“Without some degree of privacy, civilized life would be impossible.” – Louis W. Hodges, philosopher
With the constant growth of technology and social media the possibility of having privacy is decreasing at a rapid rate. With websites like Facebook, Twitter, MySpace, Tumblr, Blogger, etc. people are sharing more and more about their lives. They are uploading photos, updating statuses, and tagging themselves at locations. So when does an individual cross the line of TMI or “too much information”? In an article, Online harassment – A hoax, a suicide – a journalistic dilemma, that line is brought into the spotlight.
She was just 13 years old. Her name was Megan Meier. She was young, bright, pretty, and would end up taking her own life. Why? Because she was told, “the world would be a better place without you” by a cyber bully. His name was Josh Evans and she met him through MySpace. She had begun a friendship with him and would take her own life after he turned on her suddenly.
How did this happen? Perhaps you should ask the neighbor. The neighbor had created the fake account to befriend the girl and find out information about her own teenage daughter. Normally one would say, “Where were the parents?” but in this case – it was the parents.
In the article stated above by Roy Malone, it discusses the ethical dilemma Malone was faced as a journalist when writing about the story of Meier. Naturally the story was a tough subject due to the details of a 13-year-old girl committing suicide. However, the decision in question was whether to release the names of the mother, daughter, and 19-year-old coworker that created the account and carried out the bullying.
Argument A: The reporter was right in withholding the names of the cyber bullies in question.
One of the main reasons to withhold the names claimed by the reporter was because the persons in question had no committed a crime. They did not break any laws, therefore they technically did not do anything wrong in the eyes of the law. Using the ethical perspective of Kant’s Categorical Imperative, where there is a focus on the action, then publishing the names could be causing harm to the individuals since they did not commit a crime. While society might not agree that they ethically did something wrong, as a paper they must think about the action of printing the names of innocent individuals. Also since there was no clear identity of the person who sent the messages – it was a “she said vs. she said” situation – there wasn’t proof of who did what.
Argument B: The reporter was wrong and should have printed the people’s names.
When looking at this situation from the communitarianism perspective, where community interests trump individual interest in quest for social justice, one could see why it would be the best ethical decision to print the names. These individuals, even if their actions are in question, have made an attack on someone in the community. By printing the names it will bring a face to the horrible actions taken by these cyber bullies versus this 13 year old. Perhaps there are no laws or regulations for cyber bullying, but when people are able to see the outcomes of their decisions when using technology changes can be made. These people were not held accountable at first, but once their identities were known, they were brought (still ongoing) to court for their crimes. The reaction of the public when the names were not printed was due to a need for justice.
This case is a perfect example of the privacy everyone loses when using social media. “Privacy on the web is still important even though the law considers web content quite public,” (Patterson 123). When people are commenting, tagging, uploading, etc. there is a disconnect from the impact they are creating on the Internet. Once something is posted it cannot be removed. You might delete it, but it is stored somewhere on a server forever.
One might argue that the social media platforms should be held accountable for policing the message boards for cyber bullying. I think that is completely irrational. With the millions upon millions of people that use social media, it is almost impossible for a site to oversee all data being put onto their website. However, they do often supply a “report abuse” button for such situations. I think the cyber bullying while often committed by young people should ultimately rest on the shoulders of parents. It is parents’ responsibility to discuss proper ways to use technology/Internet. Facebook shouldn’t parent or teach our children. I think it’s obvious who is not doing their job.
Referenced Texts:
No comments:
Post a Comment