NYT article about the fallout from public shaming..

[PrincessMommy]

very powerful.

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/15/magazine/how-one-stupid-tweet-ruined-justine-saccos-life.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=mini-moth&region=top-stories-below&WT.nav=top-stories-below&_r=2

 

 

 

I was among the first people to alert social media. (This was because Gill always gave my television documentaries bad reviews, so I tended to keep a vigilant eye on things he could be got for.) Within minutes, it was everywhere. Amid the hundreds of congratulatory messages I received, one stuck out: “Were you a bully at school?â€

 

and

 

 

 

The movement against public shaming had gained momentum in 1787, when Benjamin Rush, a physician in Philadelphia and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, wrote a paper calling for its demise — the stocks, the pillory, the whipping post, the lot. “Ignominy is universally acknowledged to be a worse punishment than death,†he wrote. “It would seem strange that ignominy should ever have been adopted as a milder punishment than death, did we not know that the human mind seldom arrives at truth upon any subject till it has first reached the extremity of error.â€

 

I"ve never thought that public shaming was cool and I've always cringed when I've heard about or seen some public shaming going on.  Maybe it's because I've had my fair share of foot-in-mouth disease that I always think, "There but by the grace of God go I..."  

 

[redsquirrel]

I watched that Justine Sacco thing play out in real time, and it wasn't pretty. But, that said, I also read her twitter feed and it was kind of horrible.  Did she deserve what happened? Not on such a large scale, no way. But I will also say that she is obviously a fairly crappy PR person. If I owned a business and it was brought to my attention that the person responsible for the public face of my company was putting that stuff out into the world I would probably fire her. It shows a basic lack of understanding of social media and professionalism. All my friends keep an eye to their professional life when it comes to their facebook, instagram and twitter. If your name is going to be on it, then you should be ok with anyone seeing it.

 

I do think people should be allowed to have lapses in taste or judgement in private. It happens to all of us. But, that means not putting everything out there on social media.  I am not sure what the solution would be.  Other people not piling on? Sure,great idea, but how does one control that? As the article shows, that isn't exactly new behaviour.

 

[Seasider]

I have forwarded this article to my older kids. What she tweeted was awful, truly, but the acceleration of consequences is astounding.

[Seasider]

I watched that Justine Sacco thing play out in real time, and it wasn't pretty. But, that said, I also read her twitter feed and it was kind of horrible. Did she deserve what happened? Not on such a large scale, no way. But I will also say that she is obviously a fairly crappy PR person. If I owned a business and it was brought to my attention that the person responsible for the public face of my company was putting that stuff out into the world I would probably fire her. It shows a basic lack of understanding of social media and professionalism. All my friends keep an eye to their professional life when it comes to their facebook, instagram and twitter. If your name is going to be on it, then you should be ok with anyone seeing it.

 

I do think people should be allowed to have lapses in taste or judgement in private. It happens to all of us. But, that means not putting everything out there on social media. I am not sure what the solution would be. Other people not piling on? Sure,great idea, but how does one control that? As the article shows, that isn't exactly new behaviour.

It's kind of like the Brian Williams thing. Bad enough for a regular-person mistake, but an industry professional? Kind of hard to believe she didn't understand the potential consequences.

 

ETA - I meant to say that she should have understood the potential for consequences. I don't think she could have anticipated the sudden scale of them.

[Orthodox6]

Never heard of this woman before reading the article.  There is a lot to ponder and to discuss after reading the content.  Not the least among topics is the public torture of people who transgress the norms of some religious groups in other countries. 

[redsquirrel]

Never heard of this woman before reading the article.  There is a lot to ponder and to discuss after reading the content.  Not the least among topics is the public torture of people who transgress the norms of some religious groups in other countries. 

 

Well, I am not really sure that is within the parameters of what the author of the article set out to write about. It seems like a fairly separate subject.

 

I think this article was more about the pitfalls of social media, what can happen to someone when they find themselves on the wrong side of "the horde", and what the repercussions can be in a person's life. It also touches very briefly on the specific harassment women have to deal with in the form of doxxing, sexually violent images etc by 'men's groups' etc., but, as I said, that was a very brief mention.

[Orthodox6]

Well, I am not really sure that is within the parameters of what the author of the article set out to write about. It seems like a fairly separate subject.

