Category: Public Shaming

Centuries ago, citizens were shamed in pillories, singled out and helpless, while the public were invited to shame and judge the offenders. Nowadays, the ancient almost barbaric punishment of public shaming has returned as a modernised equivalent. These new pillories go by the names of Facebook and Twitter.

Social Media gives the voiceless a voice which is powerful, eloquent and heard. When the misuse of power is perceived. Society feels as if it is their duty to ‘right’ the wrong or ‘call out’ said offender or corporation by, collectively, shaming them. Or, by using the modern pillories of society, tweeting or posting them.

When a newspaper or website released homophobic or racist articles, society realised they could “get” them with a weapon which they only understood, shaming on social media.

This resulted in advertisements being taken down, charges being filed and even the loss of positions and employment. But when does this behaviour breach the walls of ‘righting wrongs’ and become harassment?

In 2013, 30 year old Justine Sacco boarded an 11 hour flight from her home in New York to South Africa to visit her family. Waiting in the airport, she posted an array of witty, acerbic jokes about the indignities of travelling. No one replied, which was unsurprising. She only had 170 Twitter followers. When she landed and turned on her phone, Sacco received numerous texts from friends and family, including a text from someone who she had not seen since highschool, reading “I’m sorry to see what’s happening” then another “You need to call me immediately!” From her best friend Hannah. Answering the phone, “You’re the No. 1 worldwide trend on Twitter right now,” Hannah said.

One of Sacco’s tweets, a harmless joke about the ill-informed, begun trending and gained momentum, becoming the globally top trending topic on Twitter, as she slept peacefully on her flight. Landing in Africa, Sacco awoke to hundreds of tweets, death threats and the loss of her position as a PR executive at IAC and continued to stay a relevant “villain” of the media for months onward.

Society has become so obsessed with seeming ‘caring’ or ‘right’ that the fact that lives have been destroyed due to tweets and “call outs” seems to get overlooked. Richard Smith, director of the Centre for Digital Media, touches on this subject, stating, ‘What we’re seeing is what human beings do; they celebrate the things that they think are noteworthy and they decry the things that they feel are unfortunate,’

Conflict theory states that the most powerful members of a society determine who will be regarded as a deviant. Within ‘Social Media Shaming’, society, in numbers, becomes the force with the power to define an individual as a deviant. This relates to Michel Foucalt’s influential theory that ‘the nature of crime control has shifted from using the threat of violence and the fear of being physically punished to control through surveillance – fear of being seen to be doing something wrong’ and it’s consequence.

Society collectively becomes the force which is creating change within itself. Using shame as a force to control and induce the fear of public humiliation.

The creative aims to raise awareness and discussion on the topic ‘Call out culture’ and give insight into the factors apparent when online shaming is evident such as it’s effects and consequences i.e job loss, charges filed, disruption of social relationships

This is achieved with the use of 3D collaging, including hand-drawn elements along with photos and screenprints of tweets which created controversy at the time they were posted. The posters featured within the piece are of influential and inspiring human beings, depicted in the style of Shepard Fairey’s iconic 2008, HOPE poster. The tweets placed upon these posters represent the “call outs” posted by society, in attempt to diminish, judge and “get” them.

A social group can be characterised by noting the frequency, they ‘call one another out’, implies a frivolous nature to their culture and minimises the other aspects it might have. On October 20th, 2019, ex US president Barack Obama spoke to the media about call out culture and it’s relevancy,

“Among certain young people, and this is accelerated by social media, there is some sense sometimes that the way of me making change, is to be as judgemental as possible about other people” He stated.

Twitter is very much an example of running on a concept of a marketplace of ideas where attention inevitably becomes the currency. Just like within a traditional market where quality is not really of immediate concern, instead people do what gets them more currency, more capital. Call outs are an exchange of social capital.

The intense fear of humiliation pushes social media users to, instead of defending those like Justine Sacco, comply with the majority to avoid the backlash. This shame acts as a forced used to control society via the media.

