2. The Narrative of Online Shaming
3. The Structure of Online Shaming
When rumors spread, it is often through a process in which they are accepted by people with low thresholds for acceptance, and eventually through others as well, simply because most people think that so many people cannot be wrong. A tipping point can be reached in which large numbers of people accept a false rumor even though it is quite baseless.(, p. 93)
The transgression should (1) concern the audience; (2) deviate widely from desired behavior; and (3) not be expected to be formally punished. The transgressor should (4) be sensitive to the group doing the shaming. And the shaming should (5) come from a respected source, (6) be directed where possible benefits are highest and (7) be implemented conscientiously.(, p. 173)
At its core, privacy is about the ‘right to be let alone’, the right to remain anonymous, and freedom from being targeted. In a relational context, therefore, privacy is about how to achieve decent participation in the cyber world, and how to safeguard autonomy and dignity in one’s life against the powerful social moral force of monitoring and enduring sanctions exercised through the internet.(, pp. 194–95)
4.1. Privacy and Dignity
Autonomy focuses on just one human faculty, the will, and identifying dignity with autonomy likewise identifies human dignity with willing and choosing. This, I believe, is a truncated view of humanity and human experience. Honoring someone’s human dignity means honoring their being, not merely their willing. Their being transcends the choices they make. It includes the way they experience the world—their perceptions, their passions and sufferings, their reflections, their relationships and commitments, what they care about.(, p. 76)
It is the dignity involved in having the right to know what kind of a deal one has struck, and on what terms. It is the dignity of the one-shot transaction-the dignity that arises from our marketplace right to complete one deal and move on to the next one, the dignity that comes from our right to pay off a debt once and for all and be done with our creditor.(, p. 1090)
The derision, hostility and abuse encouraged by hate propaganda…have a severely negative impact on the individual’s sense of self-worth and acceptance. This impact may cause target group members to take drastic measures in reaction, perhaps avoiding activities which bring them in contact with non-group members or adopting attitudes and postures directed towards blending in with the majority. Such consequences bear heavily in a nation that prides itself on tolerance and the fostering of human dignity through, among other things, respect for the many racial, religious, and cultural groups in our society.42
4.2. Privacy in Public
The message of such a case is that once information is posted publicly online, there can be no privacy claim.48[A] crucial ingredient of the applicable invasion of privacy cause of action is a public disclosure of private facts. A matter that is already public or that has previously become part of the public domain is not private…Here, Cynthia publicized her opinions about Coalinga by posting the Ode on myspace.com, a hugely popular internet site. Cynthia’s affirmative act made her article available to any person with a computer and thus opened it to the public eye. Under these circumstances, no reasonable person would have had an expectation of privacy regarding the published material.
[T]he widespread publication of a photograph of someone which reveals him to be in a situation of humiliation or severe embarrassment, even if taken in a public place, may be an infringement of the privacy of his personal information. Likewise, the publication of a photograph taken by intrusion into a private place (for example, by a long distance lens) may in itself be such an infringement, even if there is nothing embarrassing about the picture itself.(, para. 75)
Those who wish to hold forth to the public by this means often take steps to disguise their authorship but it is in my judgment a significantly further step to argue, if others are able to deduce their identity, that they should be restrained by law from revealing it.(, para. 9)
In these cases the focus was on the right of the user to control the boundary between public and private online, while the European Court of Human Rights (ECtHR) has been more open to protecting a broader right of public privacy.[M]any of those who engage with the internet may hope and imagine that their private communications with their chosen audience will somehow ‘take place’ beyond the observation of others; yet they find it difficult to delimit a place that will permit them the privacy they desire in the boundlessness of cyberspace.(, p. 9)
4.3. Social Privacy
