"Evaluating Online Vigilantism"

One annoying trend at Volokh Conspiracy was Prof. Volokh posting from time to time some vague overbroad proposal to deal with online bullying tactics that never tended to discuss the proper way to handle it. The comments were filled with libertarian sorts who seemed not to think that there was really any problem here. The true problem is Comstockian prudes and censorial do gooders. Probably lefties. This is a half-ass approach.

In the real world, schools and others have to deal with the issue and there are lines to be drawn. At some point, e.g., even if criminal laws are not usually the answer, some sort of restraint on verbal or written behavior will occur.  Emily Bazelon, who wrote a book on the subject, to me seems more evenhanded. She has repeatedly written about what she sees as overreaching, particularly in some very complicated situations where guilt is not so black/white, but doesn't think no restraints are appropriate. This provides a more full-fledged look at the problem from someone who overall is to me pretty free speech friendly.

The opening photo provides a case in point as to the real issues that are being faced up with here. As the red dress lady noted:

I won a campaign asking the Bank of England to honour women on banknotes. It was a hard-fought win and, I thought, a great way to start the summer. But the next month was dominated by a stream of graphic, violent and detailed rape and death threats, sent to me over the internet.

The British MP in the photo also was subject to such harassment as she discusses on a news program. An update is that two people were convicted.  The story came to my attention via a Bazelon feature on anonymous "vigilantes" (h/t). One person involved in the effort had somewhat selective empathy -- badmouthing one of the women here and not sympathetic about what appears to me to be a serious case of harassment.  As suggested by the video and update, online harassment can raise complicated issues.  Harassment is against the law but how best to approach not one-on-one harassment, but harassment on social media, including Twitter?  Consider the summary of the British Act here:

Under the Malicious Communications Act 1988, any 'indecent or grossly offensive' message that causes 'distress or anxiety' to the recipient can lead to prosecution.

I reckon Prof. Volokh might find this a bit vague. But, as I said more than once there, harassment laws probably use some form of this language and somehow we manage to allow them. Speech often causes some "distress," but some literal definition would not make sense or clearly protected opinion would be unprotected. OTOH, take this sample:

One message sent to Creasy under the user name @rapey1 said: "I will rape you tomorrow at 9pm. Shall we meet near your house?"
Another read: "You better watch your back....Im gonna rape your ass at 8pm and put the video all over the internet."
And another said: "If I meet you in an alley you will definitely get f**ked."

The miscreants here seem to be like those people on AOL chats (now a bit out of date) who use anonymity to lash out or randomly instant message with tasteless material.  Putting aside appeals for child pornography, that sort of thing is generally dealt with with notifications of abuse and blocking over some sort of governmental involvement. And, such means or unofficial social regulations will usually be the way even pretty serious online stuff will be handled. Bazelon's article suggests some of the responses "anonymous" type groups can use. This includes to deal with some more physical abuses. There is an old fashioned social shaming (and vigilantism or whatever word we use) feel to this. 

It's a very complicated issue, isn't it? This is seen by the MP, who notes there are some tweets she receive for which she responds with a kitten picture to have them calm down or distasteful comments about "MP's tits" and harassing comments.  Women in particular have for some time been subject to harassment and online methods add one more means.  Online forums often encourages "flame wars" and distasteful comments. Those can be bad, though the above takes things to the next level.

Anyway, another good piece by Bazelon, and yes even getting Jane Austen on a banknote can result in misogynist targeting.