Cecil the Lion killed by American poacher

[East Coast Flame]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Hahaha, oh wow yeah, so the internet's not only ruthless, but also more efficient than police and courts. How awesome! Jesus man, how can you possibly support this crap?

But then you have the Bill Cosby situation? The police and courts completely failed to bring any justice to the dozens of women who were savagely raped by him. The man didn't face any consequences until the "internet" brought all of this to light.

[Senator Clay Davis]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

1. It's not online presence, though. This campaign didn't have anything to do with anything the guy did online - the internet was a tool used to destroy him.

Given that he's totally unsympathetic, let me give you another example: two guys in an office make some sexist joke about their penises, I can't even recall what it was specifically. Random female office employee overhears, is offended, stands up from her cubicle and takes a photo of both of them with her phone. Posts it to twitter. Tweet goes viral. Both guys fired and publicly tarred and feathered.

That actually happened.

2. Can we stop it? Yes - legislation can go a long way here. People participating in this are often not anonymous - reviews posted on this guy's yelp page are under the reviewer's own name, twitter accounts are frequently tied to an identifiable person, and obviously there are other records. This is clearly something that could be dealt with, and at some point likely will be dealt with.

3. This quote is terrifying: "Is it scary? I suppose but only if you've exposed yourself to something bad."

Oh good. All I have to do is be perfect for the rest of my life or risk consequences that vastly outdistance the scope of my mistakes, gleefully visited upon me by a vindictive mob not accountable to anyone. Sounds fantastic.

This is like saying, "yeah, we should re-institute a mandatory death penalty sentence for shoplifting; that's only scary if you're a shoplifter."

1. This guy's online presence were the multiple pictures of him with trophy slaughtered animals. His dental website talked about how much he loves doing it. It sort of shows this guy really loves doing this, even if he has to break the law to do it (which he has). Considering 95% of society considers this act absurdly barbaric, I mean who isn't going to tar and feather him? Did he really think he'd get a pass? Of course he did, hence why he talked about everything done being legal, ignoring that most people don't care if it's legal, its disgusting and immoral. Particularly paying thousands of dollars to do it. And doing it as cowardly as can be done. If this guy took like the Lion down with a knife, cool. Shooting it from a distance, then stalking it for 40 hours, then killing it? Yeah, this is a truly horrible human being, not someone who made a mistake.

2. Yeah good luck with that. Proving intent is virtually impossible on the internet. Everyone will claim they were joking, or that they were hacked. Legislation is unlikely to really work unless websites where you can comment force you to give up all personal info and agree to waivers. I imagine since that would destroy traffic at many websites, that's never going to happen.

3. Do I really have to tell people "Don't have pictures or posts of yourself in potentially compromising positions, because the internet leaves a trail forever?". I had to tell those folks registering for Ashley Madison that "Oh yeah, that's there forever for hackers even if you think it's private?".

Do you intend on applying for any jobs ever again? Cause I'm sure you're aware any company with any sort of HR department now scours the internet searching Google or Facebook or LinkedIn to look into prospective candidates. Anything up there is fair game, like it or not. Of course it's not great, but it's the way it is. And it's not gonna change anytime soon. So either adapt to it, or don't and see where it goes.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by ben voyonsdonc

I disagree with the issue on the tweet. Twitter is a medium to get your message out. When you tweet something (especially with a hash tag), you are sending it out to the masses. You can't be surprised when it goes viral. That is why it is so incredibly important to think before you tweet because it can never be taken back.

I don't think you can possibly be expected to predict what other people do with your message before you send it. If the spark that had created this incident, for example, was a relatively innocuous tweet reading "Our favourite lion Cecil killed by poachers - we'll miss you buddy", and the internet seized on that to find the culprit and destroy his life, how are you going to punish the original tweeter? Sometimes these things have a life of their own.

I'm not saying this isn't possible to legislate; I've pretty clearly taken the opposite view. But it will take some creativity.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

1. It's not online presence, though. This campaign didn't have anything to do with anything the guy did online - the internet was a tool used to destroy him.

Given that he's totally unsympathetic, let me give you another example: two guys in an office make some sexist joke about their penises, I can't even recall what it was specifically. Random female office employee overhears, is offended, stands up from her cubicle and takes a photo of both of them with her phone. Posts it to twitter. Tweet goes viral. Both guys fired and publicly tarred and feathered.

That actually happened.

If you're thinking of the same incident I am, it didn't happen in an office. It happened at a tech conference. Still a valid example for your complaint though:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kashmirh...ng-the-shamer/

2. Can we stop it? Yes - legislation can go a long way here. People participating in this are often not anonymous - reviews posted on this guy's yelp page are under the reviewer's own name, twitter accounts are frequently tied to an identifiable person, and obviously there are other records. This is clearly something that could be dealt with, and at some point likely will be dealt with.

