# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Online Hate Storm" the headline screamed.

Who was it directed at now? A pizzeria operator who wouldn't cater a gay wedding? A PR person who made a dim-witted tweet about AIDS as she was stepping on a plane to Africa? A talented soccer player viciously targeted by racist fans?

Yes, to all of those in the past year.

While stocks and pillories are long gone, online public shaming is alive and well, as far-flung fans of social media dole out gigabytes of nasty abuse to strangers. The victims of cyber-bulling can suffer immensely: some have lost their jobs, homes, and professional reputation. Others commit suicide.

Despite the vitriol, psychologists say some public floggings can serve an important social purpose, by ostracizing those whose behavior is widely considered reprehensible.

The most recent high-profile attack was directed against Walter Palmer, a wealthy dentist from Minnesota. Palmer's crime? Allegedly killing Cecil, a black-maned lion found skinned and decapitated outside a national park in Zimbabwe. The gentle Cecil was both a tourist favorite and part of an Oxford University lion-tracking project. Palmer reportedly paid $50,000 to kill a lion-any lion-with a crossbow and rifle, and local guides lured Cecil outside the protected park.

Within hours of being outed, the gasoline fire was going and Palmer was Satan. Thousands of vitriolic reviews flooded Palmer's Yelp page. A bright yellow sign pasted on Palmer's office door said 'Rot in Hell,' ignoring the fact that nine other employees (who presumably don't hunt lions) worked there. Celebs from Ricky Gervais to Victoria's Secret supermodels tweet-fumed, while thousands of just plain folks suggested that Palmer, too, be skinned and beheaded. Jon Ronson, author of So You've Been Publicly Shamed, seemed surprised at the level of the fury and tweeted: "I won't say, 'Yay! Let's destroy the dentist!' because shamings have their own inherent problems, but big game hunting is horrific and..."

Noisy public shaming is one way humans encourage normative group behavior and maintain social hierarchy, says Lydia Woodyatt, a professor at Australia's Flinders University who studies online shaming. "We enjoy a story of a person who gets taken out when they deserve it. We can get a social and psychological payoff for sharing our passionate, and perhaps short-lived, outrage. The outrage we share might be more about us as humans, our motivation and our social identity, than it is about the target of our outrage."

Online firestorms can serve as loud and clear public opinion polls. The reaction to Cecil's death "sends a signal that people care about conservation and want it to be reflected in how humanity lives alongside nature in the 21st century," says David Macdonald, director of the Wildlife Conservation Research Unit, which was monitoring Cecil. WildCRU received more than $500,000 in contributions in the days after Cecil's killing made news.

The worldwide reaction to the lion's death even broke several long-standing bureaucratic logjams. The U.N. General Assembly quickly adopted a resolution aimed at combatting illegal wildlife trafficking and poaching, an initiative that had languished for two years. Several airlines said they would ban the transport of trophy-hunting kills.

Online outrage can also reveal shocking behavior on the part of those who tweet and post, turning the shamers into the shamees. Racists Getting Fired is a Tumblr blog designed to get people who post racist online comments removed from their jobs. In addition, Yes, You're Racist publicly shames Twitter users expressing racist sentiments by retweeting them. Many of the tweets begin with "I'm not racist, but ..."

A more systematic housecleaning of online racism is happening in England, where soccer players have been the subject of more than 4,000 racist social media posts since the start of the 2014 Premier League season, according to the monitoring group Kick It Out. The organization documents racist, homophobic, and sexist social media posts relating to the clubs and players, hoping its awareness campaign can change the attitudes of a new generation of fans.

In the meantime, the online hate storm is likely to rage on. Says Woodyatt: "I don't see any sign of it slowing down."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Roar of the Crowd: Can Public Shaming Be a Force for Good?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Online Hate Storm" the headline screamed. Who was it directed at now? A pizzeria operator who wouldn't cater a gay wedding? A PR person who made a dim-witted tweet about AIDS as she was stepping on a plane to Africa? A talented soccer player viciously targeted by racist fans?