Her fear that he might have been at the Cadillac Lounge and that he could escalate to offline and real-life harassment (though she had no idea what he would do) is based on her view that there is privacy in Twitter and that one account holder can dictate what another account holder tweets. But on the whole of this evidence, relating to both her and Ms. Guthrie, Twitter is not private, by definition and in its essence.On this evidentiary record, asking a person to stop reading one’s feed from a freely chosen open account is not reasonable. Nor is it reasonable to ask someone to stop alluding to one’s tweets. To subscribe to Twitter and keep your account open is to waive your right to privacy in your tweets. Arranging a meeting or social event using tweets other than direct messages is like inviting strangers into your home or onto your phone line while you talk to your friends. Blocking only goes so far, as long as you choose to remain open.I am not satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that Mr. Elliott’s repeated communications caused Ms. Reilly to fear for her safety. But had I been so satisfied in relation to the Cadillac Lounge incident, I would not be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt that such fear, based as it was on an expectation that non-direct tweets are private, was reasonable in all of the circumstances [emphasis added].(, p. 83)
Conflicts of Interest
- Jennifer Jacquet. Is Shame Necessary: New Uses for an Old Tool. New York: Pantheon Books, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Nathaniel Hawthorne. The Scarlet Letter. Boston: Ticknor, Reed and Fields, 1850. [Google Scholar]
- Daniel Solove. The Future of Reputation: Gossip, Rumor, and Privacy on the Internet. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Lauren Goldman. “Trending Now: The Use of Social Media Websites in Public Shaming Punishments.” American Criminal Law Review 52 (2015): 415–51. [Google Scholar]
- Jon Ronson. So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed. New York: Riverhead Books, 2015. [Google Scholar]
- “United States v Gementera, 379 F.3d 596 (9th Cir. 2004). ”
- Eric Posner. “A Terrible Shame: Enforcing Moral Norms without Law Is No Way to a Virtuous Society.” Slate, 9 April 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Kate Klonick. “Re-Shaming the Debate: Social Norms, Shame, and Regulation in an Internet Age.” Maryland Law Review 75 (2016): 1029–65. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Dan M. Kahan. “What Do Alternative Sanctions Mean? ” University of Chicago Law Review 63 (1996): 591–653. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Toni M. Massaro. “The Meanings of Shame: Implications for Law Reform.” Psychology, Public Policy and Law 3 (1997): 645–704. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- James Q. Whitman. “What is wrong with Inflicting Shame Sanctions.” Yale Law Journal 107 (1998): 1055–92. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Martha C. Nussbaum. “Objectification and Internet Misogyny.” In The Offensive Internet. Edited by Saul Levmore and Martha C. Nussbaum. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Chad Flanders. “Shame and the Meanings of Punishment.” Cleveland State Law Review 55 (2007): 609–35. [Google Scholar]
- Anne Cheung. “Revisiting Privacy and Dignity: Online Shaming in the Global E-Village.” Laws 3 (2014): 301–26. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef][Green Version]
- Joel Reidenberg. “Lex Informatica: The Formulation of Information Policy Rules through Technology.” Texas Law Review 76 (1998): 553–93. [Google Scholar]
- Lawrence Lessig. “Social Meaning and Social Norms.” University of Pennsylvania Law Review 144 (1996): 2181–89. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lawrence Lessig. Code and Other Law of Cyberspace Ver. 2.0. New York: Basic Books, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Andrew Murray. The Regulation of Cyberspace. Abingdon: Routledge-Cavendish, 2006. [Google Scholar]
- Jonathan Zittrain. The Future of the Internet and How to Stop It. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- Mark A. Lemley. “The Law and Economics of Internet Norms.” Chicago-Kent Law Review 73 (1998): 1257–94. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Lizzy Davies. “Facebook Refuses to Take Down Rape Joke Pages.” The Guardian, 30 September 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Meredith Bennett-Smith. “Facebook Vows to Crack Down on Rape Joke Pages after Successful Protest, Boycott.” Huffington Post, 29 May 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Eric Kain. “Reddit Makes Headlines Boycotting GoDaddy over Online Censorship Bills.” Forbes, 26 December 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Coral Braun, and Yonah Jeremy Bob. “Shurat HaDin Exposed Facebook’s Double Standard in Removing Inflammatory Material on Its Site.” The Jerusalem Post, 5 January 2016. [Google Scholar]
- Anne Cheung. “Revisiting Privacy and Dignity: Online Shaming in the Global E-Village.” University of Hong Kong Faculty of Law Research Paper No. 2012/019. Hong Kong: Faculty of Law, The University of Hong Kong, 2012. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers2.cfm?abstract_id=2010438 (accessed on 25 October 2016).
