Name and shame

Name and shame describes a tactic sometimes used against harassers, in cases of sexual assault, etc. It is most often used when official channels are unlikely to be (or have already proven themselves not to be) sympathetic or responsive.

Naming and shaming means posting the name of a harasser so that the wider community is aware of their action, in the hopes that this will "shame" them. This may, in theory, result in repercussions on the person's employment, education, or social status. However, due to the widespread acceptance of misogynist behaviour, rape, etc in our broadly sexist culture (see: Rape culture), sometimes there is little apparent effect at all.

Costs and benefits

Victims of harassment, sexual assault, etc, should never be pressured to take any particular course of action. It is important to acknowledge their agency and let them make their own decisions. We list the costs and benefits of naming and shaming from the point of view of victims of harassment here so as to illustrate why the choice to name-and-shame, or not to name-and-shame, might be made.

Benefits:

• may result in an organization or community warning, condemning or expelling a harasser where they would not have done so otherwise
• may result in public pressure on an organization or individual to change where private pressure did not
• may result in opponents of harassment organizing within a community where they had not previously done so
• may reveal other victims of a harasser, and thereby identify a serial harasser who may have been repeatedly assumed to be a one-off harasser

Costs:

• may result in condemnation of the namer-and-shamer for any perceived or actual bad consequences to the harasser
• may additionally result in actual harassment of the namer-and-shamer from previously uninvolved third parties
• the reaction may demonstrate that the community (or sections thereof) is divided on the issue of harassment or at worst is uncaring or actively supportive of it
• victim blaming may be widespread, analysing whether the namer-and-shamer "deserved" or "invited" harassment
• ensuing discussion about whether harassment is bad, the harassment was bad enough for naming-and-shaming, whether naming-and-shaming is ever OK may be divisive and give rise to a harming the community accusation

Double bind

When people choose not to name and shame, they may be pressured to do so by people who aren't aware of the victim-blaming dynamic, or who are concern trolling and claim that they can't believe accusations of harassment without specific detail being given.

Another argument is that the potential to identify repeat offenders means that victims are obliged to name-and-shame to help stop abusers (see that page for arguments otherwise).

Incidents

• Wiscon troll incident -- a woman named Rachel Moss was identified as the harasser, and her university notified of her behaviour, which was in contravention of their policies.
• Noirin Shirley ApacheCon incident -- named and shamed Florian Leibert, a Twitter employee, for sexual assault.
• Australian author and radio presenter Marieke Hardy tweeted, "I name and shame my 'anonymous' Internet bully'", linking to a post where she identifies him as Melbourne man Joshua Meggit. See: Marieke Hardy name-and-shame incident
• PyCon 2013 forking and dongles incident in which a woman was harassed for photographing and shaming (though she never actually named the perpetrators)
  • An example of the double-bind: KC, creator of the creeper move cards, writes on Twitter in response: "When I started the red/yellow cards, lots of people suggested I publicly broadcast who I carded. I didn't think that was wise. See why?"

See also

• Reporting harassment
• Websites that identify harassers