The NEW adventures of the digital vigilante! Facebook users’ views on online naming and shaming
| Author | Ruth M Dunsby,Loene M Howes |
| Published date | 01 March 2019 |
| DOI | 10.1177/0004865818778736 |
| Date | 01 March 2019 |
| Subject Matter | Articles |
Article
Australian & New Zealand Journal of
The NEW adventures of the
Criminology
2019, Vol. 52(1) 41–59
!
digital vigilante! Facebook
The Author(s) 2018
Article reuse guidelines:
sagepub.com/journals-permissions
users’ views on online
DOI: 10.1177/0004865818778736
journals.sagepub.com/home/anj
naming and shaming
Ruth M Dunsby and Loene M Howes
University of Tasmania, Australia
Abstract
Increasingly, digital vigilante activity occurs via social media and can have negative consequences
in the broader social world, a phenomenon that can be examined productively through a
cultural criminological lens. One example of digital vigilantism is the online naming and shaming
of people who are convicted or suspected of crime and subjecting them to embarrassment,
harassment, and/or condemnation. To contribute to the prevention of negative impacts of online
naming and shaming, this study aimed to better understand Australian Facebook users’ views
about – and experiences of participating in – online naming and shaming. Participants (n ¼ 122)
were primarily young Tasmanian adults who completed an online qualitative survey. Over one-
quarter (26%) of participants reported having liked posts that name and shame a person
suspected or convicted of crime, with smaller proportions engaging with these posts by sharing
or commenting on them. Whilst Facebook users recognised the potential for online naming and
shaming to impede justice, they perceived the practice as appropriate if it would foster com-
munity awareness and maintain community welfare. The findings are discussed in light of the
roles of Facebook users’ emotions, the social media as a cultural product, and the mediascape in
constructing versions of reality. Practical implications of the study include the need for policing
and media organisations to consider ways to meet their information needs without inadver-
tently encouraging acts of digital vigilantism. Overall, this study contributes to increased under-
standing of digital vigilantism and highlights the integral role of social media as a cultural product.
Keywords
Cultural criminology, cultural product, cyber-vigilantism emotions, digital vigilantism, mediascape,
social media
Date received: 5 January 2018; accepted: 23 April 2018
Corresponding author:
Loene M Howes, School of Social Sciences, College of Arts, Law, and Education, University of Tasmania, Private Bag
22, Hobart, Tasmania 7001, Australia.
Email: Loene.Howes@utas.edu.au
42
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 52(1)
Introduction – It’s a bird! It’s a plane! It’s. . .
With a thirst for justice, the vigilante figure has long captured public imagination
(Smallridge, Wagner, & Crowl, 2016). The proliferation of internet technologies has
allowed vigilantism to expand into the online space, where the uptake of social media
technology has increased the public visibility of certain types of misconduct (Kohm,
2009; Powell, 2015; Wood, Rose, & Thompson, 2018). Digital vigilantism also known as
digilantism, internet vigilantism, and cyber-vigilantism (Stratton, Powell, & Cameron,
2016), can be described as a citizen’s reaction to another person’s transgression of social
norms (Johnston, 1996) in the online space (Trottier, 2017).1 It includes naming and
shaming, hacktivism, citizen-led cyber-stings, and crowdsourced policing (Smallridge
et al., 2016). As one type of digital vigilantism, naming and shaming refers to identifying
alleged offenders and subjecting them to embarrassment, harassment, and/or condem-
nation (Arvanitidis, 2016). Social media users can participate in naming and shaming by
liking and sharing content that names and shames people online. In so doing, they may
fuel such vigilantism and contribute to its spread (Skoric, 2012; Trottier, 2017). Support
for vigilante websites reflects the popular appeal of activity such as online naming
and shaming.2
However, media reports have highlighted the potential negative consequences of
naming and shaming. For example, the naming and shaming of individuals whose
cases are before the courts could lead to unfair trials (Carlton, 2016) or to defamation
law suits (Jeans & Leader, 2015). Concerns have been raised about moral obligations
when the naming and shaming is of people who are suspected (rather than convicted) of
crime. In one example, a Melbourne man was reportedly accused of photographing
children, labelled a sexual predator, and had his image shared over 20,000 times on
social media. In fact, he had taken a photo of himself with a cardboard Darth Vader for
his own children; he handed himself in to police to clear his name (Kovacevic, 2016).
