Iain Duncan Smith vs Sly Malik

Screen shot 2013-12-14 at 4.44.24 PM

With the name Sly it seems that Sly Malik was born to be a benefits fraudster. Earlier this year British Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith on behalf of the government published a list that has now been well circulated online of the 10 biggest welfare cheats, and Sly Malik made it to the top of the list. You can read about the top 10 here. As a story much like the naming and shaming of late tax payers, this one provides another example and therefore further evidence that the government is utilizing the power of online shaming as a part of formal punishment.

There is an interesting article by Kirtsy Hess and Lisa Waller  on “The Conversation” website about the relationship between online shaming and digital media within the legal sphere, noting how as a form of punishment the effects of it are arguably more damaging than traditional legal punishments. Read it here.


Tax Agencies Vs Tax Avoiders

In my last post I referred to Jacob Rowbottom’s three goals of naming and shaming, the first of which is  ‘to punish informally a named individual’. In that particular post I briefly discussed how “Catfish the Tv Show” is evidence of online naming and shaming being an act of vigilantism, and sought as a informal punishment for an ‘offending’ party.

This article by Gail Perry in the Journal Accounting Today talks about how tax agencies have begun utilizing the internet to name and shame people who have neglected paying their tax. The article highlights that publicizing the names of people who have not paid property tax has been practiced for years, and in fact those records are public. Naming and shaming in regards to income tax is, however, a new tactic. This article provides evidence different to that of my ‘Catfish the Tv Show’ post as it writes “In some states, the state legislature has added statutes authorizing the publication of names of income tax delinquents.” From this we could argue that online naming and shaming can be classed as formal punishment. I believe this argument is further supported by it being a government organization that is adopting the practice as policy for punishment. To be clear I am not suggesting that this is the only punishment ‘tax delinquents’ receive but it is becoming a commonplace formal punishment, at least in regards to tax.


Nev Schulman vs The Catfish

Screen shot 2013-12-10 at 10.15.03 PM

After the indie documentary “Catfish” acquired some fame, MTV backed/acquired the tv show called ‘Catfish: The Tv Show’ (no prize for name originality) which has the same premise as the documentary.

– “Catfish” followed Nev as he embarked on an online relationship with a stranger. The story is driven by Nev’s love interest’s reluctance to meet in person and the multitude of lies Nev and the film makers uncover as they look into who the woman really is and try to find/meet her in real life. If you want to read a full summary do so HERE. Its a link to wikipedia, but i’ve seen the film myself and the plot summary is accurate so no worries.

-In “Catfish The TV Show” Nev is the host and he and his cameraman friend assist a different person every episode in determining if their online love interest is who they say they are, then facilitate a face to face meeting. Same summary deal as “Catfish” HERE.

In case anyone has been under a rock here’s a definition:

A catfish is someone who pretends to be someone they’re not using Facebook or other social media to create false identities, particularly to pursue deceptive online romance

While this show as an example of naming and shaming plays out on the television screen, the internet has a major role also. Firstly the whole subject matter of the series is online relationships, and secondly the internet is presented as the only tool used to discover the truth.

When I first thought about digital naming and shaming, i’ll confess “Catfish: The Tv Show” was not an example that initially came to mind. Sure the goal of the show is to definitively name the person on the other side of the computer, but I didn’t consider shaming to be the goal. After all, when Nev and the ‘victim’ meet the Catfish for the first time its usually a polite, inquisitve and i’d even go as far as saying nice exchange. However as I considered the three goals of naming an shaming that Jacob Rowbottom refers to in chapter 1 of the book Media and Public Shaming I realised that “Catfish the Tv Show” attempts and suceeds in doing all three.


1. to punish informally a named individual

2. to inform the public about their actions or conduct

3. to criticise and express disapproval of them

These three goals apply to “Catfish The Tv Show” in the following ways:

1- There is no legal punishment for the kind of catfishing we see on the show, therefore informal punishment is sought. The embarrassment and shame from being revealed as a Catfish on TV, and the subsequent loss of reputation, and becoming of recognisable infamy serves as the informal punishment. Whiles goals 2 and 3 pretty much describe the plot of each episode, the characters change but those to aims never do.

