The tragic case of Amanda Todd, who took her own life after enduring years of torment, especially through online activities, is now well- known. It has sparked numerous calls for an investigation into, and possibly criminal charges against, the man who allegedly attempted to blackmail her into conducting sexual behaviour over a webcam by threatening to distribute a topless “flashed” image to parents, peers and teachers. When she refused, the threat was carried out and, as Amanda noted in her now-viral YouTube video, she could never get those images back.
Anonymous, an activist group of Internet hackers, recently published the name and address of a Vancouver-area man that the group claims was bullying and preying on Todd via the Internet. Clearly, this group believes they have sufficient evidence, but are they the appropriate people to make such a determination?
Now this man is the target of online threats by others vowing to carry out their own justice.
It is possible that this man is indeed the perpetrator and, if so, deserves punishment for his heinous actions. But it is also possible that this man is not guilty and, if so, he is now enduring judgment at the hands and computers of vigilantes.
We have a justice system in this country. It’s far from perfect, but it is based on the premise of innocent until proven guilty. Social media is turning any average Joe into judge, jury and possibly even executioner, all in the public forum. It would be poetic justice if these ‘hacktivists’ are right. But what if they aren’t? And where does that leave our society?
– Salmon Arm Observer
