Perhaps I’m dating myself here, but back in my day (I feel old when I write or say that), there was no such thing as cyber-bullying. Sure, there was bullying, and it could be intense and traumatic for the victim, but it usually involved face-to-face confrontations, harassing, and knowing who the assailants were.
In an era of cyber-bullying and cyber-harassment, there is that extra added layer of anonymity that can make things all the more frightening for the victim, but they can also protect the bullies themselves to a certain extent. Such is the case with Megan Meier, the thirteen year-old who tragically committed suicide after being harassed by online bullies using an alias as referenced in Malone’s article.
This scandal (and many others like it) set off a firestorm of controversial debates regarding cyber-bullying, the internet, and who can be protected. After wrestling over what to do, Steven Pokin, a journalist for the Suburban Journals decided to write an article about Megan Meier’s tragic suicide, the circumstances that lead to it and her parent’s grief. Pokin also made the controversial decision to not name the names of the supposed cyber-bullies. This sparked outrage amongst many within the community (and outside the community) who found Pokin’s decision to be ridiculous.
It would be another publication, The Post, who would eventually name names and quench the public’s thirst for “whodunit”. In the end, however, the bullies were not charged for their heinous crime on account of the fact that there was a lack of evidence.
Pokin- by using Sissela Bok’s model- consulted his conscience about what the right decision to make was, as opposed to simply making a knee-jerk reaction and pointing fingers and naming names. It worked in the sense that Pokin maintained some degree of journalistic integrity (though some would argue against this). While he could have gone the route of being the one to break an exciting story (the “if it bleeds, it leads” approach) and earn himself praise and drive sales of the Suburban Journals, he instead chose to take a different approach. Yes, he still wrote the story, but he refrained from crossing the line and pointing fingers.
Some would argue that the Post made the better decision by ultimately naming names. Using what I feel is reminiscent of Utilitarianism, the argument could be made that the Post exposed cyber-bullies as a way of not only shedding light on a horrific crime that was committed, but also as a way of trying to “protect” society and discouraging this sort of thing from happening again.
While the supposed actions of Megan Meier’s anonymous neighbors were deplorable on many levels, I find Pokin’s ethical justification and his decision not to name names in the story, more compelling. The American justice system (as bizarre and contrived as it is) allows people the right to a fair trial and states that one is innocent until proven guilty. To reveal the identities of the cyber-bullies (who had not been charged of any crime) would, in my opinion, condemn them in the court of public opinion before they would have a chance to defend themselves in a court of law.
I do not feel that social networks- Facebook, Myspace, etc.- have an ethical obligation to intervene in these types of situations. Individuals need to be held accountable for their own actions. Parents need to do a better job of restricting where their children go on the internet and what they see while they are online. And while I’m not a parent, I strongly feel that thirteen year-olds should be nowhere near Facebook, Myspace, or online chatrooms. That said, social networks should consider placing a disclaimer that is easily visible and accessible on their website, explaining that one enters at their own risk and that the social network itself has little or no liability for the actions committed by those who decide to join.
No comments:
Post a Comment