 

I think this article was more about the pitfalls of social media, what can happen to someone when they find themselves on the wrong side of "the horde", and what the repercussions can be in a person's life. It also touches very briefly on the specific harassment women have to deal with in the form of doxxing, sexually violent images etc by 'men's groups' etc., but, as I said, that was a very brief mention.

 

I think the tie-in is the concept of public shaming coupled with an intent to dissuade other people from acting similarly. 

[Catherine]

I read the entire article. Wow.  I had no idea.  My first impulse is to think-yeah-she said and did something very foolish, and paid an exorbitant  price for it.  I don't think anyone deserves such a disproportionate degree of punishment.  But, my sympathies for someone who makes a living as a PR person, who is basically well-paid to influence public opinion, are fairly limited.  First, IMO, it's a profession with minimal true value to improving the human condition, and often, considerable harm.  Second, it's really hard to believe that someone whose job it is to shape public opinion would be so remarkably ignorant about...the power of public opinion.  Third, the guy who not only propagated the initial tidal wave, but kindly came back to shame her publicly *again* may get his comeuppance.  That day probably cannot come soon enough.  

 

I will definitely be showing this to my kids!

[MotherGoose]

Reiterates my philosophy not to post anything I wouldn't want printed in the newspaper.

[redsquirrel]

I think the tie-in is the concept of public shaming coupled with an intent to dissuade other people from acting similarly. 

 

Absolutely, there is that connection between the issues.

 

I am just saying that the linked article is about social media, not the uses of public shaming and public punishment to force people to follow a particular religion.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I have forwarded this article to my older kids. What she tweeted was awful, truly, but the acceleration of consequences is astounding.

 

I did the exact same thing, for the exact same reason. Oldest DD is reading it right now. As SWB pointed out on FB, though, the most terrifying part is the guy who made the private joke to a friend at the conference. Now we can't even speak our thoughts during a quiet moment with a friend without being vilified across the world? Such an invasion. 

 

This is Sam Biddle's response piece, written a year after the Sacco thing blew up:

 

http://gawker.com/justine-sacco-is-good-at-her-job-and-how-i-came-to-pea-1653022326

 

I'm not entirely sure how I feel about it. 

[Word Nerd]

Third, the guy who not only propagated the initial tidal wave, but kindly came back to shame her publicly *again* may get his comeuppance.  That day probably cannot come soon enough.  

 

 

It already did, and this was addressed in the article linked in the OP.

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

Third, the guy who not only propagated the initial tidal wave, but kindly came back to shame her publicly *again* may get his comeuppance.

 

Well, he sort of did, but clearly it was not nearly as big (and not nearly as global) as the Sacco incident. And, as redsquirrel pointed out, his comeuppance was most likely devoid of those elements of public shaming and terrorizing that seem to be saved primarily for women :(

[Word Nerd]

I thought this was an interesting point from the Biddle piece:

This trip, she explained, made her think about how so many westerners consider HIV/AIDS an "African thing," when of course there is a domestic AIDS epidemic.

Her tweet was supposed to mimic—and mock—what an actual racist, ignorant person would say.

Ergo, tweeting that thought would be an ironic statement, a joke, the opposite of what it seemed to say. Not knowing anything about her, I had taken its cluelessness at face value, and hundreds of thousands of people had done the same—instantly hating her because it's easy and thrilling to hate a stranger online.

 

 

[ILiveInFlipFlops]

I thought this was an interesting point from the Biddle piece:

This trip, she explained, made her think about how so many westerners consider HIV/AIDS an "African thing," when of course there is a domestic AIDS epidemic.

Her tweet was supposed to mimic—and mock—what an actual racist, ignorant person would say.

Ergo, tweeting that thought would be an ironic statement, a joke, the opposite of what it seemed to say. Not knowing anything about her, I had taken its cluelessness at face value, and hundreds of thousands of people had done the same—instantly hating her because it's easy and thrilling to hate a stranger online.

 

I think he's right on there. Which doesn't excuse the cluelessness of a PR rep, who should know better, saying such things so publicly, of course. But yeah, I think he's exactly right. 

 

Sadly, I think I got an early-internet version of this lesson on message boards, and before the Internet was quite SO public. Our kids are not going to have that luxury. 

[Word Nerd]

Twitter is the wrong forum for that kind of humor. It was definitely a dumb move.

[kewb]

I have forwarded this article to my older kids. What she tweeted was awful, truly, but the acceleration of consequences is astounding.

