Trial by Internet - Amanda Todd

philologos · 21-10-2012 03:51PM

Rayne Wooney wrote: »

Some of you may have heard the story of Amanda Todd, the 15 year old Canadian girl who was found dead on October 10 after killing herself to escape cyber bullies.

Today an internet hacking group named 'Anonymous' posted a video online naming a man which the group claims posted the topless pictures of the girl online, which led to Todd's suicide.
The video claims the man is a 32-year-old former Facebook employee from British Columbia

This video has sparked outrage among the 'supporters' of Todd with people saying this man should 'sleep with one eye open' and that he will be 'punished'.

This video has 27,000 views in it's first day and is gaining a lot of publicity, the last person I'd want to be at this moment is the man named in the video who a lot of people are already assuming guilty of bullying this girl.

What's your view on this "trial by Internet"

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2218532/Amanda-Todd-Anonymous-names-man-drove-teen-kill-spreading-nude-pictures.html

My view is too late. The girl's dead.

Vigilante justice is too futile. Where were the people when she was being bullied at school? Who stood up for her? This is a girl who was taken advantage of, a girl who was humiliated time and time again, a girl who was beaten up, a girl who was constantly ridiculed. The age of social media also meant that she couldn't escape it.

There's millions of kids like her. School is a cruel place for many people. I certainly remember it being that way.

The saddest part of her video was the last card:
"I have nobody... I need someone =(". That's all she needed, someone to stand up for her while she was getting bullied at school and say "Enough".

This vigilante justice post death is futile, absolutely futile. In the context of what I believe, it makes me wonder what could be said to her to keep her going, what could she have done to stay alive, what could others do to keep her alive.

However, this nonsense of vigilante justice will produce nothing good. The girl is dead now. Nothing will bring her back to this world.

hatrickpatrick · 21-10-2012 04:04PM

Super-Rush wrote: »

I actually realised that too late. Can't unmerge unfortunately.

eejit :mad:

NegativeCreep · 21-10-2012 05:18PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

eejit :mad:

Relax. It's an internet forum, you'll live.

Brain Stroking · 21-10-2012 05:30PM

Wanderer2010 wrote: »

The problem is there are a huge amount of people out there who are out of work, bored, spiteful or mentally ill and here they have access to the biggest, most anonymous (mostly) and safest way of venting their frustration and they are using it big time!

It could be the average human default setting is "c**t" and the youtube comments page etc is a representation of that ie people knowing they can say exactly what they want without moderation.

Not a nice worldview but the internet's gift of giving everyone in the world a voice has spawned such results.

hatrickpatrick · 21-10-2012 06:21PM

NegativeCreep wrote: »

Relax. It's an internet forum, you'll live.

I know, I just love a legitimate opportunity to call someone an eejit as opposed to calling someone an eejit when they are not in fact guilty of eejitism

hatrickpatrick · 21-10-2012 06:29PM

UCDVet wrote: »

Most people are cool with vigilante justice - so long as they get the right guy and dish out a 'reasonable' punishment.

The problem is it's really, really difficult to do that. So we have legal systems where people spend years/decades learning the legal system in an attempt to be fair.

As I said on the other page, the problem in these cases seems to be that the legal system is not fit for purpose, either because the authorities don't care enough about cases of bullying and animal abuse (the two main issues which attract internet vigilantism from what I've seen) or the law is not regarded as sufficient by those who take part.

In other words, either they feel the police don't care enough to chase these people, that the burden of evidence and/or technicalities one can get off on in court are too many in the digital world (for example, why the hell can't the Gardai use "find my iphone" GPS to get people's stolen phones back, when you have proof it's in a certain residence? That kind of red tape), and finally that the legally mandated punishment is not harsh enough (The latter is especially true in cases of animal abuse. Also remember that woman a year or two ago who bullied her daughter's schoolmate by pretending to be a boy, told her to kill herself which she did, and got no jail time? The vast majority of people I saw remarking thought she should have done time).

Now again I'm not justifying rule by the mob. But surely in a democracy, if an overwhelming section of society believed there should be harsher penalties for crimes such as harassment and animal abuse, that's something we should look into changing? Also the whole area of evidence. The digital world has moved beyond what the world was like when rules on evidence were drawn up. I see no legitimate reason why I shouldn't be able to, for example, present a printout of icloud.com's "find my iphone" showing my friend's iPhone at a house in the city (this actually happened, btw) and get the Gardai to get it back for me and deal with the thieves, as opposed to what actually happened which was her older brother having to go to the house himself to get the phone back, putting himself at risk).

Why can't we change the legal system, and the law, to accommodate these things? Why do so many people feel that the police will not deal with these bullies adequately, and if so many people do feel that way is that not a problem we need to look at solving?

hatrickpatrick · 21-10-2012 06:34PM

philologos wrote: »

However, this nonsense of vigilante justice will produce nothing good. The girl is dead now. Nothing will bring her back to this world.

That is true. However. I do feel that one positive aspect of this retribution stuff is that it might act as a deterrent. In other words, next time someone decides to film themselves setting a cat on fire or e stalking someone to the point of suicide, they might stop and think "Hang on, last time someone did this they paid dearly for it..."

Of course, that's what the legal system is for. But as I say, it would appear in these cases to be not quite fit for purpose.

end of the road · 22-10-2012 06:20PM

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I do feel that one positive aspect of this retribution stuff is that it might act as a deterrent. In other words, next time someone decides to film themselves setting a cat on fire or e stalking someone to the point of suicide, they might stop and think "Hang on, last time someone did this they paid dearly for it..."

heres the thing, it wouldn't act as a deterrent at all, if their the type to stalk people or set cats a light they will do it regardless, their psycotic, and deterrents won't stop them, locking them up in a psychiatric hospital however would stop them. of course their are some who are just nasty filthy trash and deterrents and legislation won't change them or their behaviour.

Trial by Internet - Amanda Todd

Comments