# data[].attributes.headline
In this article the author talks about how negative public shaming can be for the majority of the article. In one part of the article they also talk about how people would use their platforms to call people out over the smallest things or doing nothing at all. In the crucible the proctor and a few others were being called out for being witches. But they knew they did nothing wrong and just needed people to blame basically. I feel like this is what is going on in the article people needing others to blame for the smallest things they done or said that they didn't mean to do. https://theconversation.com/the-shame-of-public-shaming-57584

# data[].attributes.subject
In this article the author talks about how negative public shaming can be for the majority of the article. In one part of the article they also talk about how people would use their platforms to call people out over the smallest things or doing nothing at all. In the crucible the proctor and a few others were being called out for being witches. But they knew they did nothing wrong and just needed people to blame basically. I feel like this is what is going on in the article people needing others to blame for the smallest things they done or said that they didn't mean to do. https://theconversation.com/the-shame-of-public-shaming-57584

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Exposure on social media can often lead to shaming. Arlette Cifuentes Meneses/Flickr, CC BY-SA

Public shaming is not new. It's been used as a punishment in all societies - often embraced by the formal law and always available for day-to-day policing of moral norms. However, over the past couple of centuries, Western countries have moved away from more formal kinds of shaming, partly in recognition of its cruelty.

Even in less formal settings, shaming individuals in front of their peers is now widely regarded as unacceptable behaviour. This signifies an improvement in the moral milieu, but its effect is being offset by the rise of social media and, with it, new kinds of shaming.

Indeed, as Welsh journalist and documentary maker Jon Ronson portrays vividly in his latest book, social media shaming has become a social menace. Ronson's So You've Been Publicly Shamed (Picador, 2015) is a timely contribution to the public understanding of an emotionally charged topic.

Shaming is on the rise. We've shifted - much of the time - to a mode of scrutinising each other for purity. Very often, we punish decent people for small transgressions or for no real transgressions at all. Online shaming, conducted via the blogosphere and our burgeoning array of social networking services, creates an environment of surveillance, fear and conformity.

The making of a call-out culture

I noticed the trend - and began to talk about it - around five years ago. I'd become increasingly aware of cases where people with access to large social media platforms used them to "call out" and publicly vilify individuals who'd done little or nothing wrong. Few onlookers were prepared to support the victims. Instead, many piled on with glee (perhaps to signal their own moral purity; perhaps, in part, for the sheer thrill of the hunt).

Since then, the trend to an online call-out culture has continued and even intensified, but something changed during 2015. Mainstream journalists and public intellectuals finally began to express their unease.

There's no sign that the new call-out culture is fading away, but it's become a recognised phenomenon. It is now being discussed more openly, and it's increasingly questioned. That's partly because even its participants - people who assumed it would never happen to them - sometimes find themselves "called out" for revealing some impurity of thought. It's become clear that no moral or political affiliation holds patents on the weaponry of shaming, and no one is immune to its effects.

As Ronson acknowledges, he has, himself, taken part in public shamings, though the most dramatic episode was a desperate act of self-defence when a small group of edgy academics hijacked his Twitter identity to make some theoretical point. Shame on them! I don't know what else he could have done to make them back down.

That, however, was an extreme and peculiar case. It involved ongoing abuse of one individual by others who refused to "get" what they were doing to distress him, even when asked to stop. Fascinating though the example is, it is hardly a precedent for handling more common situations.

At one time, if we go along with Ronson, it felt liberating to speak back in solidarity against the voices of politicians, corporate moguls, religious leaders, radio shock jocks, newspaper columnists and others with real power or social influence.

But there can be a slippery slope... from talking back in legitimate ways against, say, a powerful journalist (criticising her views and arguments, and any abusive conduct), to pushing back in less legitimate ways (such as attempting to silence her viewpoint by trying to get her fired), to destroying relatively powerless individuals who have done nothing seriously wrong.

Slippery slope arguments have a deservedly bad reputation. But some slopes really are slippery, and some slippery slope arguments really are cogent. With public online shaming, we've found ourselves, lately, on an especially slippery slope. In more ways than one, we need to get a grip.