- “And Now, a Funny Holiday Joke from IAC’s PR Boss.” Tweeted by Sam Biddle. Available online: http://valleywag.gawker.com/and-now-a-funny-holiday-joke-from-iacs-pr-boss-1487284969 (accessed on 25 October 2016).
- Alison Vingiano. “This Is How a Woman’s Offensive Tweet Became the World’s Top Story.” BuzzFeed, 21 December 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Adrien Chen. “The Troll Hunters.” MIT Technology Review, 18 December 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Mariel Gruszko. “Crowd-Sourcing Surveillance: When Does Little Brother Get Too Big? ” Witness, 5 July 2011. [Google Scholar]
- Ciaran Mc Mahon. “Why We Need a New Theory of Cyberbullying. Working Paper Series #14.3.cb.” Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2531796 (accessed on 25 October 2016).
- Steve Bruce. “Young Man Enters Guilty Plea in High-Profile Nova Scotia Child Porn Case.” Herald News, 22 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Michael Macdonald. “Year of Probation for Second Man Who Pleaded Guilty in Rehtaeh Parsons Case.” The Globe and Mail, 15 January 2015. [Google Scholar]
- “Amanda Todd’s Story: Struggling, Bullying, Suicide, Self Harm.” YouTube video, 8:54, posted by “ChiaVideos”. 11 October 2011. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ej7afkypUsc (accessed on 25 October 2016).
- NoBulying.com. “The Unforgettable Amanda Todd Story.” Available online: http://nobullying.com/amanda-todd-story/ (accessed on 25 October 2016).
- Danielle Citron. Hate Crimes in Cyberspace. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Danielle Keats Citron. “Civil Rights in Our Information Age.” In The Offensive Internet. Edited by Saul Levmore and Martha C. Nussbaum. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- “Jones v Dirty World Entertainment Recordings LLC, No. 13-5946, 2014 WL 2694184 (6th Cir. 16 June 2014). ”
- “Communications Decency Act, 47 USC. ”
- Jeffrey Rosen. “Privacy in Public Places.” Law & Literature 12 (2000): 167–91. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Monica Lewinsky. “The Price of Shame.” TED, March 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Danielle Keats Citron, and Mary Anne Franks. “Criminalizing Revenge Porn.” Wake Forest Law Review 49 (2014): 345–91. [Google Scholar]
- National Network to End Domestic Violence. “A Glimpse from the Field: How Abusers are Misusing Technology.” Technology Safety, 7 February 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Norton. “Online Harassment: the Australian Woman’s Experience.” Available online: https://phoenix.symantec.com/Norton/au/online-harassment-experience-women/ (accessed on 25 October 2016).
- Becky Gardiner, Mahana Mansfield, Ian Anderson, Josh Holder, Daan Louter, and Monica Ulmanu. “The dark side of Guardian comments.” The Guardian, 12 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
- The Guardian. “The Web We Want.” Available online: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/series/the-web-we-want (accessed on 25 October 2016).