Those who are doing the “calling out” view it as an act of social justice. When ‘powerful’ people are perceived to misuse their power. Society “gets” them collectively. Realistically, it is society that holds this power. The unrestrained power to ruin lives, accessible by any social media users’ fingertips leads them to believe that by publicly ‘calling out’ those they disagree with, they are participating in the democratisation of justice when in fact, this is the opposite of democracy. This isn’t social justice, it is a cathartic alternative.

In this tech savvy world potential audience is obsessed with the social media and how to get popular on social media. However, some may not know the repercussions or being humiliated online across globe. There are two categories of people one who posts videos of being rude, arguing, littering and singing or dancing poorly to get popularity and others are one who do shame or makes trolls on those video recordings. Public shaming is bad in my viewpoint as it is not the way to put once beliefs about that act. If someone has to guide someone about their act, then they should find some good way to convey the message and it also can be done by telling privately rather than shaming in public.

For example, a year ago, there was an ethics news regarding the ‘Bad tweets and ethics of shaming’ (Kenneth Boyd -Aug 7, 2018), that article highlighted about expressing tweets about racist, sexist, homophobic etc sentiments brought to light. The original twitter then publicly shamed for the act in one or the other manner. One more case which made headlines that time was ‘James Gunn, director of the first two Guardians of the Galaxy movies’ (Kenneth Boyd -Aug 7, 2018) Gunn publicly shamed on the bases of his past tweet where he was making jokes on rape and pedophilia. Repercussions for that happened like this Gunn’s lost his job. Societal standards change quickly and what people tweets or writes about few things when they were younger or of less age may not be the same as they would tweet now. So, making such remarks is totally unacceptable and if we look at Gunn’s story there were people who supported him also.

Public shaming is not the correct approach to make learn discipline to any child from my point of view. However, some people find some justice in this mechanism, and therefore, it raises dilemma in terms of ethics. Some people find it unethical as shaming may go viral and there is absolutely no way of not doing it as the internet never forgets also doesn’t allow audience to forget, and the victim may be scarred for life. Parents should find other ways of disciplining their children as shaming them on the internet may bring adverse effects. Shaming tactics used by parents which typically involves posting videos or photos of their children to social media such as YouTube, Facebook or Instagram and those acts may include punishing the child for disobedience, teaching lessons in a very bad manner or even sometimes showing their frustration on children. Parents are posting videos of their children by making some embarrassing videos for example children getting silly and embarrassing haircuts etc. Children may lose their self-esteem, self-confidence and motivation etc. Shaming a child is entirely different from shaming an adult because they have different strengths to cope with the humiliation.

A complex subject, criminology encompasses numerous different disciplines. For this reason a universally accepted definition ceases to exist; however, most scholars agree it is the scientific study of crime (Jeffery, 1959), which involves the “processes of making laws, of breaking laws, and of reacting toward the breaking of laws” (Sutherland, 1947. p.1). A key area of interest in criminology is crime control, which entails a broad range of evolving strategies implemented to prevent crime. In 2016 the Home Office published their Modern Crime Prevention Strategy which stated, “-the police, the courts, prisons and probation services- can prevent crime through four principle mechanisms- deterrence, legitimacy, incapacitation and rehabilitation” (Home Office 2016, p.21). Alas, since the publishing of the report the criminal justice system has fallen into a state of crisis. In England and Wales 10.7 million offences were committed in 2018 (Office of National Statistics), with the prison population totalling 83,146 (World Prison Brief 2018). Prison sentences in England and Wales have increased since 2010 with 46 percent being over 4 years, and 58 percent of prisons are now categorised as overcrowded (Sturge 2018).

Notorious for their low crime rates are Japan and New Zealand. Japan’s crime rates has hit a record low with 915,042 crimes being reported (Statistics Japan 2018), their prison population totalling 51, 805 in 2018 (World Prison Brief 2018). Similarly, New Zealand is ranked the second safest country in the world (Global Peace Index 2018). They have an even lower prison population of 10,435 (World Prison Brief 2018) with data showing only 259, 891 crimes were reported in 2018 (New Zealand Police 2018). Upon further review, it can be seen that the criminal justice systems in these countries rely heavily on reintegrative shaming. Pioneered by John Braithwaite (1989), this theoretical model on crime control identifies two forms of shame, reintegrative and stigmatic. Emphasising the importance of direct community involvement in communicating shame to an offender, Braithwaite highlights the need for shaming to be reintegrative, for if shame stigmatizes an offender it can be counterproductive.