Shaming the shamers

Ronson joined in a campaign of social media shaming in October 2009: one that led to some major advertisers distancing themselves from the Daily Mail in the UK. This case illustrates some problems when we discuss social media shaming, so I'll give it more analysis than Ronson does.

One problem is that, as frequently happens, it was a case of "shame the shamer". The recipient of the shaming was especially unsympathetic because she was herself a public shamer of others.

The drama followed a distasteful - to say the least - column by Jan Moir, a British journalist with a deplorable modus operandi. Moir's topic was the death of Stephen Gately, one of the singers from the popular Irish band Boyzone.

Gately had been found dead while on holiday in Mallorca with his civil partner, Andrew Cowles. Although the coroner attributed the death to natural causes, Moir wrote that it was "not, by any yardstick, a natural one" and that "it strikes another blow to the happy-ever-after myth of civil partnerships."

Ronson does not make the point explicit in So You've Been Publicly Shamed, but what immediately strikes me is that Moir was engaging in some (not-so-)good old-fashioned mainstream media shaming. She used her large public platform to hold up identified individuals to be shamed over very private behaviour. Gately could not, of course, feel any shame from beyond the grave, but Moir's column was grossly tasteless since he had not even been buried when it first appeared.

Moir stated, self-righteously: "It is important that the truth comes out about the exact circumstances of [Gately's] strange and lonely death." But why was it so important that the public be told such particulars as whether or not Cowles (at least) hooked up that tragic evening for sex with a student whom Moir names, and whether or not some, or all, of the three young men involved used cannabis or other recreational drugs that night?

To confirm Moir's propensities as a public shamer, no one need go further than the same column. She follows her small-minded paragraphs about Gately with a few others that shame "socialite" Tara Palmer-Tomkinson for no worse sin than wearing a revealing outfit to a high-society party.

You get the picture, I trust. I'm not asking that Moir, or anyone else, walk on eggshells lest her language accidentally offend somebody, or prove open to unexpectedly uncharitable interpretations. Quite the opposite: we should all be able to speak with some spontaneity, without constantly censoring how we formulate our thoughts. I'll gladly extend that freedom to Moir.

But Moir is not merely unguarded in her language: she can be positively reckless, as with her suggestion that Palmer-Tomkinson's wispy outfit might more appropriately be worn by "Timmy the Tranny, the hat-check personage down at the My-Oh-My supper club in Brighton." No amount of charitable interpretation can prevent the impression that she is often deliberately, or at best uncaringly, hurtful. In those circumstances, I have no sympathy for her if she receives widespread and severe criticism for what she writes.

When it comes to something like Moir's hatchet job on Gately and Cowles, and their relationship, I can understand the urge to retaliate - to shame and punish in return. It's no wonder, then, that Ronson discusses the feeling of empowerment when numerous people, armed with their social media accounts, turned on badly behaved "giants" such as the Daily Mail and its contributors. As it seemed to Ronson in those days, not so long ago, "the silenced were getting a voice."

But let's be careful about this.

Some distinctions

A few aspects need to be teased out. Even when responding to the shamers, we ought to think about what's appropriate.

For a start, I am - I'm well aware - being highly critical of Moir's column and her approach to journalism. In that sense, I could be said to be "shaming" her. But we don't have to be utterly silent when confronted by unpleasant behaviour from public figures.

My criticisms are, I submit, fair comment on material that was (deliberately and effectively) disseminated widely to the public. In writing for a large audience in the way she does - especially when she takes an aggressive and hurtful approach toward named individuals - Moir has to expect some push-back.

We can draw reasonable distinctions. I have no wish to go further than criticism of what Moir actually said and did. I don't, for example, want to misrepresent her if I can avoid it, to make false accusations, or to punish her in any way that goes beyond criticism. I wouldn't demand that she be no-platformed from a planned event or that advertisers withdraw their money from the Daily Mail until she is fired.