- Jenn Frank. “How to Attack a Woman Who Works in Video Gaming.” The Guardian, 1 September 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Caitlin Dewey. “The Online Guide to Gamergate You Will Ever Need to Read.” The Washington Post, 14 October 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Press Association. “Two Face Jail over Twitter Abuse of Banknote Campaigner.” The Guardian, 24 January 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Staff and Agencies. “Two Jailed for Twitter Abuse of Feminist Campaigner.” The Guardian, 24 January 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Brian Leiter. “Cleaning Cyber-Cesspools: Google and Free Speech.” In The Offensive Internet. Edited by Saul Levmore and Martha C. Nussbaum. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Ellen Nakashima. “Harsh Words Die Hard on the Web.” The Washington Post, 7 March 2007. [Google Scholar]
- “Elonis v United States, 575 US __ (2015). ”
- “McAlpine v Bercow,  EWHC 1342 (QB). ”
- Mark Sweney. “Lord McAlpine Settles Libel Action with Alan Davies over Twitter Comment.” The Guardian, 24 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Press Association. “Lord McAlpine Libel Row with Sally Bercow Formally Settled in High Court.” The Guardian, 22 October 2013. [Google Scholar]
- Ellen Branagh. “Lord McAlpine Drops Defamation Claims against Twitter Users with Fewer Than 500 Followers.” The Independent, 21 February 2013. [Google Scholar]
- “Pritchard v Van Nes, 2016 BCSC 686. ”
- Ursula Kennedy. “Q&A with Caroline Criado-Perez. ‘What Happened to Me Was a Wake-Up Call for Society’.” The Guardian, 3 May 2015. [Google Scholar]
- “Communications Act, 2003 c 21. ”
- “Chambers v DPP,  EWHC 2157. ”
- “Public Order Act, 1986 c 64. ”
- “Malicious Communications Act, 1988 c 27. ”
- “Protection from Harassment Act, 1977 c 40. ”
- “Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Part I of the Constitution Act, 1982, being Schedule B to the Canada Act 1982 (UK), 1982, c 11. ”
- “Criminal Code, RSC 1985, c C-46. ”
- “Bill C-13. An Act to Amend the Criminal Code, the Canada Evidence Act, the Competition Act and the Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters Act, 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2013 (assented to 9 December 2014). ”
- Teresa Scassa. “Information Privacy in Public Space: Location Data, Data Protection and the Reasonable Expectation of Privacy.” Canadian Journal of Law and Technology 7 (2010): 193–220. [Google Scholar]
- Cass Sunstein. “Believing False Rumors.” In The Offensive Internet. Edited by Saul Levmore and Martha C. Nussbaum. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Anne Cheung. “Rethinking Public Privacy in the Internet Era: A Study of Virtual Persecution by the Internet Crowd.” Journal of Media Law 2 (2009): 191–217. [Google Scholar]
- Lawrence Lessig. Code and Other Laws of Cyberspace. New York: Basic Books, 1999. [Google Scholar]
- Andrew Couts. “Anonymous, Amanda Todd and the Dangers of Vigilante Justice Online.” Digital Trends, 17 October 2012. [Google Scholar]
- Twitter. “#congratsyouhaveanallmalepanel.” Available online: https://twitter.com/hashtag/congratsyouhaveanallmalepanel (accessed on 26 January 2017).
- “Google Spain SL, Google Inc. v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Marios Costeja Gonzalez. Case 12 (2014) C-131/12. ”
- Viktor Mayer-Shonberger. Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- Lisa Austin. “Privacy, Shame and the Anxieties of Identity.” 2012. Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2061748 (accessed on 25 October 2016).