You are treading very close to freedom of speech issues here. Defamation already isn't protected, but in this case, calling out a sociopathic poacher is protected opinion in both the US and Canada.

3. This quote is terrifying: "Is it scary? I suppose but only if you've exposed yourself to something bad."

Oh good. All I have to do is be perfect for the rest of my life or risk consequences that vastly outdistance the scope of my mistakes, gleefully visited upon me by a vindictive mob not accountable to anyone. Sounds fantastic.

This is like saying, "yeah, we should re-institute a mandatory death penalty sentence for shoplifting; that's only scary if you're a shoplifter."

I'm not saying this to justify it, but the fact is, you aren't going to stop it. The internet is changing the world in many ways. Most for the good, some not so good. Social media in particular has a serious impact on how we live our lives now. As with literally everything else in human history, we either adapt or we die.

[OMG!WTF!]

I think internet shaming is wonderful. I hope people start acting like they're being watched at all times. If the story turns out to be wrong, the victim will be vindicated just as quickly as they were demonized. We deserve to know who we're dealing with so we don't by mistake support terrible people. I only wish Bill Cosby had been handing out free quaaludes in the 2010's not the 1970's.

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Senator Clay Davis

1. This guy's online presence were the multiple pictures of him with trophy slaughtered animals. His dental website talked about how much he loves doing it. It sort of shows this guy really loves doing this, even if he has to break the law to do it (which he has).

True, you make a good point here. I saw this stuff as gas on an already raging fire - the real catalyst was the stories about how the lion had been killed. I think they would have destroyed him regardless.

2. Yeah good luck with that. Proving intent is virtually impossible on the internet. Everyone will claim they were joking, or that they were hacked. Legislation is unlikely to really work unless websites where you can comment force you to give up all personal info and agree to waivers. I imagine since that would destroy traffic at many websites, that's never going to happen.

First, legislation doesn't necessarily imply criminal legislation - we could simply make it easier for people to sue over this. That's a deterrent as well.

Second, even if it did come in the form of some sort of government sanction, claiming you were joking doesn't necessarily work. If I threaten to kill someone in my office over e-mail, the police will likely not be terribly receptive to the statement, "Oh I was just kidding".

Third, there are other avenues like going after service providers (imposing some sort of duty on Twitter to take this stuff down when asked), though that's a whole other can of worms. Legislation ain't the easiest thing to write, but I'm saying it is do-able.

3. Do I really have to tell people "Don't have pictures or posts of yourself in potentially compromising positions, because the internet leaves a trail forever?". I had to tell those folks registering for Ashley Madison that "Oh yeah, that's there forever for hackers even if you think it's private?".

Do you intend on applying for any jobs ever again? Cause I'm sure you're aware any company with any sort of HR department now scours the internet searching Google or Facebook or LinkedIn to look into prospective candidates. Anything up there is fair game, like it or not. Of course it's not great, but it's the way it is. And it's not gonna change anytime soon. So either adapt to it, or don't and see where it goes.

This is a whole different thing than what we were talking about - publically putting negative portrayals of yourself out there that people can subsequently judge you for, that's one thing. Having your life destroyed for perceived mistakes is another thing altogether.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

I'm not saying this to justify it, but the fact is, you aren't going to stop it. The internet is changing the world in many ways. Most for the good, some not so good. Social media in particular has a serious impact on how we live our lives now. As with literally everything else in human history, we either adapt or we die.

Yep and part of that adaptation can be the majority of general public saying "we don't want this" and then having it become more and more socially unacceptable.

Thats my main point in this whole debate when I point out that those who support public shaming are part ofva huge issue and therefore either dong have a full understanding of what public shaming does or lack empathy.

I know you were responding to corsi but just saw an opportunity to respond there.

[Jbo]

Originally Posted by flameswin

After reading your comments in this thread jbo, I believe you're the exact person I'm thinking of when I talk about the issues with public shaming.

You genuinelly believe it can be a good thing and go so far as to proclaim it faster and more efficient than actual law. That's scary and unfortunately too many think just like you.

Wow

Edit; I wouldnt go quite as far as corsi did but to actively cheer on and hope for the ruin of people rather than just hoping for appropriate legal justice.....


Well there's likely some less than flattering personality traits in your make up. I'll leave it at that.

So your making a judgement on my character, despite never knowing or meeting me, based on a posting on awebsite we have both used for years. You have now passed a comment of my personality.You did this based on my comments I made on a topic that brought out my emotions on the topic. You could say that in a small on-line community like CP, you have passed judgement based on a differing opinion.

