transgressions.
Well, a lot of these online attacks are not far from my hypothetical scenario. They are launched and stoked by a Lead Bully and stoked by them and perhaps a small group of friends and followers. These attacks result in serious and significant damage spanning from physical and emotional to financial.
According to the article, in Justine Sacco's case the Lead Bully was Sam Biddle, editor of Valleywag. This person single-handedly unleashed the hordes on Sacco. Given his position and following it is impossible to imagine he did not understand the potential consequences of his actions. He ruined this woman's life and quite possibly scarred her for a long time, if not for life.
Much like the street corner beating scenario, he ought to be liable for his decision to affect someone's life. He had at least two choices in front of him. He took the one he knew would stirr-up a hornet's nest.
The case of the guys at the tech conference is similar. Adria Richards decided to be the Lead Bully and, as a consequence, cost a father of three kids his job and caused much pain. I happen to also have three kids. If you are single you have no idea what that man felt at that moment. You can guess, but you can't know. It's horrible.
Did these people say stupid things? Probably. The way to deal with them isn't to ruin their lives. In most cases at a street corner they would be ignored.
When I was younger a mentor said something to me that stuck. He said: Having freedom and being free does not mean having freadom or being free from the responsibility for your actions or what you say.
This cuts both ways. The person who utters or tweets a potentially insensitive remark deserves to be responsible for what they said IN PROPORTION to the nature, degree and context of the statements. The people choosing to eviscerate them using social media ought to also be responsible in proportion to the consequences of their actions. That would be just and fair all around.
Think before you act.