The word criticism is important. We need to think about when public criticism is fair and fitting, when it becomes disproportionate, and when it spirals down into something mean and brutal.

Furthermore, we can distinguish between 1) Moir's behaviour toward individuals and 2) her views on issues of general importance, however wrong or ugly those views might be. In her 2009 comments on Gately's death, the two are entangled, but it doesn't follow that they merit just the same kind of response.

Moir's column intrudes on individuals' privacy and holds them up for shaming, but it also expresses an opinion on legal recognition of same-sex couples in the form of civil unions. Although she is vague, Moir seems to think that individuals involved in legally recognised same-sex relationships are less likely to be monogamous (and perhaps more likely to use drugs) than people in heterosexual marriages. This means, she seems to imply, that there's something wrong with, or inferior about, same-sex civil unions.

In fairness, Moir later issued an apology in which she explained her view: "I was suggesting that civil partnerships - the introduction of which I am on the record in supporting - have proved just to be as problematic as marriages." This is, however, difficult to square with the words of her original column, where she appears to deny, point blank, that civil unions "are just the same as heterosexual marriages."

Even if she is factually correct about statistical differences between heterosexual marriages and civil unions, this at least doesn't seem to be relevant to public policy. After all, plenty of marriages between straight people are "open" (and may or may not involve the use of recreational drugs), but they are still legally valid marriages.

If someone does think certain statistical facts about civil unions are socially relevant, however, it's always available to them to argue why. They should be allowed to do so without their speech being legally or socially suppressed. It's likewise open to them to produce whatever reliable data might be available. Furthermore, we can't expect critics of civil unions to present their full case on every occasion when they speak up to express a view. That would be an excessive condition for any of us to have to meet when we express ourselves on important topics.

More generally, we can criticise bad ideas and arguments - or even make fun of them if we think they're that bad - but as a rule we shouldn't try to stop their expression.

Perhaps some data exists to support Moir's rather sneering claims about civil unions. But an anecdote about the private lives of a particular gay couple proves nothing one way or the other. Once again, many heterosexual marriages are not monogamous, but a sensational story involving a particular straight couple would prove nothing about how many.

In short, Moir is entitled to express her jaundiced views about civil unions or same-sex relationships more generally, and the worst she should face is strong criticism, or a degree of satire, aimed primarily at the views themselves. But shining a spotlight on Cowles and Gately was unfair, callous, nasty, gratuitous, and (to use one of her own pet words) sleazy. In addition to criticising her apparent views, we can object strongly when she publicly shames individuals.

Surfing down the slippery slope

Ronson discusses a wide range of cases, and an evident problem is that they can vary greatly, making it difficult to draw overall conclusions or to frame exact principles.

Some individuals who've been publicly shamed clearly enough "started it", but even they can suffer from a cruel and disproportionate backlash. Some have been public figures who've genuinely done something wrong, as with Jonah Lehrer, a journalist who fabricated quotes to make his stories appear more impressive. It's only to be expected that Lehrer's irresponsibility and poor ethics would damage his career. But even in his case, the shaming process was over the top. Some of it was almost sadistic.

Other victims of public shaming are more innocent than Lehrer. Prominent among them is Justine Sacco, whom Ronson views with understandable sympathy. Sacco's career and personal life were ruined after she made an ill-advised tweet on 20 January 2013. It said: "Going to Africa. Hope I don't get AIDS. Just kidding. I'm white!" She was then subjected to an extraordinarily viral Twitter attack that led quickly to her losing her job and becoming an international laughing stock.

It appears that her tweet went viral after a Gawker journalist retweeted it (in a hostile way) to his 15,000 followers at the time - after just one person among Sacco's 170 followers had passed it on to him.

Ronson offers his own interpretation of the Sacco tweet:

It seemed obvious that her tweet, whilst not a great joke, wasn't racist, but a self-reflexive comment on white privilege - on our tendency to naively imagine ourselves immune to life's horrors. Wasn't it?