- “Universal Declaration of Human Rights, 1948. ”
- “The Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2000/C 254/01. ”
- David Luban. Legal Ethics and Human Dignity. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2007. [Google Scholar]
- “R v Spencer, 2014 SCC 43,  2 SCR 212. ”
- “R v Fearon, 2014 SCC 77,  SCR 621. ”
- James Q. Whitman. “The Two Western Cultures of Privacy: Dignity versus Liberty.” Yale Law Journal 113 (2004): 1151–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Ari Ezra Waldman. “Privacy as Trust: Sharing Personal Information in a Networked World.” University of Miami Law Review 69 (2015): 559–630. [Google Scholar]
- Avishai Margalit. “Privacy in the Decent Society.” Social Research 68 (2001): 255–68. [Google Scholar]
- Jeffrey Rosen. The Unwanted Gaze: The Destruction of Privacy in America. New York: Random House, 2000. [Google Scholar]
- Jeffrey Rosen. “Out of Context: The Purposes of Privacy.” Social Research 68 (2001): 209–20. [Google Scholar]
- Lisa Austin. “Privacy and the Question of Technology.” Law and Philosophy 22 (2003): 119–66. [Google Scholar]
- Jon Ronson. “How One Stupid Tweet Ruined Justine Sacco’s Life.” The New York Times, 12 February 2015. [Google Scholar]
- Norberto Nuno Gomes de Andrade. “Human Genetic Manipulation and the Right to Identity: The Contradictions of Human Rights Law in Regulating the Human Genome.” SCRIPT-ed 7 (2012): 429–52. [Google Scholar]
- Paul Bernal. Internet Privacy Rights: Rights to Protect Autonomy. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Helen Nissenbaum. “Privacy as Contextual Integrity.” Washington Law Review 79 (2004): 119–57. [Google Scholar]
- James Grimmelmann. “The Virtues of Moderation.” Yale Journal of Law and Technology 17 (2015): 42–109. [Google Scholar]
- “R v Keegstra,  3 SCR 697. ”
- Jeremy Waldron. The Harm in Hate Speech. Cambridge: Harvard University Press, 2012. [Google Scholar]
- “Sidabras and Dziatuas v Lithuania, Application nos. 55480/00 and 59330/00, 27 July 2004. ”
- “Handyside v United Kingdom, (1979–1980) 1 EHRR 737. ”
- Nicole Moreham. “Privacy in Public Places.” Cambridge Law Journal 65 (2006): 606–35. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- “Restatement (2d) of Torts (2010). ”
- Daniel J. Solove, and Neil M. Richards. “Privacy’s Other Path: Recovering the Law of Confidentiality.” The Georgetown Law Journal 96 (2007): 153–82. [Google Scholar]
- Elizabeth Paton-Simpson. “Privacy and the Reasonable Paranoid: The Protection of Privacy in Public Places.” The University of Toronto Law Journal 50 (2000): 305–46. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- “Moreno v Hanford Sentinel Inc., 172 CalApp (4th) 1125 (2009). ”
- Megan Richardson, Julian Thomas, and Marc Trabsky. “The Internet Imaginary and the Problem of Privacy.” University of Melbourne Legal Studies Research Paper No. 633. Melbourne, Australia: Melbourne Law School, University of Melbourne, 2012. Available online: https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2252274 (accessed on 26 October 2016).
- “Jones v Tsige, 2012 ONCA 31, 108 (3d) 241. ”
- Barry Sookman. Computer, Internet and Electronic Commerce Law. Toronto: Carswell, 1988. [Google Scholar]
- “Doe 464533 v ND, 2016 ONSC 541. ”
- “Criminal Justice and Courts Act, 2015 c 2. ”
- “Cyber-safety Act, SNS 2013, c 2. ”
- CBC. “Nova Scotia to Craft New Cyberbullying Law.” CBC, 14 April 2016. [Google Scholar]
- “Crouch v Snell, 2015 NSSC 340. ”
- “Intimate Image Protection Act, SM 2015, c 42. ”
- “Aubry v Éditions Vice-Versa inc,  1 SCR 591. ”
- “Campbell v MGN Ltd,  UKHL 22. ”
- “Judith Vidal-Hall & ors v Google Inc,  EWHC 13. ”
- “The Author of a Blog v Times Newspapers Ltd,  EWHC 1358 (QB). ”
- “Von Hannover v Germany No. 1, Application no. 59320/00,  ECHR 294 (24 June 2004). ”
- “Von Hannover v Germany No. 2, Application 40660/08,  ECHR 228 (7 February 2012). ”
- “Peck v United Kingdom, Application, 44647/98  ECHR 44 (28 January 2003). ”
- “European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms, 1950. ”
- The National Post. “Dalhousie Investigating ‘Deeply Disturbing’ Facebook Page about Female Dentistry Students.” The National Post, 16 December 2014. [Google Scholar]
- Jane Taber. “Dalhousie Dentistry Student Blew the Whistle on Facebook Group: Lawyer.” The Globe and Mail, 18 January 2015. [Google Scholar]
- David Mangan. “A Platform for Discipline: Social Media Speech and the Workplace.” Available online: http://digitalcommons.osgoode.yorku.ca/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1084&context=olsrps (accessed on 25 October 2016).