Braithwaite’s theory has been highly influential in re-shaping the criminal justice system (Karstedt DATE), it underpinning the principles in restorative justice. Using a comprehensive range of academic literature and contemporary data, this essay will discuss John Braithwaite’s theory of reintegrative shaming. In addition, it will critically discuss the main policy implications of this theory.

Crime control is heavily contested by various different theoretical approaches. Utilitarian theorists such as Cessare Beccaria (1738-1794), argue crime can be controlled through appropriate punishments which can only be imposed and exercised by criminal justice professionals. Thus imprisonment became a common punishment towards the end of the eighteenth century in the United Kingdom. Neo-classical theorists view criminals as rational individuals who pursue their own interests. They contend crime can be effectively reduced by removing opportunities for an offender to commit a crime, in addition to giving jurist professionals sole responsibility for developing a system of punishments (Thomas, 2014; Braithwaite 1989). Adopting a different stance, liberal-permissive theorists separate the act of a crime from an offender. In their view, “deviance is not a quality of the act a person commits but rather a consequence of the application by others of rules and sanctions to an offender” (Becker, 1963. p.9 ). It was this approach which changed the face of criminology, it providing individuals with a better understanding of criminals, it appealing for more tolerance. Converging these theories to produce a singular explanatory system of crime control is John Braithwaite (1989), who established reintegrative shaming theory. Defined by Oxford dictionaries, shame is, “a painful feeling of humiliation or distress caused by the consciousness of wrong or foolish behaviour.” It is a social emotion, one which is accompanied by feelings of worthlessness, powerlessness and inadequacy (Block-Lewis 1971). According to Braithwaite, shaming is an alluring tool which coaxes individuals to comply with the criminal law, it being a process by which citizens are able to become actively responsible in informing offenders of their resentment towards criminal behaviour. Public shaming was often used during the Middle Ages where offenders were paraded through the public to a pillory or the gallows in an ostentatious procession where they would endure great ridicule (Carrel, 2009). In contemporary society, naming and shaming initiatives are still implemented with offenders globally being named and shamed for their crimes in media outlets. More specifically, Megan’s Law in the United States allows law enforcement agencies to notify the public about registered sex offenders living in their area, their personal information such as photographs, names and addresses being made available to the public (Bonnar-Kidd, 2010).

Reintegrative shaming is a “moral educative” (Braithwaite 1989, p. 11) theory of social control. Braithwaite recognised the suffocating aspects of socially repressive forms of punishment, it merely locking individuals away from communities to prevent them from reoffending. Reintegrative shaming conveys individuals cannot be wholly moral if their choices are consistently oriented around their own interests. Individuals are subsequently shamed, when they “trample” (Braithwaite 1989, p.11) the autonomy of another individual.

Subject: “How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life” case study analysis

Introduction

The memorandum is about an article “How One Stupid Tweet Blew Up Justine Sacco’s Life” by Jon Ronso published in the New York Times on 12th June 2015. The report is concerning the case of Justine Sacco’s offensive tweet and the aftereffects of the tweet. The article also includes the interview of different people who were involved in the incident. This allows the author to dive profound into ‘public shaming.’

What happened to Justine Sacco?

Justine Sacco, 30 years old was the Senior Director of corporate communication at IAC. She was on her way from New York to South Africa which was an 11-hour flight. When she began her journey, she started tweeting in her twitter account which had about 170 followers. Her tweets were so dumb, a portion of those being “Going to Africa. I hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!”.

Her tweets went into a web sensation and the internet took a taunt at her comments though she was absent during that period. She was quickly fired from her position at IAC and was openly disgraced by random people which made her life emotionally upsetting. She was also resentful of the way its interpretation led to her downfall.

Context: public shaming

Public shaming is a kind of internet vigilantism in which victims are publicly humiliated for things done personally or publicly using technology like social media. This practice has been followed in American and around the globe throughout the 1700s and 1800s where the author describes this in the article. The first recorded case of public shaming was deserving a public whipping post 20 stripes each. Even though this method was abolished later in the 1800s under the federal level, there were scarcely any cases it happened again.

