Ethics Post 5: A New Frontier of Bullying

This week's topic is pretty interesting: it involves privacy and the growing epidemic of cyber-bullying. The irony about the word itself is that it's fairly new (although two suggestions came up in spell check for this post) and that it puts a whole new spin on the bullying mythos. 15 years ago, people would have asked you "What's a cyber-bully?" Now, it's almost common knowledge as to what cyber bully is, and what the general nature/behavior of a cyber bully entails. A cyber-bully is basically someone who threatens or harasses another person or people using the internet (specifically but not limited to social media). In the past 3 years, there's been an escalation of  focus on cyber-bulling in the media as in the most extreme cases, intense cyber-bullying has lead to suicide.

It's perfectly safe to say that due to human nature, the cyber-bullies themselves most likely never think that their antics would result in suicide or physical complications. The article that was partnered with this assignment involves a young girl named Megan Meier. She was only 13 years old when she committed suicide due to cyber-bully over Myspace (another reason to hate Myspace). The culprits were a former friend, her mother, and a co-worker of the mother who created a fake account to heckle Meier; she had a falling out with the friend prior to the bullying. That in itself is a shame. Something that started with a trivial situation lead to a horrifying result. The newspaper that covered the story (Suburban Journals) decided not to release the identities of the three offenders until there were charges. However, there were no arrests, charges, or civil suits. Interestingly enough, when the story was released (with the anonymity of the responsible culprits), the writer (Steve Pokin) and his fellow staff recieved flack for not bringing forth names. Readers flocked to the internet to protest and ask for justice. Another paper (St. Louis Post Dispatch) did a little snooping and acquired the identities of the culprits and released the information. Pokin gave in and confirmed.

Personally, I think the Journals staff was ethical in not releasing the names of the neighbors responsible for the suicide. It's a horrible situation and I DO believe they should've been reprimanded in some way, but at the end of the day there were no major court charges and their anonymity could be preserved. In a way, I think Pokin was trying to protect the neighbors from being subjected to random acts of vigilantism. In a way, the Journal covered it's own tracks from backlash by keeping the neighbors anonymous; who knows what kind of lawsuits would be thrown at them for releasing information and the results that would follow. While there is an issue of upholding the community, the Journal was honoring the ethics of privacy.

On the flip side though, I think the Post was ethically justified in identifying the neighbors. In this situation, they were honoring the codes of transparency/accountability and community. People had a right to know who was responsible, no matter what their motives were for wanting to know. In releasing/confirming the identities, awareness was also raised further for cyber-bullying. They were ethically justified, but I have to say I don't completely agree with them releasing the names; the damage was already done. The culprits were getting away basically scott-free.

On a final note, I will say that cyber-bullying happens on a more watered down level across the internet. This doesn't just pertain to social media, but to forums and sites where content can be posted and rated. The irony of these environments is that people can (more times than not) expect to be subjected to teasing or ridicule for expressing views. On internet forums, phrases such as "Kill yourself" or "You're a derogatory term" flow almost as freely as water. Ironically, many of these people that sling these slanderous terms don't mean them, they simply mean to incite anger or confusion in the target. These aggressors are called "Trolls".

A Troll in front of a computer, ready to cause confusion and hurt feelings.

But on that note, the neighbors of the Meier girl were probably attempting to "troll" her; make her feel bad or remorseful for ending the friendship with the neighbor girl. The article in the assignment was not specific in details of who did what to whom first, but it's indicated that the neighbors' side was enraged enough to spark action. I think social media should have a disclaimer that the opinions found on the web are not theirs and should be interpreted as such. Furthermore, parents and teachers should be educating younger internet goers on the potential dangers of the internet. Not just illegal activity and information stealing, but the potential of being bullied online. Unfortunately, since the internet can only be seen through access (smartphones, computers, tablets), evidence of cyber-bullying is naturally narrowed down to the victims' words and behaviors. Hopefully as the awareness of cyber-bullying increases, so do the ways in which one can defend themselves and prevent horrible aftermath.