Additional concerns relate specifically to the naming and shaming of convicted sex
offenders. For example, ABC News, published: ‘Tasmanian sex offenders named and
shamed on social media’. The article reported two potential impacts. First, social media
publicity might lead to vigilante attacks against the former sex offenders who had served
their time in prison. Second, it suggested that sex offenders may be more likely
to reoffend if they are publicly shamed (Little, 2014, as cited in Glumac, 2014).
Indeed, a British news article reported that several dangerous sex offenders had
gone into hiding in fear of vigilantes, subsequently evading their mandatory police
surveillance (Bright, 2000).
To best prevent the negative impacts of online naming and shaming, a need exists for
research that first explores public perceptions, experiences, and endorsement of
digital vigilantism (Clarke, 1980; Smallridge et al., 2016). This article reports the find-
ings of a study that used a cultural criminological lens (Hayward, 2012) to explore the
under-researched issue of online naming and shaming. As background to the study, the
article first considers the cultural contexts of vigilantism, digital vigilantism, and
the applicability of the cultural criminological lens. With a sample of mostly young,
educated Tasmanian participants, the study employed an online qualitative survey to
explore Australian Facebook users’ views and experiences of online naming and sham-
ing. Specifically, it aimed to better understand the circumstances under which Facebook
Dunsby and Howes
43
users: (1) consider it appropriate to name and shame people who are suspected, or
convicted, of a crime; and (2) engage in such online naming and shaming. The findings
of the study contribute to a deeper understanding of the practice of naming and shaming
within the digital society.
Literature review – Vigilante reborn!
Vigilantism
Despite its presence in an extensive body of literature on US history, the term
vigilantism long lacked conceptualisation by criminologists (Johnston, 1996). Johnston
(1996) identified six key features of vigilantism as follows: (1) vigilantism involves
at least a minimum amount of planning and organisation by the vigilante, therefore
self-defence is excluded; (2) vigilantes are private agents who participate voluntarily with-
out an affiliation to a law enforcement organisation; (3) vigilantism is an autonomous act
without state support or authority; (4) vigilantism exercises or threatens the use of force
and/or violence; (5) vigilantism is a direct response to crime and/or social deviance;
and (6) its goal is to achieve personal and/or collective security (Smallridge et al.,
2016). Based on these features, Johnston (1996) defined vigilantism as follows:
Vigilantism is a social movement giving rise to premeditated acts of force—or threatened
force—by autonomous citizens. It arises as a reaction to the transgression of institutional-
ized norms by individuals or groups —or to their potential or imputed transgression. Such
acts are focused upon crime control and/or social control and aim to offer assurances (or
‘guarantees’) of security both to participants and to other members of a given established
order. (p. 232)
Many scholars have adopted Johnston’s definition (Smallridge et al., 2016). Additionally,
scholars have noted that whilst acts of vigilantism can be illegal or legal, vigilantism per se
is not deemed a crime (Johnston, 1996; Smallridge et al., 2016).
Historical context of vigilantism
Historical accounts in the United States have tended to support vigilantism, character-
ising it as a positive facet of American history. For example, Friedman’s (1985) study
traces use of the term back to South Carolina in 1767, when a group of Frontiersmen
formed the vigilante group, The Regulators. The men were committed to restoring
order in the aftermath of local wars (Friedman, 1985; Wills, 2002). Similarly,
Dimsdale (1866/2003) gives a first-hand account in The Vigilantes of Montana, justifying
vigilante activities in the 1860s:
Is it lawful for citizens to slay robbers or murderers, when they catch them; or ought they to
wait for policemen, where there are none, or put them in penitentiaries not yet erected?
. . .Justice, and protection from wrong to person or property, are the birthright of every
American citizen. (p. 16)
44
Australian & New Zealand Journal of Criminology 52(1)
According to Brown (1975, p. 126), vigilantism was seen as necessary and was supported
by the ‘American elite’ (statesman, politicians, capitalists, lawyers, judges, and writers),
not only for re-establishing community order and values, but also for dealing with crime
and disorder. While little is written about the history of vigilantism in Australia, its
presence is suggested in Serle’s (1977) work about Victoria during the 1850’s gold
rush. This early support for vigilantism is reflected in contemporary...
To continue reading
Request your trial