- “UN Human Rights Council A/HRC/20/L.13 (2012). ”
- “Report of the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression, Frank La Rue to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/17/27 (2011). ”
- “Report of the special rapporteur on the promotion and protection of the right to freedom of expression, David Kaye to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/32/38 (2016). ”
- “Report of the special rapporteur on the right to privacy, Joseph A. Cannataci to the Human Rights Council, A/HRC/31/64 (2016). ”
- Alan F. Westin. Privacy and Freedom. New York: Atheneum, 1967. [Google Scholar]
- Christopher Parsons. “Shame Justice on Social Media: How It Hurts and Ways to Limit It.” 8 May 2012. Available online: http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2151204 (accessed on 25 October 2016).
- “Cat in bin in Coventry.” YouTube video, 1:26, posted by "atalbot01". 22 August 2010. Available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MOuCjzVAO_w&feature=player_embedded (accessed on 25 October 2016).
- Patrick Barkham. “Cat Bin Woman Mary Bale Fined £250.” The Guardian, 19 October 2010. [Google Scholar]
- Valerie Steeves. “Reclaiming the Social Value of Privacy.” In Privacy, Identity and Anonymity in a Networked World: Lessons from the Identity Trail. Edited by Ian Kerr, Valerie Steeves and Carole Lucock. New York: Oxford University Press, 2009. [Google Scholar]
- “R v Elliott, 2016 ONCJ 35. ”
- Irwin Altman. The Environment and Social Behavior. Monterey: Brooks/Cole Publishing, 1976. [Google Scholar]
- Andrew Murray. “Nodes and Gravity in Virtual Space.” Legisprudence 5 (2011): 195–221. [Google Scholar] [CrossRef]
- Daniel J. Solove. “‘I’ve Got Nothing To Hide’ and Other Misunderstandings of Privacy.” San Diego Law Review 44 (2007): 745–72. [Google Scholar]
- 1Doxing is when people search for private information about an individual and then reveal it online.
- 2Swatting is when emergency services are called to a person’s house based on a false report.
- 3Jacquet discusses exposure as being “the essence of shaming” (, p. 9).
- 5For further information see the series of scholarly articles from the 1990s, which debated the value of shaming, although the focus was on government-sponsored sanctions, such as such as the use of shaming by the judiciary as an alternative to imprisonment [9,10,11]. This is observed in the case of Shawn Gementera, who was sentenced to, among other things, carry a sign with the words “I stole mail; this is my punishment” outside a postal facility:  discussed by Goldman in (, pp. 424–26). More subtle forms of shaming can also be observed, such as maintenance of criminal records, the use of public trials and perp walks . See detailed overview of this history Klonick (, part C). For more recent discussion, see Nussbaum , Flanders  and Cheung .
- 6See also Klonick (, p. 1033) noting the difficulty in defining shame in general.
- 8Some argue that the value we place on privacy makes shaming effective as a deterrent, because fear of losing that privacy convinces individuals not to behave a particular way: see discussion of Goldman .
- 9Various efforts to shame Facebook for its initial decision to allow these groups remain led the company to reverse its decision and revisit its policies.
