Mob Justice, Social Media and the Panopticon

Nils Loc

Everyone has a camera in their pockets these days and can record pretty much anything going on around them. It has become a potent weapon of bearing witness to injustice, as we've seen with the George Floyd case. But with this comes opinions and spin of massive viewership (some vindictive/outrage internet culture) which potentially may obstruct (or boost) justice in a (in)formal way.

The cynical view is that everyone involved is biased based on 'identity' (class/race/religion/tribe) and therefore formal justice is impossible.

Take for example Amy Cooper's park tantrum and using the police to threaten a bird watcher. Or the guy on a bicycle in Maryland who ripped posters out of the hands of peaceful protesters. To what degree is justice executed just because of the massive outrage inspired by these events? Furthermore how can we control that aspect of vindictive mob justice which cause excessive punishment prior to the formal punishment. People lose their jobs and are marked for life, whether or not they deserve it is besides the point. There is no formal determination that measures the punishment to the crime, rather you get the fallout of a kind of mob justice.

How are we gonna not lose our shit once video editing is able to spin reality into any direction one so chooses? It seems everyone is already losing their shit...

Outlander

Erm..

Little late for that.

In a way people know this. You don't walk out from the theater after seeing a superhero or an alien movie wondering if it was a documentary do you?

praxis

I read a story yesterday about a poor slob who lost his job because of a tantrum at Costco. I mean, who hasn’t occasionally lost their shit at Costco. :fire:

Nils Loc

In a way people know this. You don't walk out from the theater after seeing a superhero or an alien movie wondering if it was a documentary do you? — Outlander

No but after seeing a documentary you might have strong opinions about who is guilty of a crime. Lots of short clips on reddit showing potentially criminal (or just bad) behavior have no context but the condemning language of a righteous mob follows in the comment section. The jump to a conclusion is a bit hasty.

What role, if any, did Netflix's Filthy Rich have in putting pressure on finding and prosecuting Ghislaine Maxwell? Any?

How will the vociferous opinions of those watching Netflix's Unsolved Mysteries renew the focus on suspects. I can imagine death threats are already being sent to a few individuals in these docs.

I read a story yesterday about a poor slob who lost his job because of a tantrum at Costco. I mean, who hasn’t occasionally lost their shit at Costco. — praxis

There was a case of a some professor being targeted as a participant in Charlottesville tiki torch march even though he was never there.

Tantrums get you fired I guess, unless you're the President of the United States.

Antonorganizer

I don't think formal justice is impossible in general simply because of mob justice in the court of public opinion. It's a problem for sure, and seems to have become a big problem because of activists (probably most) and large media outlets, whether social media or mainstream "news." Count on them to make a real or even falsely reported incident a big deal because they're inclined to. I assume by formal justice you mean due process.

However, I recently listened to Glenn Loury's podcast with guest John McWhorter and they brought up a point I never considered. In the George Floyd case for example, there's a lot of pressure for this cop who seems completely out of line to be charged. To your point, it doesn't allow a jury to weigh the evidence as objectively as possible. It's been a huge consensus that he's a cold-blooded murderer in court of public opinion, and if he isn't charged, that will be assumed proof of systemic racism. If we can't set a clear distinction between the court of public opinion and formal justice, it opens up a frightening door to mob justice.

Nils Loc

I assume by formal justice you mean due process. — Antonorganizer

Yes, precisely the term I should have used in my OP.

In the George Floyd case for example, there's a lot of pressure for this cop who seems completely out of line to be charged. To your point, it doesn't allow a jury to weigh the evidence as objectively as possible. It's been a huge consensus that he's a cold-blooded murderer in court of public opinion, and if he isn't charged, that will be assumed proof of systemic racism. If we can't set a clear distinction between the court of public opinion and formal justice, it opens up a frightening door to mob justice. — Antonorganizer

Well expressed concern and exactly to the point. If a verdict can be reached without a jury by some means, does the judge weigh the potential backlash of the public in his determination of guilt, out of self-preservation or a desire to maintain public peace?

Antonorganizer

↪Nils Loc

Thanks. I know, it's a difficult position to be in, even for a sensible person. That is the part that scares me, it's not just so easy as a "resist the mob, period" conclusion for anyone to see.

praxis

This darl'n should be fired for not keeping up with the party-line. Trump loves masks now.

skynews-trump-mask_5037150.jpg?20200712012629

Mob Justice, Social Media and the Panopticon

Welcome to The Philosophy Forum!

Categories

More Discussions