 

I printed it out for my oldest as a critical thinking and SAT exercise.  Had him underline main ideas and circle words he did not know.  Then we had  discussion about social media, privacy, and gossip.  So many lessons from what happens with public shaming.

 

Public Shaming does not work in the long run.  Mob mentality takes over and in the end the punishment does not usually fit the crime.

[TeacherZee]

Well this comes very timely for me. Thanks for sharing

[momacacia]

It's a good thing I frequent this board or I'd have no clue what's going on in the world!

[Murphy101]

I posted that on my FB. Everyone should read it. And it's not just FB or Twitter. It's message boards and emails and pictures.

 

The one that really ticked me off was the guy privately talking to someone and an eavesdropper takes his picture and ruins him. Someone should have told her eavesdroppers rarely hear anything good. He wasn't a PR guy or anything even, but he lost his job bc some jerk snapped a photo of him and said he told a joke to someone else that she didn't like. What the hell is up with that craziness?

 

And I think our laws really are useless bc they have not kept up with technology. Not even old technology. Many of the issues have been around for 10+ years. It's high time some laws were developed to combate at least some of the issues.

[hornblower]

I think for many people, indignant & smugly superior (or at least exasperated) are default settings now, and social media certainly enables this.

My other thought is that this is in some ways an extension of the reality 'freak' shows which I think encourage the viewer to feel superior to the people depicted in the program. We get used to looking around us and seeing things 'wrong' with people and pointing it out and laughing at it. It's not compassionate, it's not kind.

And my last thought is that these things are just another way of "amusing ourselves to death" instead of dealing with difficult issues, participating in our democracies, helping out in our communities.

[Word Nerd]

I think hypersensitivity and looking for new ways to be offended contribute to the problem.

[FriedClams]

I've told my kids many, many times how grateful I am that I was able to be young and stupid before Facebook. It makes me sad to think what the next generation has to deal with.

[MistyMountain]

This is a real problem. Social media has really taken this problem to a whole other level since one little mistake can reach so many people and ruin people's reputation. People are fast to rake people over the coals and believe the worse about people. I remember hearing about that comment. A lot of times peoples words are misconstrued or even if they are not the consequences do not fit the offense. We are human sometimes we can say stupid things.

 

Recently someone posted about something someone at a local business said to a costumer that wasn't nice. I commented that it wasn't a nice thing to say but then people who didn't have the incident happen to them started posting bad reviews in droves even though they didn't have a bad experience themselves. Even avoiding social media yourself you can still end up in the spotlight like that guy who was whispering to his friend a silly joke but had his picture taken and posted. I have seen similar happen several times. 

 

Bullying is also much worse because of social media. People can get thousands of negative comments and feel like everyone is against them. It also gets old how everyone just insults people and their intelligence for their opinion rather then have a thoughtful conversations on issues.

[Murphy101]

It is no different than those people of Walmart pictures. I despise those. It's just being mean.

[redsquirrel]

I've told my kids many, many times how grateful I am that I was able to be young and stupid before Facebook. It makes me sad to think what the next generation has to deal with.

 

That is why 'the younger generation' is not on facebook. Facebook is for middle aged fogies and older.

 

Instagram was a fave, but snapchat is what kids like b/c it is the opposite of facebook. It is, for the most part, ephemeral.  DS is a freshman and no one he knows is on facebook. Ds1 isn't really sure what Facebook is, to be honest. I think that is telling.

[FriedClams]

That is why 'the younger generation' is not on facebook. Facebook is for middle aged fogies and older.

 

Instagram was a fave, but snapchat is what kids like b/c it is the opposite of facebook. It is, for the most part, ephemeral. DS is a freshman and no one he knows is on facebook. Ds1 isn't really sure what Facebook is, to be honest. I think that is telling.

I hear you. I really mean the whole social media scene. I did dumb things in college, but no one posted a picture of me doing it online, in real time, so my future employer could see it. It's harsh, and at ages where kids are not known for good judgement or thinking of long term consequences for their actions, it can be brutal. I'm kind of sympathetic.... but then I see something so shockingly stupid I revert to judgement...

[violamama]

There are three things I see in play:

 

1. Permanence and worldwide instant dissemination

2. Mobs are opportunistic and unsympathetic

And most of all

3. All information becomes equal in the eyes of "the public" online. Expertise means very little, which mean conspiracy and hyperbole are given equal audience with truth. Contrition means almost nothing.