What “Catfish the Tv Show” as an example of digital naming and shaming does is demonstrate the emphasis of networked vigilantism within the online culture. In this specific case the tv show is a media platform that brings together people who have a single idealistic point of connection, who without the platform or the technology it uses would never cross paths. When the ‘victims’ and members of the show are brought together, vigilantism arises. The group takes matters into there own hands, investigating and seeking out the Catfish so that they personally deliver the ‘informal punishment’.


Citizen vs Citizen

Screen shot 2013-12-08 at 11.58.57 PM

So far all of the cases i’ve written about have been instances of one specific person vs another specific person. But it is also worth mentioning instances of naming and shaming that occur between one mass of people and another mass of people. What i’m talking about are shaming forums, which have become very popular in our current online culture.

Most social medias such as Facebook and Twitter have been appropriated by users to bring online shamers together, building communities of bitter, annoyed, enraged or frustrated people. Facebook pages like “Name & Shame Drivers Who Can’t Park Or Speed” are created and are dedicated to shaming, encouraging members or ‘likers’ to shame people by posting to the site. While on Twitter hashtagging is used to bring tweets of the same shaming nature together, its as easy as putting #naming #shaming at the end of a tweet.

There are two roles in particular these forums play in creating differences between online communities and physical communities unlike the shaming examples I have previously discussed.

1. Massive increase in shaming: suffice to say those who feel extremely strong about certain issues are bound to find a way to name and shame regardless, but the ease of posting online through these social forums mean that many will make the effort to shame whereas they would not have if they did not exist. Added to this there is safety in numbers, its much harder to be individually judged when you are a part of group behaviour. Therefore there is less hesitation caused by being self conscious.

2. Shifts peoples’ attitudes towards shaming: as it becomes increasingly a part of everyday life it becomes accepted as an appropriate means of human interaction. That is to say people view it as a means of venting or a source of humour as opposed to causing harm to another.

‘Baby J’s Father vs Staffordshire Social Workers

With no picture and no real names I present Baby J’s Father vs Staffordshire Social Workers

The lack of real names may to begin with seem like poor journalism, but in this case we aren’t really supposed to know them.

Although the story has been reported by many news sites:The TelegraphThe Dailymail, and The Guardian to name a few I’ll provide a basic summary also.

So here it goes:

  • Six hours after ‘Baby J’ was born the infant was taken away form its parents by Staffordshire social workers.
  • The father secretly filmed the occurance on his laptop, which he later uploaded to both facebook and youtube using the real names of the social workers and ‘Baby J’, whilst clearly expressing his distain for the social workers.
  • This lead Staffordshire social services to apply “for a wide-ranging reporting restrictions order which would prevent the publication of the child’s name, address and image. It would also have barred anyone from identifying the county council or employees involved in J’s case.” –The Telegraph

So heres what makes this particular case unique: The Judge, Sir James Munby, president of the Family Division of the High Court, rejected the application…sort of. So the result was that the only restrictions on ‘Baby J’s father’s freedom of speech is he cannot use the real names of ‘Baby J’ or either parent.

Below is a link to the official judgement documents, which is very interesting although I confess its a long read and a difficult one at times if you’re unfamiliar with the kind of phrasing only the legal profession could produce. http://www.judiciary.gov.uk/Resources/JCO/Documents/Judgments/j-a-child-judgment.pdf

While Staffordshire social services may have been trying to silence the father on this matter and prevent him from speaking out publicly, from Munby’s comments we can see that is exactly what the Judge did not want to do.

 “a claim that any professional who falls into a certain class – and in the case of … social workers … the membership of the class is very large indeed – is, for that reason, and, truth be told, for that reason alone, entitled in current circumstances to have their identity protected, in plain language to have their identity concealed from the public”, will not succeed. Anonymity should not be extended to experts, local authorities and social workers unless there are compelling reasons.

26. The first matter relates to what it has become conventional to call transparency. There is a pressing need for more transparency, indeed for much more transparency, in the family justice system. There are a number of aspects to this.