Public shaming has become normal now due to the impact of social media and its virtual form. Regardless of the position and designation, any individual who did something “offensive” will be assaulted. In today’s world, everyone can access social media with ease, and it has become an immediate reflection of their opinion in public. Though most of the time it comes without assessment. These are the key elements for late instances of public shaming.

Analysis: Justine Sacco’s infamous tweet

Justine Sacco was attempting to express herself with her tweets. Even though she was unintentional, the tweets harm the emotion of groups across the globe. She must have been cautious and should have analyzed it logically considering her position in the community. Twitter is a public forum to keep yourself updated and to create connections globally. It makes things personal and the tweets portray the personality.

In Justine Sacco’s case, it was not a good choice. Though she was unintentional, her act was not professional, and therefore she was mistaken. Sacco should have been more responsible on a social media platform where a number of people meet digitally. The outcome could have been avoided if she was professional and consequently, she deserves the punishment.

Recommendations

In today’s digital world, social media has become a significant part of the way people in most walks of life communicate.

• Professionalism: We should always maintain a courteous a professional image, even on personal media. What we do in personal life can affect professional life too.
• Respect for others: We should respect humanity and should always have mutual respect. It is essential to review the comment before posting it on the social media platform. Providing a multi-dimensional view to the comment and analyzing is the key here.
• Integrity: Maintaining high standards of honesty when communicating online plays a crucial role. Any information provided online should be accurate, current and easy to understand.

Therefore, it is our responsibility to provide high-grade thoughts and opinions to the society. The usage of social media should be in a positive way and each and every comment we post should be analyzed and reviewed before posting.

Language plays a vital role in every communication of human life where people are able to speak and understand each other. However, despite having language, some people have misused the privilege of language to shame others for their incompetence. This denotes the idea of ‘language shaming’ where people used to mock the accent, pronunciation of the words, grammars and everything that may unconsciously affect the speaker. In fact, this social issue has been enormously grown in many generations either in public or media. Even though many people believe that language shaming serves more negative impacts than positive, but a wide range of language shaming issues still flooded the media and became the talks of people around the world. Having said that, some people may argue that language also serves benefit in which can improve one language to a better level. However, the impact of public shaming can be varied according to certain cases. It can be accepted for some people that language shaming help to motivate them, but this only will happen if it is done in a good manner but not for those who are poorly humiliated. In this case, people may become incurably flawed as a result of the humiliation.

On the other hand, language shaming defined as an attempt to downgrade one for interacting in a language that is not in their native language ( Lee, 2018). For one reason, this issue has been prevalent and lead to many cases. The history of Malaysia being as one of the British colonized countries had made English language be a mandatory language learned by students at all schools. Hence, this language is no longer new to Malaysian people which triggered the issue of people being condemned for shuttering or using broken English. For instance, Faiz Subri, a national footballer, was condemned for his broken English by a local journalist and mostly Malaysian citizens during his speech on the 2016 FIFA Award (Tan, 2017). Not only that, but fluent English speaker also has been mistakenly despised for not being able to uplift the level of a national language. Rais Yatim, former Minister of Information, Communication and Culture mocked a journalist from the online newspaper ‘The Star’ for asking questions in English. On the whole, these issues are a ridiculously accurate portrayal of how English and Malay language speakers are often shamed in Malaysia. Be it Malay or English, language is only a way of interaction and obviously not to reflect their professionalism or patriotism to the country.

As noted above, although Malay and English are only a way of communication, one should not emphasize on this idea to stop learning certain languages. Language is a tool of communication and needs to be mastered by everyone. Hence, it is normal for people to make some mistakes either in spoken or written form since it is only a part of the learning process. In short, language shaming should not be normalised in Malaysia as it may result in low self-esteem, social alienation and poor language proficiency.

Low self-esteem

Firstly, language shaming should not be normalized in Malaysia because it can lead to low self-esteem. According to Bottazi, Caretti, Garafalo and Velotti (2017), low self-esteem can be a result of language shaming which can constantly relate to hostility and psychological distress. In this case, most people probably feel inferior and helpless to start learning the language again. With that being said, instead of improving, the outcome may descend to greater harm. This can be supported with the statement from Winstead and Wang (2017) saying that the children at an early age are already experiencing language shaming in school which eventually initiated fear in them to speak in front of the public. Sooner or later, this also will diminish their level of confidence.