[PrincessMommy]

Lots to agree with.... I found Sacco the least sympathetic of those profiled, but then again, she was first interviewed within a month or two of when it happened.  I think she was probably still in defense mode (although, IIRC, she did apologize as soon as she realized what happened, but it was too late).    The guy who had his picture taken for making a private, off-color joke - that was just too sad.  Why couldn't she have confronted him to his face???   The passive-aggressiveness is part of the problem.  We want other people to do our confronting for us.

 

Most of my kids aren't really on FB anymore.  Snapchat and some Twitter is the fav. for most of them.  At least one isn't really online at all. 

[Word Nerd]

 

Most public figures who stuff up, really need simply to be honest and apologise publicly.  And mean it. That would cure the pile-on.

 

 

 

I don't think that's true much of the time. Often the pilers-on just make new demands, boycott the company or person indefinitely, or come up with other ways to punish the person. 

[Miss Peregrine]

This just happened this week to a christian missionary who blogged about being disappointed that Kenya wasn't poor enough. The Kenyans on Twitter # had a field day with it.

 

I am going to go and check my Twitter, too. Lol

[Tsuga]

I don't believe in public shaming, but I do think there's a distinct difference between being called out as a media, PR, or non-profit/public sector employee posting from your position of power, and being called out as someone who is employed but who is foolishly choosing to belie their public persona... in public, and then finally those who are victims of shaming a la POWM which is a site that I find morally abhorrent.

 

Sacco's case was the first case. I mean, she was a PR person. I have done a twitter feed for an organization. I agonized. In fact our feed kind of sucked because I was so careful. But my goal was to curate the ongoing spirit of what we did in such a way that anyone reading it would have no question about what we stood for. Because, you know, it's a public twitter feed. I mean DUH. So she ought to have been fired because she was really, really foolish to make that remark. Even if it didn't go viral she ought to have been fired.

 

I mean seriously this is a person who went to a highly ranked, selective school. But she is clearly a fool in many respects. She does PR. PR!!! This is one reason she was so judged. I get some stupid McD's high school student making a dumb joke. Okay. She's young, she's not in the industry, she doesn't get it yet. Okay. But a Tulane grade with a degree in philosophy? In PR? Maybe if she wasn't in PR, you could say--she didn't get Twitter.\, she didn't get the sarcasm aspect. Or if she didn't have a degree from Tulane you could say, she didn't really get the point about AIDS and racism and how important that all is. Or if she weren't living in New Orleans. But she really has no excuse. And yet, she must have been making six figures at the time, you know? PR rep for a media company! For what must have been a six-figure salary!

 

As for the man in IT, he should have been reprimanded for making a sexist joke at work in a way that hurts his industry. And yes, IT and any industry is hurt when it deliberately alienates half the population that could be contributing towards growth. But firing? No. And certainly not shaming that the level it happened though being on Reddit at the time honestly, I felt there was more woman-hate than sexism-hate around the issue. But whatever. There are ways to deal with it and she ought to have called him out in person rather than publicly shaming him. If he didn't apologize sincerely, okay, tell him you're going to e-mail his boss and let the company deal with it. That was a poor choice on her part, and wrong.

And then you have the person who made a stupid joke on her personal time. Stupid? Yes. But she was working for a non-profit and made that joke on her own time. I simply cannot believe that she was fired for that. If I were the employer I'd have a talk with her, a very long talk.

 

So these are very different situations.

 

I do judge Sacco. You have a job like that, an education like that, a salary like that and you do not have the skills for it? But no, she should not have had her entire life ruined. Public shaming is a problem because it doesn't give real second chances, and I don't believe in that.

[El...]

"...hoping to amuse people she couldn't see."  Brrrr. 

 

I sometimes find myself writing a snarky response to something online and then delete it.  The world doesn't need my snark added to the pile. 

 

What a cautionary tale that article was!

[Farrar]

Huh. I think I took something different from the article. It made me feel like we should think about how to let this stuff go. How to stop overanalyzing and shaming people for single racist, insensitive, stupid, sexist, or whatever comments and just try to assume they're not horrible people.

 

At some point, as said in the article, people began to campaign against using the pillory and publicly shaming people. I felt like the question the article posed was whether such a campaign is needed now and whether or not it could ever happen given that on the internet everything lasts forever.

