After reading about the terrible cyberbullying of Megan Meier, by adults in her neighbourhood, that led to her suicide, many people were aghast. The original news article did not name the neighbours to protect the anonymity of their daughter (so they said) but a blog quickly outed the names. It’s spread all over the web now, an example of justice by Internet shaming via meme.
Public shaming is used without much thought in cases like registered sex offender databases online. In Megan’s case it was public outcry from an international news item, but shaming can include people posting info about their exes, bosses and other intimate situations. Even with sex offenders, who might seem to deserve exposure, Internet shaming is a problem that has led to vigilante murders. It might seem okay for Megan’s tormenters to be harassed as punishment but we don’t know all the facts. I’m not at all sympathetic to the cyberbullies but Internet shaming ought to be discouraged. The legal system has its flaws but it’s more civilized than a mob mentality or stalking. If people really want to see justice, they might fight against the cyberbullying and trolling happening right now before someone else is driven to suicide.
It’s teh intarweb, everyone gets mocked, it’s just a joke and I should lighten up…right? Or wrong?
(6 votes, average: 4.33 out of 5)
Loading ...This entry was posted on Friday, November 16th, 2007 at 9:02 pm and is filed under General, Brain and Behavior, Technology, Depression, Psychology, Children & Teens. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
11 Responses to “Internet Shaming” (Pingbacks/trackbacks not shown below)
Romeo Vitelli at 10:51 pm on
November 16th, 2007
The problem with Internet shaming is that there is no way of policing it since there are too many ways to be anonymous. Unless you have VERY deep pockets, going after the social networking sites or web hosting services tends to be useless. There will always be trolls saying nasty things, just don’t drag yourself down to their level.
Sandra Kiume at 1:32 am on
November 17th, 2007
Yes, very true. I suppose trying to spread word to frame it as undesirable could backfire, too. I don’t know how to avoid trolling.
chicagopoetry at 3:45 pm on
November 17th, 2007
I have written a book about psychology called Disco Hypnotic. You can reach me at DiscoHypnotic.com Thanks!
Shirley at 8:01 pm on
November 17th, 2007
In the case of Megan Meier, I understand the interest people have in shaming the perpetrators. In this case, the law did not defend the child victim. An adult pretended to be a minor in order to befriend a minor online, with the intention of harassing her. And when the child victim committed suicide, the woman pretending to be the “hot boy teenager” got away with it. Where’s the justice? Apparently there is none.
Honestly, if the law had stepped up and protected this child (her mother had contacted the police prior to the suicide), then the public would not need to attempt to shame the woman. The whole situation just reeks. That girl should have been protected. The perpetrator should be held accountable. If the law doesn’t step up, then the public will.
Anonyma at 8:03 pm on
November 17th, 2007
I understand people’s outrage. But few seem to get the point that allowing even teens to converse with strangers on the Internet is dangerous.
Sandra Kiume at 10:01 pm on
November 17th, 2007
Hi Shirley - I definitely see your point, and agree that the law didn’t step up in this case. I feel the sense of outrage too. I just worry about what can happen when the public takes over.
Erin at 10:46 pm on
November 18th, 2007
After reading about this, I had to hug my daughters and thank God that they are alive and well. What troubles me is that they will soon be teenagers. Some day an evil person (like Lori Drew) may go to sub-human levels and try to destroy them. Something must be done. If the law will not do anything, then we as a society must shun people that commit these types of heinous acts. As a moral society, we should not physically harm or destroy their property (though I must say that I have nothing but admiration for the Meiers to only take out their anger on a foosball table), but we should not associate with them in any way. The cold shoulder is the way to go.
Danny Vice at 10:58 pm on
November 21st, 2007
As details about Lori Drew’s 6 week cyber-voyeur techniques emerged, the more I am convinced that outing this kind of behavior is not only right, but essential. Essential? Really?
It is becoming clearer everyday that Lori Drew employed many of the same grooming techniques that child predators utilize to charm their way into gaining a child’s trust. The most significant key here is that Lori Drew spent approximately 6 full weeks baiting Megan into this trust by posing as a “cute” boy that Megan would be attracted to.