In truth, it's not obvious to me just how to interpret the tweet, and of course I can't read Sacco's mind. If it comes to that, I doubt that she pondered the wording carefully. Still, this small piece of sick humour was aimed only at her small circle of Twitter followers, and it probably did convey to them something along the lines of what Ronson suggests. In its original context, then, it did not merely ridicule the plight of black AIDS victims in Africa.

Much satire and humour is, as we know, unstable in its meaning - simultaneously saying something outrageous and testing our emotions as we find ourselves laughing at it. It can make us squirm with uncertainty. This applies (sometimes) to high literary satire, but also to much ordinary banter among friends. We laugh but we also squirm.

In any event, charitable interpretations - if not a single straightforward one - were plainly available for Sacco's tweet. This was a markedly different situation from Jan Moir's gossip-column attacks on hapless celebrities and socialites. And unlike Moir, Sacco lacked a large media platform, an existing public following, and an understanding employer.

Ronson also describes the case of Lindsey Stone, a young woman whose life was turned to wreckage because of a photograph taken in Arlington National Cemetery in Virginia. In the photo she is mocking a "Silence and Respect" sign by miming a shout and making an obscene gesture. The photo was uploaded on Facebook, evidently with inadequate privacy safeguards, and eventually it went viral, with Stone being attacked by a cybermob coming from a political direction opposite to the mob that went after Sacco.

While the Arlington photograph might seem childish, or many other things, posing for it and posting it on Facebook hardly add up to any serious wrongdoing. It is not behaviour that merited the outcome for Lindsey Stone: destruction of her reputation, loss of her job, and a life of ongoing humiliation and fear.

Referring to such cases, Ronson says:

The people we were destroying were no longer just people like Jonah [Lehrer]: public figures who had committed actual transgressions. They were private individuals who really hadn't done anything much wrong. Ordinary humans were being forced to learn damage control, like corporations that had committed PR disasters.

Thanks to Ronson's intervention, Stone sought help from an agency that rehabilitates online reputations. Of Stone's problems in particular, he observes:

The sad thing was that Lindsey had incurred the Internet's wrath because she was impudent and playful and foolhardy and outspoken. And now here she was, working with Farukh [an operative for the rehabilitation agency] to reduce herself to safe banalities - to cats and ice cream and Top 40 chart music. We were creating a world where the smartest way to survive is to be bland.

This is not the culture we wanted

Ronson also quotes Michael Fertik, from the agency that helped Stone: "We're creating a culture where people feel constantly surveilled, where people are afraid to be themselves."

"We see ourselves as nonconformist," Ronson concludes sadly, "but I think all of this is creating a more conformist, conservative age."

This is not the culture we wanted. It's a public culture that seems broken, but what can we do about it?

For a start, it helps to recognise the problem, but it's difficult, evidently, for most people to accept the obvious advice: Be forthright in debating topics of general importance, but always subject to some charity and restraint in how you treat particular people. Think through - and not with excuses - what that means in new situations. Be willing to criticise people on your own side if they are being cruel or unfair.

It's not our job to punish individuals, make examples of them, or suppress their views. Usually we can support our points without any of this; we can do so in ways that are kinder, more honest, more likely to make intellectual progress. The catch is, it requires patience and courage.

Our public culture needs more of this sort of patience, more of this sort of courage. Can we - will we - rise to the challenge?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Public shaming is not new. It's been used as a punishment in all societies - often embraced by the formal law and always available for day-to-day policing of moral norms. However, over the past couple of centuries, Western countries have moved away from more formal kinds of shaming, partly in recognition of its cruelty.

# data[].attributes.headline
The question I came up with is Do you think public shaming has been around for a long time? If so would it be a very negative thing? Positive thing? or both? I think this is a Higher Order question only because It allows people to think in the opposite way, Consider different points of view, and use web analysis. 

# data[].attributes.subject
The question I came up with is Do you think public shaming has been around for a long time? If so would it be a very negative thing? Positive thing? or both? I think this is a Higher Order question only because It allows people to think in the opposite way, Consider different points of view, and use web analysis. 