[Anne in CA]

"...hoping to amuse people she couldn't see."  Brrrr. 

 

I sometimes find myself writing a snarky response to something online and then delete it.  The world doesn't need my snark added to the pile. 

 

What a cautionary tale that article was!

You should see the stuff I write to put people I don't agree with in their place and delete it on this forum alone! No one needs my cutting remarks. It isn't edifying to anyone to simply make fun of someone who may be mentally incapable of seeing things from a different point of view. The fact that a PR person thinks their own snark is funny is a little sad. A graduate degree from a top university does not give someone good sense or empathy. If it did our political leadership in this country would be radically different.

[PrincessMommy]

I have to say,  I am quite enjoying the public shaming our PM is getting in the media and social media at this time. The power to mock public figures is one of the few powers left to citizens.

 

I really have no sympathy for Sacco. Boo hoo, white girl gets called out on her racism and stupidity ?  How about 'don't be racist and don't be an idiot' ?  I don't hate her though. And I don't personally engage in pile ons. 

 

But feeling bad for people who do offensive and stupid things, when the world turns around and says 'Hey, that was offensive and stupid.' ? Not so much.

 

Another example would be that nasty piece of work who tweeted revolting things about the Obama girls and got shamed for it. Sorry, no sympathy from me for that!

 

 

The problem is that it wasn't that one or two (or even 100) people who told her it was offensive...it went way, way beyond that. 

[Tsuga]

You should see the stuff I write to put people I don't agree with in their place and delete it on this forum alone! No one needs my cutting remarks. It isn't edifying to anyone to simply make fun of someone who may be mentally incapable of seeing things from a different point of view. The fact that a PR person thinks their own snark is funny is a little sad. A graduate degree from a top university does not give someone good sense or empathy. If it did our political leadership in this country would be radically different.

In this case, it didn't give her the skills to even do her job.

[Word Nerd]

I really have no sympathy for Sacco. Boo hoo, white girl gets called out on her racism and stupidity ? How about 'don't be racist and don't be an idiot' ? I don't hate her though. And I don't personally engage in pile ons.

 

 

Did you even read the article? She didn't just get called out.

[sassenach]

 

But really - it shouldn't be too much for most adults of average intelligence to understand that, when your name is attached to your social media profile, you need to be VERY careful what you say and understand that the 'isms' will get called out. It's a global, linked and informed world - and reactions will be global and linked.

 

 

.

She had less than 200 followers. I do think that people can get a false sense security when they have a small group of followers that are mostly people that they know irl. I think that's a big takeaway for us to drill Into our kids (if we aren't already).

[Murphy101]

She had less than 200 followers. I do think that people can get a false sense security when they have a small group of followers that are mostly people that they know irl. I think that's a big takeaway for us to drill Into our kids (if we aren't already).

No kidding.

[sassenach]

I agree we all should be drilling this into our kids.

 

I would be astounded if most young adults and teens today did not understand the way social media can go viral at the drop of a hat, however.

Oh, I think they understand it about the same as they understand driving safety and the risks of unprotected sex. They get it. They can repeat it all back to us. But will that translate into 100% good decisions? I sure hope so!

[Murphy101]

I agree we all should be drilling this into our kids.

 

I would be astounded if most young adults and teens today did not understand the way social media can go viral at the drop of a hat, however.

Idk. I think familiarity can breed contempt kind of thing. There's knowing and then there's KNOWING.

 

For example, there's cameras nearly everywhere and in theory just about our every movement could end up on someone else's feed. But we'd drive ourselves nuts worrying about every single word or appearance at all times.

[Farrar]

I have to say,  I am quite enjoying the public shaming our PM is getting in the media and social media at this time. The power to mock public figures is one of the few powers left to citizens.

 

But don't you think that public figures are different? Shaming of them has never been about the stockades or public floggings. And it's never stopped. It's protected speech in a really different way. See, that's what's so weird about the internet - it's turned random people into public figures, sort of in the same way that in the 1600's we thought it was our right to comment on our neighbor's business and even together, as a community, punish them for it if we didn't deem it good. Society mostly stopped doing that - or, at least, stopped publicly and vocally thinking it was good to do so. But now we've come around again.