Right here, Drew utilizes the sexual stimulation that exists in male/female pair bonding in order to manipulate the 13 year old girl.
Lori Drew groomed her victim like many child predators do, enticing her with flirtation, mild sexual conversation and playing on Megan’s weakness. Lori knew that Megan had a low self esteem and was treated for depression.
There are uncanny parallels between the typical Child Predator MOA and those utilized by Lori Drew to control and manipulate Megan in the relationship Lori developed with her.
Outing Child Predators has been public policy in most states and is usually upheld under the premise that the public has a right to reasonably protect itself from criminal behavior where it exists. Families with children have a right to know when those who might prey upon their child, live nearby. Public policy dictates that if a child is exposed to potential harm from predatory activity, then parents should at least have the opportunity to be aware such harm may exist.
But what if a child predator confesses to a crime, but is never convicted? Does the potential for risk exist despite the legal process?
Thus far, details in the case have been heavily supported by Lori Drew’s own admissions, police records and interviews. The amount of speculation in this case has been minimal, and the majority of public outrage has largely focused on the facts presented.
The Missouri Public Records Act of 1961 was enacted partially to inform the public of persons, events, proceedings and reports that may effect the public directly. The records (such as the charges Lori Drew filed against the Meier family), were the principal documents used to tie Lori Drew to her abhorrent acts. By filing this police report, Lori in effect put herself into the spot light. The Blogging community simply connected the dots and reported the results.
The Vice enjoys the sharp irony that Lori Drew’s own actions, activities and zeal to hurt someone eventually lead to her own uncovering. As I see it, public policy laws and Lori Drew’s own manipulations of those laws worked to her undoing. The Vice is appreciative for Lori Drew’s assistance in these efforts.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
We have an article on this online predation process as well:
http://cyberpaths.blogspot.com/2006/12/lures-of-online-predator.html
The authorities treat these victims like hysterical women/men/ parents. Every one of our victims has been blown off. Not one has the money to even sue for Emotional Distress - and these predators count on that.
Something has to be done about people like Lori Drew and even the predators on our site who cause divorces, emotional breakdowns, fraud, etc. We have had some of our reporting victims self-harm and attempt suicide. Thank God, none of them have suceeded so far. These predators think that behind a keyboard they are invincible.
The scorned woman or distraught teenager excuse is getting tired.
Danny Vice at 7:28 pm on
December 2nd, 2007
On Wednesday, October 21st, city officials wasted no time enacting an ordinance designed to address the public outcry for justice in the Megan Meier tragedy. The six member Board of Aldermen made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail.
Does this new law provide any justice for Megan? Does this law provide equitable relief for a future victim?
The Vice rejects the premise of this new law and believes it completely misses the mark. Classifying this case as a harassment issue completely fails to address the most serious aspects of the methods Lori Drew employed to lead this youth to her demise. The Vice disagrees that harassment was even a factor in this case until just a couple of days before Megan’s death.
Considering this case a harassment issue is incorrect because during the 5 weeks Lori Drew baited and groomed her victim, the attention was NOT unwanted attention. Megan participated in the conversations willingly because she was misled, lured, manipulated and exploited without her knowledge.
This law willfully sets a precedent that future child exploiters and predators might use to reclassify their cases as harassment cases. In effect, the law enacted to give Megan justice, may make her even more vulnerable. So long as the child victim doesn’t tell the predator to stop, even a harassment charge may not stick with the right circumstances and a good defender.
Every aspect of this case follows the same procedural requirement used to convict a Child Predator. A child was manipulated by an adult. A child was engaged in sexually explicit conversation (as acknowledged by Lori Drew herself). An adult imposed her will on a child by misleading her, using a profile designed to sexually or intimately attract the 13 year old Megan.
Lori then utilized the power she had gained over this child to cause significant distress and endangerment to that child. She even stipulated to many of these activities in the police report she filed shortly after Megan’s death.
City officials who continue to ignore this viable, documented admission and continue to address this issue as harassment are intentionally burying their heads in the sand, when the solution is staring them right in the face. Why?
