Changes: Name and shame

Latest revision as of 21:44, 15 June 2015

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. It may also be useful when a community has an informal or undocumented structure, such that there is no central authority who can enforce anti-harassment norms.

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 stop harassing/enforce anti-harassment norms where private pressure did not
may result in opponents of harassment organizing within a community where they had not previously done so
may result in additional documentation of harassment in a community (eg this wiki) (although identifying information on harassers is not always necessary for documentation to happen)
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
may help other people who've experienced harassment and abuse to find support or justice, or identify themselves as victims of a systemic problem rather than having invited or encouraged their harassment or abuse

Costs

may result in condemnation of the namer-and-shamer for any perceived or actual bad consequences to the harasser
may result in loss of the namer-and-shamer's job (if complaining about a colleague or perceived to damage their employer's interest) or membership in a community (if complaining about a fellow member or perceived to damage the community's interest)
may additionally result in further 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
may discourage any further reports of or action against harassment or abuse within a community
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
may result in legal action against the person who spoke out. The truth is not a defense against libel in all jurisdictions, and even where it is, the threat of legal action or the early stages of legal action may be distressing or costly.

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.

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?"
Shawn L's expulsion from hackerspaces was brought about by sharing information about his behaviour, and is an example of the benefits of naming-and-shaming.
René and Readercon: After Genevieve Valentine was dissatisfied with Readercon's response to René Walling's harassment of her, she made Walling's actions and Readercon's responses public, which helped bring about both a change in their reaction and a change in their leadership.
SFF harassment revelations 2013 were sparked by a report of harassment where the harasser was soon identified as James Frenkel, and resulted in hundreds of community members making anti-harassment pledges

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-'''Name and shame''' describes a tactic sometimes used against [[Harassment|harassers]], in cases of [[Sexual assault|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.
+'''Name and shame''' describes a tactic sometimes used against [[Harassment|harassers]], in cases of [[Sexual assault|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. It may also be useful when a community has an informal or undocumented structure, such that there is no central authority who can enforce anti-harassment norms.
 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|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:
+===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 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 public pressure on an organization or individual to stop harassing/enforce anti-harassment norms where private pressure did not
-*may result in opponents of harassment organizing within a community where they had not previously done so
+* may result in opponents of harassment organizing within a community where they had not previously done so
+* may result in additional documentation of harassment in a community (eg this wiki) (although identifying information on harassers is not always necessary for documentation to happen)
-*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
+* 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
+* may help other people who've experienced harassment and abuse to find support or justice, or identify themselves as victims of a systemic problem rather than having invited or encouraged their harassment or abuse
-Costs:
+===Costs===
-*may result in condemnation of the namer-and-shamer for any perceived or actual bad consequences to the harasser
+* may result in condemnation of the namer-and-shamer for [[Hurting his career|any perceived or actual bad consequences to the harasser]]
+* may result in loss of the namer-and-shamer's job (if complaining about a colleague or perceived to damage their employer's interest) or membership in a community (if complaining about a fellow member or perceived to [[Hurting the community|damage the community's interest]])
-*may additionally result in actual harassment of the namer-and-shamer from previously uninvolved third parties
+* may additionally result in further 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
+* 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
+* may discourage any further reports of or action against harassment or abuse within a community
-*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 divise and give rise to a [[Harming the community|harming the community]] accusation
+* [[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|harming the community]] accusation
+* [[SLAPP|may result in legal action against the person who spoke out]]. The truth is not a defense against libel in all jurisdictions, and even where it is, the threat of legal action or the early stages of legal action may be distressing or costly.
 ==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 troll|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|help stop abusers]] (see that page for arguments otherwise).
+Another argument is that the potential to identify repeat offenders means that victims are obliged to name-and-shame to [[help stop abusers]].
-==Law Enforcement==
-The situation is also complicated when the harassers are members of law enforcement. The same sort of aggression behind racial profiling, or the provocation of protesters at rallies, is taken to cyberspace in a form of cyber-bullying. Also, nobody can assist the victim in identifying who is doing it because that would technically mean an obstruction of justice charge for other people involved, should they tip the victim off about an investigation. This charge applies whether the victim is guilty or innocent.
-[[Concern troll]]ing can involve the victim being asked why she cares if her privacy is being invaded if she is not doing anything wrong. It can also involve asking the victim to stay silent because acknowledging her situation would put others at risk for charges of obstruction of justice. In effect, the surrounding people are used as human shields to protect members of law enforcement from criticism or identification.
-The victim's guesswork could involve vacationing solo across the border into another province/state or country. If she is repeatedly approached by complete strangers on the street at varying times of day and night, that know information about her that should be private, or where her location should be at a given time, she can obtain clues as to who might be responsible (ie. not local police force, but an international agency). Complete strangers may also take a photo of her for apparently no reason. Electronic communication may also be cut off when she touches upon the same themes in conversation, a form of censorship which occurs far too often to be just pure chance.
-The victim can also be accused of [[You're_the_bully|being the bully]] for acknowledging the situation, especially if she is innocent, because charges can't be laid on her but potentially laid on others - even when law enforcement has no intention of actually laying them. This bind gives law enforcers full license to harass her indefinitely.
 == 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.
+* [[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.
+* [[Noirin Shirley ApacheCon incident]]: Named and shamed Florian Leibert, a Twitter employee, for sexual assault.
 * Australian author and radio presenter Marieke Hardy [https://twitter.com/#!/mariekehardy/status/134042834167791616 tweeted], "I name and shame my 'anonymous' Internet bully'", linking to [http://mariekehardy.com/blog/post/men-call-me-things-and-i-know-their-names/ 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)
+* [[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|creeper move cards]], [https://twitter.com/KdotCdot/status/314889026211549184 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?"
+*[[Shawn L's expulsion from hackerspaces]] was brought about by sharing information about his behaviour, and is an example of the benefits of naming-and-shaming.
+*[[René and Readercon]]: After Genevieve Valentine was dissatisfied with Readercon's response to [[René Walling]]'s harassment of her, she made Walling's actions and Readercon's responses public, which helped bring about both a change in their reaction and a change in their leadership.
+*[[SFF harassment revelations 2013]] were sparked by a report of harassment where the harasser was soon identified as James Frenkel, and resulted in hundreds of community members making anti-harassment pledges
 == See also==