Obviously, I'm going out on a limb on the above, but you are jumping to conclusions and telling me what my stance is. I never indicated that the Internet is a better then a police investigation, but that it can be way more brutally effective.

It is not going away. Whether you support it or not.

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by CorsiHockeyLeague

First, legislation doesn't necessarily imply criminal legislation - we could simply make it easier for people to sue over this. That's a deterrent as well.

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by OMG!WTF!

I think internet shaming is wonderful. I hope people start acting like they're being watched at all times. If the story turns out to be wrong, the victim will be vindicated just as quickly as they were demonized. We deserve to know who we're dealing with so we don't by mistake support terrible people. I only wish Bill Cosby had been handing out free quaaludes in the 2010's not the 1970's.

Yeah act like you're being watched at all times. Sounds like a great society. Kind of like big brother only now we're big brother. Like I said in another thread, police and governments must be constantly high fiving over what technology has done to the mindset of the general public. Its turned the whole world into wannabe police.

As for wrongfully accused being vindicated as quickly as they were shamed? Bull ****ing ####.

[killer_carlson]

www.wildcru.org

This is the organization that Kimmel encourages donations to in his bit.

How many here have donated to it?

I just tried and the donation link is down. I am not in a position to donate a lot, but will donate something.

Anyone else?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by flameswin

Yep and part of that adaptation can be the majority of general public saying "we don't want this" and then having it become more and more socially unacceptable.

Thats my main point in this whole debate when I point out that those who support public shaming are part ofva huge issue and therefore either dong have a full understanding of what public shaming does or lack empathy.

I know you were responding to corsi but just saw an opportunity to respond there.

I get where you are going with that, but isn't that what cases like this are? This is the public saying they do not find what Palmer did to be socially acceptable. It is a double-edged sword though.

The thing about public shaming isn't that it is a new phenomenon. It has been a standard tactic to enforce cultural and societal norms for most of human history. But as the world grows smaller, the power of such shaming increases. And with the internet and social media, the world has grown very small. Society is still adapting to this.

Ultimately, I don't see any real likelihood of the public turning against the idea of public shaming. It's just too ingrained. Mostly, I think society will eventually settle on what issues warrant shaming, and what don't.

[jayswin]

Originally Posted by Jbo

So your making a judgement on my character, despite never knowing or meeting me, based on a posting on awebsite we have both used for years. You have now passed a comment of my personality.You did this based on my comments I made on a topic that brought out my emotions on the topic. You could say that in a small on-line community like CP, you have passed judgement based on a differing opinion.

Obviously, I'm going out on a limb on the above, but you are jumping to conclusions and telling me what my stance is. I never indicated that the Internet is a better then a police investigation, but that it can be way more brutally effective.

It is not going away. Whether you support it or not.

Sayig it's here to stay whether you support it or not is wrong. Its here and growing because people support it, cmon man.

You can argue the train's moving to fast to stop now, but that train is moving because people enjoy and support this this midevil style of ruthless justice. Eye for eye, destroy the perpatrator, move on to the next.

[Jbo]

I actually think Resolute is stating my stance better then I am, and believe his post actually indicates my own feelings on this.

[octothorp]

Originally Posted by Jbo

I'm also curious how often Internet shaming gets it wrong if anyone on that side cares to back it up. I'm sure there are cases, but it seems to me the Internet does in a couple hours what used to take police months of investigating.

I'm not sure if there are a lot of times where the Internet gets it completely wrong, but there are unquestionably a lot of times where the Internet gets it totally wrong in terms of a proportionate reaction to the original crime. Should someone be getting death-threats for an off-colour joke? Should they lose their job for that sort of thing, or be so affected that they don't want to leave their house? Jon Ronson's writing on the subject (he has a book which I haven't read, but I have seen him talk about it a few times) really captures that element of disproportionate reaction of social media. http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...one-jon-ronson

One of the anecdotes captures exactly the potential for a shaming cycle (or at least chain reaction) that GP_Matt mentioned. A woman shamed a man for a comment he made, and he lost his job as a result. Then the Internet rallied, shamed the woman, and she lost her job, too.

I don't have a problem with the Internet rallying in a case where law enforcement is doing nothing about an issue, but suggesting that the Internet's ability to punish someone faster than law enforcement is hardly a virtue; figuring out all of the facts and meting out appropriate punishment isn't a process that should be rushed.

