How about that...another thread on GAF regarding Internet vigilantism in which a significant amount of posters gleefully overlook just how dangerous, unreliable, and horrific Internet vigilante mobs inevitably become.
The "I have no problem with this posts." might as well read "I've put zero thought into this." It's like people have zero historical knowledge of how this kind of thing inevitably plays out: it's not even an Internet phenomenon so much as a human one. The Red Scare wasn't that long ago. Crowd-sourcing "justice" doesn't work and it never will. The mob has no accountability, no memory, and no mission beyond its immediate satisfaction.
What I would propose is not something that literally anyone can do. I don't want another NRA. Skilled, qualified individuals who operate within the bounds of the law in which nothing outright illegal or malicious is being done to bring about justice. All I am literally proposing is that, if need be, the government simply list members of the Klan and other hate groups on a public profile list, as is done with child sex offenders and terrorists. It is not an extreme concept, in fact it is pretty cut-and-paste common sense at this point.
What you are talking about is indeed a path to failure. I am advocating something that the government itself could do, or could set up a path allowing for qualified citizens to obtain license or similar to do what they seem not willing to do.
I don't see what you mean and I don't agree with anything you've said except for the fact that the legal system is much more complicated than it is portrayed to be on shows like Law and Order.
Cases like this, which are against anonymous individuals, are difficult because of what you don't know before you would have to file a lawsuit. You don't know who you're suing, and there's no way to even begin finding out who to sue without being able to issue subpoenas, and you generally can't do that without having actually filed a lawsuit. Even states that do allow you to conduct pre-suit discovery, the court in question must actually have jurisdiction over the individual in question:
http://law.justia.com/cases/texas/supreme-court/2014/13-0073.html The person making these defamatory accusations might not even live in the United States. Then what do you do?
How would you propose to do things differently?
Well, first off, I'd make it so that citizens would not be responsible for outright paying for attorney costs. I think most citizens, if they were guaranteed the providence of a quality state-appointed attorney for a situation that warranted such, would be willing to do with a small tax to provide basic revenue toward those attorneys and lawyers. The gov't could provide bonus incentives for attorneys that perform their job well, honestly, and fairly for their defendants.
A review board or panel could rate the attorney's performance against a set of criteria to see how they measure up, those who under-perform take remedial courses to reform or are squeezed out of the system. Base the pay off of quality of job performance, just like most other professions.
That's a rough concept, but an idea nonetheless. It'd solve the problem of overpaid attorneys and lawyers, and curb on bad practices. Essentially, it shouldn't get rid of privatized practice firms completely, but stipulates a revenue baseline for them and a cap that's subject to review before they can receive additional profits. A national organization that all firms would need to conform with, or they can't be in business. And of course, state-appointed attorneys would be subject to the same conditions.
This is how it works, unless the defendant turns out to be without the means to pay a judgment against him or her. In which case, who do you suggest foot the bill for the litigation?
What maybe could work is, if the defendant is unable, their place of employ will foot the bill. But employers would need to know if the defendant has a history of being in hate groups or is affiliated with them before hiring to make it fair on them.
If the defendant has no employer, corporations could donate to a fund that would pay out the winner; in return they could be rewarded with tax breaks or other incentives.
The damage is already done. You think that having people acknowledge that they were mistaken is going to make up for the damage already done? It certainly didn't help Sunil Tripathi's family after Reddit accused him of being the Boston Bomber. Or how the New York Post wrote an article with a picture of Salah Eddin Barhoum and his friend and accused them of being the Boston Bombers. And how Barhoum went to the local police department to clear his name but was terrified of leaving his house.
Ryan Lanza: Brother of Adam Lanza. His picture was leaked and people on the Internet thought it was a picture of the shooter.
Garnet Ford: Roofer. Accused for murder after social media assumed it was him because the suspect was a thin black male. Three guesses on Garnet's physical appearance. Police never named him as a suspect.
Steven Rudderham: Accused of pedophilia by a Facebook account. The entire town assumed it was true and turned on him. Someone tried to burn down his house and he committed suicide.
Sunny Burns: An Australian model living in Thailand. Accused of being responsible for the bombing in Bangkok after Internet sleuths "identified" him as the bomber.
"Oops. Our bad. But you probably should be able to sweep this under the rug. Sorry about the death threats and lynch mobs."
And yes. I'm using the word "lynch mob" because that's literally what some people in Philadelphia formed after someone posted a random picture of Triz Jefferies on Facebook accusing him of being a rapist/murderer.
Those examples are tragic but are exactly why I wouldn't advocate for lynchmob social justice tactics. You need qualified, licensed individuals to do this sort of thing, so mistaken identities isn't a problem. Preferably the gov't would already be on this but at the very least, allow citizens who pass qualifications to do their work for them.
Yep
Like they did.
Congratulations - taking your advice would have led to the death and killing of single mothers, black people, people with mental health issues (schizophrenia, etc) and gay people earlier in the history of this country. All of those groups, at one point or another, have been considered by the vast majority of the population to be "unclean", "morally deficient" and "to be shamed and outed".
I got a laugh out of that, but the point stands. Those other groups, through hindsight, were never the monsters others purposed them to be. We all know the Klan are reprehensible imps, and they deserve to be outed. People need to be aware of them, and ostracize them accordingly.
I would
never advocate for something like lynchmob mentality tactics, or the particular execution this organization is displaying.
Especially further back in time, where methods for cross-references and fact-checking weren't as error-proof (not saying they're error-proof today, obviously. But it's better than back in, say, the '50s). Back in those old days understandings of certain aspects of humanity and society were not well understood (not to mention the country was much more explicitly racist/sexist/homophobic back then), so even something like having the government list out members of hate organizations was a no-go due to neanderthal-level bias projected by the majority at that time.
But what is so inherently evil about listing members of hate groups in the same manner we list sex offenders and terrorists? Do you see neighborhoods dragging out and killing those sorts en masse? No. I'm not saying those incidents haven't happened, but they're the exception, not the rule.