There are several other child exploitation laws on the books. To date, none of them have even been considered by City, State and Federal officials in this case. The Vice is outraged that a motion was never even filed, so that the case could at least be argued before a judge or jury.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
sifudan at 1:05 pm on
March 15th, 2008
Danny Vice, you are a piece of crap. Your website (wow, with 235 viewers - nice going!) supposedly “outs” people, but you actually pick up stories from around the country with no investigative journalism of your own. You comment on the alleged perpetrators appearance, weight, and charges as listed, but that is the extent of your research. I’ve tried twice to comment on your stories, but you don’t have the balls to post my comments because they didn’t glorify you as the savior of the downtrodden. Get a job at a real news outlet, you poseur, where you actually have to follow journalistic ethics. You have no problem with fueling the fears and assumptions of unrelated people who want the sensationalism of someone else’s problems to make themselves feel better. Screw you.
Be a Part of the Conversation! Comment on this Entry Now:
The problem with Internet shaming is that there is no way of policing it since there are too many ways to be anonymous. Unless you have VERY deep pockets, going after the social networking sites or web hosting services tends to be useless. There will always be trolls saying nasty things, just don’t drag yourself down to their level.
Yes, very true. I suppose trying to spread word to frame it as undesirable could backfire, too. I don’t know how to avoid trolling.
I have written a book about psychology called Disco Hypnotic. You can reach me at DiscoHypnotic.com Thanks!
In the case of Megan Meier, I understand the interest people have in shaming the perpetrators. In this case, the law did not defend the child victim. An adult pretended to be a minor in order to befriend a minor online, with the intention of harassing her. And when the child victim committed suicide, the woman pretending to be the “hot boy teenager” got away with it. Where’s the justice? Apparently there is none.
Honestly, if the law had stepped up and protected this child (her mother had contacted the police prior to the suicide), then the public would not need to attempt to shame the woman. The whole situation just reeks. That girl should have been protected. The perpetrator should be held accountable. If the law doesn’t step up, then the public will.
I understand people’s outrage. But few seem to get the point that allowing even teens to converse with strangers on the Internet is dangerous.
Hi Shirley - I definitely see your point, and agree that the law didn’t step up in this case. I feel the sense of outrage too. I just worry about what can happen when the public takes over.
After reading about this, I had to hug my daughters and thank God that they are alive and well. What troubles me is that they will soon be teenagers. Some day an evil person (like Lori Drew) may go to sub-human levels and try to destroy them. Something must be done. If the law will not do anything, then we as a society must shun people that commit these types of heinous acts. As a moral society, we should not physically harm or destroy their property (though I must say that I have nothing but admiration for the Meiers to only take out their anger on a foosball table), but we should not associate with them in any way. The cold shoulder is the way to go.
As details about Lori Drew’s 6 week cyber-voyeur techniques emerged, the more I am convinced that outing this kind of behavior is not only right, but essential. Essential? Really?
It is becoming clearer everyday that Lori Drew employed many of the same grooming techniques that child predators utilize to charm their way into gaining a child’s trust. The most significant key here is that Lori Drew spent approximately 6 full weeks baiting Megan into this trust by posing as a “cute” boy that Megan would be attracted to.
Right here, Drew utilizes the sexual stimulation that exists in male/female pair bonding in order to manipulate the 13 year old girl.
Lori Drew groomed her victim like many child predators do, enticing her with flirtation, mild sexual conversation and playing on Megan’s weakness. Lori knew that Megan had a low self esteem and was treated for depression.
There are uncanny parallels between the typical Child Predator MOA and those utilized by Lori Drew to control and manipulate Megan in the relationship Lori developed with her.
Outing Child Predators has been public policy in most states and is usually upheld under the premise that the public has a right to reasonably protect itself from criminal behavior where it exists. Families with children have a right to know when those who might prey upon their child, live nearby. Public policy dictates that if a child is exposed to potential harm from predatory activity, then parents should at least have the opportunity to be aware such harm may exist.
But what if a child predator confesses to a crime, but is never convicted? Does the potential for risk exist despite the legal process?