 

I do find Sacco's explanation completely plausible. Does that mean the comment was okay? Nope. Should she have been fired? Yeah, maybe. But does she deserve us talking about what a horrible piece of work she is in this thread, months later? I don't think so. I really don't. It doesn't serve any purpose other than to make ourselves feel good. It is like going to the lynching to cheer. It's maybe just as twisted, if not more so, than anything she said. That's what I took from that piece.

[EmseB]

I actually found her explanation of the tweet the most compelling part of the whole article.  It made way more sense to attribute it to stupidity and very poor use of sarcasm/satire.  Reading about it when it happened, I couldn't make sense of her being racist given her background and other things she had said.  She seemed abrasive and not too good at communicating via twitter, but the racist aspect of the whole thing was the most confusing part of it for me until I read that explanation that she was making fun of an ethnocentric attitude about westerners, AIDS, and traveling to Africa.

[Farrar]

I wonder if the article reads differently to people who missed the Justine Sacco thing the first time around... If you're just seeing her racist tweets now, does it distract from the larger purpose of the article, which is to use her as an example, because there's no distance for the reader from the comments she made. They're still fresh.

[PrincessMommy]

I wonder if the article reads differently to people who missed the Justine Sacco thing the first time around... If you're just seeing her racist tweets now, does it distract from the larger purpose of the article, which is to use her as an example, because there's no distance for the reader from the comments she made. They're still fresh.

 

Yeah, I'm beginning to wonder that myself.  Her story seems to be a distraction from the whole message.   How ironic that she didn't even want to be interview again because she didn't want the spotlight back on her again.

 

[Barb_]

I posted that on my FB. Everyone should read it. And it's not just FB or Twitter. It's message boards and emails and pictures.

 

The one that really ticked me off was the guy privately talking to someone and an eavesdropper takes his picture and ruins him. Someone should have told her eavesdroppers rarely hear anything good. He wasn't a PR guy or anything even, but he lost his job bc some jerk snapped a photo of him and said he told a joke to someone else that she didn't like. What the hell is up with that craziness?

 

And I think our laws really are useless bc they have not kept up with technology. Not even old technology. Many of the issues have been around for 10+ years. It's high time some laws were developed to combate at least some of the issues.

I've been preaching this one to my kids for a long time. Someone wants to post your picture or comments in a magazine? They have to get your permission. They post libel on social media and get you fired? Totally legal.

[Danestress]

One thing all these incidents have in common is that they start with someone thinking they are very funny and clever. I wonder if that adds fuel to the fire.

 

If a hateful racist wants to Twitter his ugly attitudes and gain a following amongst likeminded people, we tend to not want to give him more attention or publicity by calling it out. Wd find it offensive and don't want to repeat the ugliness or give it energy.

 

But these cases go viral - perhaps because people enjoy seeing relatively successful people who are sort of 'full of themselves' be humbled.

[Serenade]

She had less than 200 followers. I do think that people can get a false sense security when they have a small group of followers that are mostly people that they know irl. I think that's a big takeaway for us to drill Into our kids (if we aren't already).

 

I am not really familiar with Twitter, so forgive the stupid questions.

 

I guess one of her "friends" or "followers" or whatever they're called, forwarded her Tweet?    I wonder if she considered those people friends.  It doesn't sound like they were business associates.  So she had a friend, I guess, who forwarded her message and then it went viral?  It's not possible to keep Tweets private, is it?  I guess that would defeat the purpose of this particular medium. 

 

I do think we're getting to a point where people have to watch everything they say in any situation, and IMO, that's sad.  I find it harder and hard to trust anyone anymore.  Who knows when you're going to say something that somebody will find particularly offensive.  Even if you don't write something considered offensive, somebody might "catch" you saying something you thought was private and broadcast it to the whole world.   Ah well, Zuckerberg said nobody is entitled to privacy, and we surely are heading in that direction. 

 

I read somewhere (maybe it was posted here?) that rather than encouraging robust discussion, Facebook and other social media actually discourage it, as people become more and more concerned about sharing any opinion that is not consider the preferred train of thought.

[Serenade]

They post libel on social media and get you fired? Totally legal.

 

 

I am actually curious how social media is affecting media law.  Years and years and years ago, I took a university course on media law, and I'm betting that what I learned is probably no longer valid today.  Someday when I have spare time on my hands (hah!) I'm going to do some research on this topic.  I wonder if the things one has to prove to show libel or slander have changed over time.