- 10Several users transferred to (or threatened to) a different registrar. GoDaddy acquiesced and withdrew support for SOPA/PIPA.
- 11For example, Shurat HaDin—Israel Law Center set up two fake Facebook groups “Stop Palestinians” and “Stop Israelis”. Over the course of two days increasingly severe incitements of hatred and violence were posted on both pages and then the group complained to Facebook. The company initially only shut down the “Stop Palestinians” page until the organization publicized the test.
- 12Klonick asserts that shaming features three things: unclear social meaning, uncalibrated effects, and inaccuracy (, p. 1045).
- 13See discussion, infra, the Structure of Online Shaming.
- 14The tweet has since been deleted, but can be found through any Google search. It is also discussed in Ronson .
- 15So many individuals submitted information that it crashed the Vancouver Police Department’s website.
- 17See Rosen’s discussion of privacy and Monica Lewinsky .
- 18As Nussbaum argues, the fallacy of shame justice is that “it is justice by the mob: the dominant group are asked to take delight in the discomfort of the excluded and stigmatized” (, p. 73).
- 19See discussion of a study by the Cyber Civil Rights Initiative in Citron and Franks . In the case of domestic abuse, typically targeting women, victims service providers have reported that 97% of victims have been abused through misuse of technology, 95% through texting and 55% through posting online .
- 20Note that the term online harassment can be an umbrella for all sorts of unwanted behavior. The term was not defined in the study, at least in the material publicly available. The questions in the survey itself were not available to review .
- 21See more generally the excellent Guardian series “the web we want” .
- 22The situation was first discussed by Nakashima in a Washington Post article in 2007 . The two students sued 39 posters and subpoenaed AutoAdmit and ISPs to identify the posters. Some were identified and the case later settled. Making a case in such situation will be more difficult in light of Elonis v United States .
- 23In separate actions, Lord’s McAlpine settled with the BBC, ITV, Sally Bercow and Alan Davies. Concerning the offer to Twitter users with less than 500 followers, see Branagh .
- 24Note that the Plaintiff had obtained default judgment, and the Court’s reasoning here related to the plaintiff’s application for a permanent injunction, assessment of damages and special costs.
- 26See Citron  discussing the American context. In the United Kingdom, for example, a host of Acts have been re-purposed to target offensive and otherwise hateful comments on social media such as s 127 of the Communications Act  (and here see Chambers v DPP , s. 4A of the Public Order Act , the Malicious Communications Act  and the Protection from Harassment Act, 1977 c 40 . In Canada, one can rely on, to name a few, s. 8 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms , provisions in the Criminal Code  on hate speech, harassment, stalking and child pornography, or the recent amendment to the Criminal Code to criminalize the sharing of intimate images (this is the controversial Bill C-13 , or extension of traditional tort claims in trespass, nuisance or defamation to privacy issues. For more on some aspects of the Canadian context see Scassa .
- 29Greenpeace was used as a repeated example of an effective shamer in Jacquet (, chap. 6).
- 31This opens the debate concerning a right to be delisted from search results (more broadly debated as the right to be forgotten) addressed in a data protection context in Google Spain SL, Google Inc.v Agencia Espanola de Proteccion de Datos, Marios Costeja Gonzalez . The risks of such an environment of perfect remembering were earlier examined by Viktor Mayer-Shonberger, Delete: The Virtue of Forgetting in the Digital Age .
- 32Indeed Lisa Austin frames the process as “social” (, pp. 15–16).
- 33David Luban asserts that this was done on purpose for fear of going down the philosophical rabbit-hole and never emerging to reach consensus when drafting the UDHR. He commented, “the invocation of human dignity in human rights documents does no conceptual work in explaining what rights everyone ought to have” (, p. 68).
- 34See related discussion by Austin (, pp. 24–25).
- 35This was also quoted in Fearon (, para. 114).