Thus far, details in the case have been heavily supported by Lori Drew’s own admissions, police records and interviews. The amount of speculation in this case has been minimal, and the majority of public outrage has largely focused on the facts presented.
The Missouri Public Records Act of 1961 was enacted partially to inform the public of persons, events, proceedings and reports that may effect the public directly. The records (such as the charges Lori Drew filed against the Meier family), were the principal documents used to tie Lori Drew to her abhorrent acts. By filing this police report, Lori in effect put herself into the spot light. The Blogging community simply connected the dots and reported the results.
The Vice enjoys the sharp irony that Lori Drew’s own actions, activities and zeal to hurt someone eventually lead to her own uncovering. As I see it, public policy laws and Lori Drew’s own manipulations of those laws worked to her undoing. The Vice is appreciative for Lori Drew’s assistance in these efforts.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
We have an article on this online predation process as well:
http://cyberpaths.blogspot.com/2006/12/lures-of-online-predator.html
The authorities treat these victims like hysterical women/men/ parents. Every one of our victims has been blown off. Not one has the money to even sue for Emotional Distress - and these predators count on that.
Something has to be done about people like Lori Drew and even the predators on our site who cause divorces, emotional breakdowns, fraud, etc. We have had some of our reporting victims self-harm and attempt suicide. Thank God, none of them have suceeded so far. These predators think that behind a keyboard they are invincible.
The scorned woman or distraught teenager excuse is getting tired.
On Wednesday, October 21st, city officials wasted no time enacting an ordinance designed to address the public outcry for justice in the Megan Meier tragedy. The six member Board of Aldermen made Internet harassment a misdemeanor, punishable by up to a $500 fine and 90 days in jail.
Does this new law provide any justice for Megan? Does this law provide equitable relief for a future victim?
The Vice rejects the premise of this new law and believes it completely misses the mark. Classifying this case as a harassment issue completely fails to address the most serious aspects of the methods Lori Drew employed to lead this youth to her demise. The Vice disagrees that harassment was even a factor in this case until just a couple of days before Megan’s death.
Considering this case a harassment issue is incorrect because during the 5 weeks Lori Drew baited and groomed her victim, the attention was NOT unwanted attention. Megan participated in the conversations willingly because she was misled, lured, manipulated and exploited without her knowledge.
This law willfully sets a precedent that future child exploiters and predators might use to reclassify their cases as harassment cases. In effect, the law enacted to give Megan justice, may make her even more vulnerable. So long as the child victim doesn’t tell the predator to stop, even a harassment charge may not stick with the right circumstances and a good defender.
Every aspect of this case follows the same procedural requirement used to convict a Child Predator. A child was manipulated by an adult. A child was engaged in sexually explicit conversation (as acknowledged by Lori Drew herself). An adult imposed her will on a child by misleading her, using a profile designed to sexually or intimately attract the 13 year old Megan.
Lori then utilized the power she had gained over this child to cause significant distress and endangerment to that child. She even stipulated to many of these activities in the police report she filed shortly after Megan’s death.
City officials who continue to ignore this viable, documented admission and continue to address this issue as harassment are intentionally burying their heads in the sand, when the solution is staring them right in the face. Why?
There are several other child exploitation laws on the books. To date, none of them have even been considered by City, State and Federal officials in this case. The Vice is outraged that a motion was never even filed, so that the case could at least be argued before a judge or jury.
Danny Vice
http://weeklyvice.blogspot.com
Danny Vice, you are a piece of crap. Your website (wow, with 235 viewers - nice going!) supposedly “outs” people, but you actually pick up stories from around the country with no investigative journalism of your own. You comment on the alleged perpetrators appearance, weight, and charges as listed, but that is the extent of your research. I’ve tried twice to comment on your stories, but you don’t have the balls to post my comments because they didn’t glorify you as the savior of the downtrodden. Get a job at a real news outlet, you poseur, where you actually have to follow journalistic ethics. You have no problem with fueling the fears and assumptions of unrelated people who want the sensationalism of someone else’s problems to make themselves feel better. Screw you.