Aside from that, the negative judgement given by the people makes them feel inferior and scared of being called ‘not so intelligent’ (Vijaindren, 2017). This can be supported by a study from China done by Li Jia (as cited in Piller, 2017), highlighting an example of language shaming from a teacher. In this case, the study emphasizes how the teacher keeps on condemning the language used by an eleven-year-old boy instead of complementing the content of his answers. To make matters worse, she even downgrades him by linking the spelling mistakes to his age (Piller, 2017). This type of language shaming is ridiculously insulting the self-worth of the boy, especially when it comes from a teacher, who should be the one to motivate him to be better. This connotes the idea that teachers should intuitively understand the significance of supporting their students’ self-esteem as most learners do not take the same route or travel at the same speed.

In addition, language shaming not only diverts on incompetencies but also overperforming which indirectly lead to low self-esteem. For instance, fluent English speakers also can be victims of language shaming even for their high proficiency in English. As a result, most of them may feel the need to distance themselves from socializing with other people. This is a big loss for them because they cannot practise other languages without complaint from people around them. So, their confidence will decline from the nasty treatment given as well as ongoing language shaming cast upon them. But, their hardship is less severe than the one who cannot speak good English. For the case of Malaysian with poor English, people are looking down at them with the intention of relating the ability to communicate in English with intelligence level. This is supported with one case happened in Vietnam that was highlighted by Nguyen (2019, p. 44) saying “users make assumptions about Miss Vietnam’s education and intelligence level based solely on her two-minute long English speech”. Most of the assumptions are criticizing her for not able to portray her English perfectly. It is also influenced by the fact that she is a beauty queen and the face of Vietnam. In Malaysia, this similar scenario also happened because of the typical mindset that mastering English is the benchmark to be called a brilliant person. So, this condition will shake the confidence level of people who are still struggling to improve their English. If language shaming did not stop, it will slowly reduce their self-esteem to interact and communicate with other people.

Thus, it is clear that language shaming causes the downfall of an individual’s self-esteem. In the beginning, the impact of language shaming is less severe because it will be more on advice although given in a harsh way rather than humiliating. But if it is not put to an end, the result might impact more disaster especially timid appearance in the public. Therefore, it is undeniable that great treatment of language shaming will bring forth people with low self-esteem.

The story starts with a preface about how the book was written; the unnamed narrator was a custom house surveyor who, in the attic, found a manuscript and a gold-embroidered patch of cloth in the shape of an “A”. The manuscript was the work of a past surveyor hundreds of years ago; when the narrator lost his job, he decided to write a fictional novel of the events in the manuscript and The Scarlet Letter was the final product. The story focuses on a young woman named Hester Prynne in a Puritan settlement in Boston who is led from the town prison with her baby Pearl in her arms and an embroidered “A” on her chest. She is said to be punished for adultery as her husband, a scholar, sent her to American first but never arrived and is presumed dead at sea. Hester refuses to reveal the identity of Pearl’s father; the public shaming and scarlet letter are her punishment for her sin and secrecy. An elderly traveler in the crowd is Hester’s missing husband who is now a doctor and goes by Roger Chillingworth. After discovering Hester’s sin and revealing his true identity to her, Roger settles in town, intent on revenge. As the years pass, Pearl grows into a challenging child as she lives in a cottage outside of town; officials try to take Pearl away from Hester but with the help of Minister Dimmesdale, Hester and Pearl stay together. Dimmesdale, although young, appears very sick from “heart trouble” caused by psychological distress and guilt. Roger becomes closer to Dimmesdale and suspects there is a connection between Hester’s sin and the minister’s declining health, leading him to test Dimmesdale to gain information. Soon, Roger discovers a mark on Dimmesdale’s chest, which convinces him that his suspicions are correct. Hester asks Roger to stop torturing Dimmesdale but he refuses so Hester arranges a meeting with the minister in the woods. Here, Dimmesdale and Hester rekindle their love and make plans to leave America but Roger discovers their plan and makes arrangements to be on the same ship. Dimmesdale, leaving the church after his sermon, sees Hester and Pearl in the crowd and asks them to come join him; the town is in shock as they walk up the platform where Hester was publicly shamed seven years ago. Hand-in-hand, Dimmesdale stands with Hester and Pearl as he confesses to the sin he shares with Hester and rips open his robe, exposing the scarlet letter on his chest and then dying on stage. Filled with revenge, Roger dies less than a year later, leaving all his possessions to Pearl who leaves Boston with Hester. Years later, Hester returns alone, still wearing the scarlet letter, to live in her old cottage and resume her charitable work; she receives letters and gifts from Pearl who is married. When Hester dies, she is buried next to Dimmesdale, sharing a tombstone bearing the scarlet letter.