- 36She also notes we can overcome many of the cultural difference that have been identified by scholars between the European notion of dignity as the root of privacy and the American notion of autonomy as the root of privacy (, pp. 34–35).
- 37See also discussion in Bernal (, chap. 9).
- 38Nissenbaum argues that privacy should be thought of in terms of contextual integrity, meaning that “a privacy violation has occurred when either contextual norms of appropriateness or norms of flow have been breached” (, p. 125).
- 39See Whitman for a discussion of the arguments of Robert Post (, p. 1167).
- 40See analysis of the virtues of moderation see Grimmelmann .
- 41Whitman used this language, stating that “[w]hen the state turns an offender over to the public, it robs him of that transactional dignity” (, p. 1090).
- 42See also discussion by Waldron (, pp. 84–85) about the significance of Dickson CJ’s reasoning in Keegstra.
- 43See discussion by Waldron of the similarities between degrading treatment and hate speech (, p. 109).
- 44Here Cheung was discussing the European Court of Human Right’s interpretation of the meaning of Article 8 of the European Convention for the Protection of Human Rights and Fundamental Freedoms 1950 in Sidabras and Dziatuas v Lithuania .
- 45Moreham discusses the risks to privacy related to wider dissemination of a photography (, p. 621–23).
- 48As Paton-Simpson explains, “[t]he message of these cases is, once reasonable people venture outside the safety of their own homes, they must expect that they may be followed, filmed, investigated and spied upon, by any person for any purpose” (, p. 4).
- 49The United Kingdom has also enacted legislation, which addresses revenge pornography. Section 33 of the Criminal Justice and Courts Act  makes it an offence, in certain circumstances, to disclose private sexual photographs or film.
- 50This puts aside, for the moment, an assessment of the flaws in the Bill C-13 , in particular the surveillance provisions. The provision criminalizing sharing of intimate images is sound, although it is of more use to adults than minors.
- 51Nova Scotia’s Justice Department is currently drafting a new cyberbullying act: see .
- 52The Act included, for example, damage to self-esteem and emotional well-being in the definition of cyber-bullying (, s. 3(1)(b)). The judge criticized the definition as a “colossal failure” (, para. 165), and since the law centred around this definition, the Act in its entirety was struck down.
- 53See also discussion by Moreham (, p. 632).
- 54In Judith Vidal-Hall & ors v Google Inc. , the Court concluded that misuse of private information is a distinct tort from breach of confidence.
- 55For discussion of the revelation at the Leveson Inquiry of the hacking see Richardson et al. (, p. 1).
- 56See also discussion in Moreham (, pp. 607–8).
- 57This was also stated in Peck v United Kingdom (, para. 57).
- 58See discussion also in Cheung (, pp. 207–9).
- 59See discussion in Richardson et al.  that case law tends to default to the view of the internet as a public space. Paton-Simpson states the factors that impact the degrees of privacy in public are i.e., “varying degrees of exposure or seclusion in different places and at different times, anonymity and the limitation of attention paid, various social rules, dispersion of information over space and time, and the ephemeral nature of our use of public space” (, p. 8).
- 61In Canada, courts and employment tribunals have looked at the privacy settings of employees in assessing justification for workplace dismissals concerning social media use: see here Mangan .
- 62Westin discusses this idea stating, “[k]knowledge or fear that one is under systematic observation in public places destroys the sense of relaxation and freedom that men seek in open spaces and public arenas” (, p. 31).
- 63See link to the video of the incident . It has been viewed over 1.5 million times.
- 64See Steeves (, p. 199) discussing this idea in the context of Westin’s work.
- 65It specifically concerned s 264 of the Criminal Code .
- 66This was the basis for the development of the tort of misuse of private information articulated in Campbell .
© 2017 by the author; licensee MDPI, Basel, Switzerland. This article is an open access article distributed under the terms and conditions of the Creative Commons Attribution (CC BY) license (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/).