Is Palmer suffering a disproportionate overreaction? Hard to say. Poaching is a serious issue that has angered a lot of people for a long time, but it's been hard for us in western society to put a face to the issue. Palmer just made himself the public face of that issue. But the reality is that this sort of shaming isn't going to practically affect poaching in Africa, because most of it doesn't involve western tourists travelling there and hunting with shady permits and practices: it involves locals hunting the animals and then selling them on black markets. These aren't people that you can shame into behaving correctly. The real issue is that animal protection in Africa is chronically underfunded.

So maybe rather than tweeting, people should seriously consider donating to something that is going to help solve the problem. A quick google search turns up this NFP which provides conservation support to the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority:

http://www.zamsoc.org/?page_id=60

I haven't researched the structure of this organization and I don't advocate donating to NFPs without researching them first. But if everyone who felt it necessary to tweet or yelp-comment about this issue instead (or even additionally) donated, say, $10 toward wildlife conservation in Africa, we'd be far further ahead.

[FlamesAddiction]

Originally Posted by GirlySports

I don't agree with Kimmel's argument here. He says that at face value the dentist followed all the rules and wasn't breaking any laws but goes off on how hunting can be exciting. That's not his call. Just because you don't understand or like something doesn't mean it's wrong.

Would you apply that same logic to everything? For example, in some countries it is legal for an adult man to have sex with a 12 year old child. If Dr. Palmer thought it was exciting and enjoyed it, would it be acceptable for him to go to Angola and arrange to have sex with a kid as long as he thought he wasn't breaking any local laws?

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

Strategic Lawsuit Against Public Participation.

Okay, well, that post did nothing but demonstrate that you don't know what this term means...

[CorsiHockeyLeague]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

You are treading very close to freedom of speech issues here. Defamation already isn't protected, but in this case, calling out a sociopathic poacher is protected opinion in both the US and Canada.

This is a fair point. There would be a tough call over whether it clears the Oakes bar, but I'm not sure how you would have to word it. I think I'm coming around to the view that this would be harder to proscribe as an offense than first thought.

I'm sticking with the tort law legislation thing though. It fits quite nicely into those principles.

[DiracSpike]

Originally Posted by octothorp

I'm not sure if there are a lot of times where the Internet gets it completely wrong, but there are unquestionably a lot of times where the Internet gets it totally wrong in terms of a proportionate reaction to the original crime. Should someone be getting death-threats for an off-colour joke? Should they lose their job for that sort of thing, or be so affected that they don't want to leave their house? Jon Ronson's writing on the subject (he has a book which I haven't read, but I have seen him talk about it a few times) really captures that element of disproportionate reaction of social media. http://www.theguardian.com/technolog...one-jon-ronson

One of the anecdotes captures exactly the potential for a shaming cycle (or at least chain reaction) that GP_Matt mentioned. A woman shamed a man for a comment he made, and he lost his job as a result. Then the Internet rallied, shamed the woman, and she lost her job, too.

I don't have a problem with the Internet rallying in a case where law enforcement is doing nothing about an issue, but suggesting that the Internet's ability to punish someone faster than law enforcement is hardly a virtue; figuring out all of the facts and meting out appropriate punishment isn't a process that should be rushed.

Is Palmer suffering a disproportionate overreaction? Hard to say. Poaching is a serious issue that has angered a lot of people for a long time, but it's been hard for us in western society to put a face to the issue. Palmer just made himself the public face of that issue. But the reality is that this sort of shaming isn't going to practically affect poaching in Africa, because most of it doesn't involve western tourists travelling there and hunting with shady permits and practices: it involves locals hunting the animals and then selling them on black markets. These aren't people that you can shame into behaving correctly. The real issue is that animal protection in Africa is chronically underfunded.

So maybe rather than tweeting, people should seriously consider donating to something that is going to help solve the problem. A quick google search turns up this NFP which provides conservation support to the Zimbabwe Parks and Wildlife Management Authority:

http://www.zamsoc.org/?page_id=60

I haven't researched the structure of this organization and I don't advocate donating to NFPs without researching them first. But if everyone who felt it necessary to tweet or yelp-comment about this issue instead (or even additionally) donated, say, $10 toward wildlife conservation in Africa, we'd be far further ahead.

Great point. They won't, because internet shamers live in an echo chamber where they want to spew death threats and then move on to the next thing to be outaged about, but it would be nice if it happened. This guy was caught and he'll be punished if found guilty by Zimbabwe or the US or whoever, there's no point to the calling for bodily harm/threats.

[Hemi-Cuda]

Well the guy was already caught poaching once and obviously whatever penalty he paid didn't deter him from doing it again. In these cases where the justice system fails I have zero issue with public shaming. If he loses his dental practice and his means of funding these poaching fieldtrips then that would be wonderful