27. One is the right of the public to know, the need for the public to be confronted with, what is being done in its name. Nowhere is this more necessary than in relation to care and adoption cases. Such cases, by definition, involve interference, intrusion, by the state, by local authorities and by the court, into family life. In this context the arguments in favour of publicity – in favour of openness, public scrutiny and public accountability – are particularly compelling. The public generally, and not just the professional readers of law reports or similar publications, have a legitimate, indeed a compelling, interest in knowing how the family courts exercise their care jurisdiction: Re X; London Borough of Barnet v Y and X [2006] 2 FLR 998, para [166].

30. Almost ten years ago I said this (Re B, para [103]):

“… We cannot afford to proceed on the blinkered assumption that there have been no miscarriages of justice in the family justice system. This is something that has to be addressed with honesty and candour if the family justice system is not to suffer further loss of public confidence. Open and public debate in the media is essential.”

I remain of that view. The passage of the years has done nothing to diminish the point; if anything quite the contrary.

35. In short, the remedy is publicity, “more speech, not enforced silence.”

Sorry but I feel the need to quote Munby further, because  I have no way to tell if anyone other than me was interested and committed enough to read the official Judgement documents through.

41. “It is sobering to recall that the judgment in F v Newsquest and Others was delivered in April 2004 at the very moment when Facebook, launched only a few weeks earlier at Harvard, was starting to sweep through the campuses of America. In the subsequent seven years, with the growth of Youtube and Twitter, the internet has had an even greater effect than was anticipated. The range of information available to the public is infinitely greater than twenty years ago”.

42. It is probably far too soon to be assessing the true implications of all this, and there is no need for me even to attempt to do so. It suffices for present purposes to make three points, building on what Tugendhat J said in MXB v East Sussex Hospitals NHS Trust [2012] EWHC 3279 (QB), para [11]. First, the internet allows anyone, effectively at the click of a mouse, to publish whatever they wish to the entire world – or at least to everyone who has access to the internet. No longer does the campaigner have to persuade a publisher, newspaper or broadcaster to disseminate the message. So there is very little editorial control. The consequence is that the internet is awash with material couched in the most exaggerated, extreme, offensive and often defamatory terms, much of which has only a tenuous connection with objectively verifiable truth. Second, material once placed on the internet remains there indefinitely and, because of powerful search engines, is easily accessible by anyone wanting to track it down. Third, internet providers are often located outside the jurisdiction, in countries where practical difficulties or principled objections stand in the way of enforcing orders of this court.

43. All of this, it goes without saying, poses enormous challenges. The law must develop and adapt, as it always has done down the years in response to other revolutionary technologies. We must not simply throw up our hands in despair and moan that the internet is uncontrollable. Nor can we simply abandon basic legal principles. For example, and despite the highly objectionable nature of much of what is on the internet, we must, at least in the forensic context with which I am here concerned, cleave to the fundamentally important principles referred to in paras [37]-[40] above.

In considering the case I suggest that the considerations above are why it is of such importance. How can, and how should laws that apply to a defined physical community (the nation) be appropriated, translated and used in a community that has no real physical boundary.  Chapter 5 of Vincent Millar’s “Understanding Digital Culture” begs to be paired with this case of naming and shaming. Especially as it considers how the nature of ‘privacy’ within western culture is being changed by the development of digital medias, as well as how concerns about security arise from these changes “may be leading to further changes in our expectations of privacy” (Miller 112)

so a few final thoughts and things to consider before this post becomes too long (although that probably happened the moment I started quoting Munby)

Firstly, this case sets a precedence. When we remember that it is still the early days of the digital world, the application of or decision not to apply laws of the state to the digital world is particularly serious as it builds the foundations of digital laws.

Secondly these decisions are even more important because they contribute to changing the culture of privacy. Technological advancement and people’s interaction with technologies may be forcing changes but in a way legal decisions are sanctifying the change, putting their seal of approval on it and further cementing cultural expectations of privacy.

And Finally, do these kind of decisions create a greater separation of real world and digital world by determining that a rule that continues to apply in one does not apply in the other?