In terms of United States history, The Scarlet Letter helped show how much of a role the church can play in people’s way of life and government. The Puritans felt it was necessary for the sinner to confess and repent publicly, as well as be subject to the church community in order to return to God; at Hester’s public shaming, the Governor told Dimmesdale, “the responsibility of this woman’s soul lies greatly within you. It behooves you, therefore, to exhort her to repentance, and to confession, as a proof and consequence thereof” (39), meaning the church and government were one and were responsible for Hester’s change in community status. When pondering United States culture, The Scarlet Letter exposed the reader to early Puritan ways; the narrator depicts the Puritans as strict, confining, narrow-minded, and unforgiving to Hester. In the beginning when Hester is released from prison, the narrator describes the town jailer as representing the ‘whole dismal severity of the Puritanical code of law,’ (31) which bound religion with law. The Puritans are depicted as shallow hypocrites whose opinion of Hester and Pearl improves only when they become more of an asset to the community, specifically when Hester becomes a seamstress and Pearl inherits Roger’s fortune. When looking back on the story, the most impressionable quote was “No man, for any considerable period, can wear one face to himself and another to the multitude, without finally getting bewildered as to which may be the true” (120); this quote was so powerful because it forced self-reflection and thought in a way which was touching and seemed personal. Overall, the most powerful part of the book was when Hester tore off the scarlet letter and her head covering when in the woods with Dimmesdale because the descriptive nature of the text, for example, stated, “She had not known the weight until she felt the freedom” (113) and the actions itself conveyed love, passion, and freedom which seemed to jump right off the page and into the reader’s heart. In addition to the book being a great read, it was also significant to American history because it portrayed how in the past, people’s lives and sins were often subject to public shaming and how the church played a major role in everyday life, which helped build the foundation of the country’s history in church, government, and societal opinions. However, the book’s language was not modern, which did not aid in the reading process; also, the book mainly focused on Hester’s story, so an incomplete picture was given of the period. On the other hand, the book portrays how difficult society can be and how sin and guilt can change a person, which is important in understanding how and why historical figures made certain decisions.

Some say this day in age, jokes can be misconstrued and have a deeper meaning behind the person actually saying them. The Author Jon Ronson goes into depth with people about how they’ve handled being publicly shamed and how they’ve given public shame. Justine Sacco became victim to what it was like being publicly shamed and humiliated. Many people got involved in this case of Justine Sacco, like Sam Biddle who essentially started the trend because he shared it to 15,000 followers on his twitter. Ronson later went and visited Ted Poe a former judge of twenty plus years. Poe was famous for publicly shaming his defendants in the “showiest ways he could dream up”. This chapter introduces how fast word can travel and the mental state one goes through in a situation like this. Ronson explicitly goes to ending this chapter as how people tend to be the soldiers waiting to judge other peoples flaws.

Throughout the chapter Justine was seen as a horrible person who made a terrible joke to her hundred odd sum of followers that later blew up due to one person retweeting it. Ronson portrayed this situation really well as to what Justine was going through and the process she’s gone through after her tweets began to go viral. She was on her way to South Africa and sent a few tweets out before doing so the joke that was put on her twitter was “Weird German Dude: You’re in first class. Its 2014. Get some deodorant.-Inner monolog as I inhale BO. Thank god for pharmaceuticals. Then the layover at Heathrow: Chili -cucumber sandwiches-bad teeth. Back in London! Then the final leg: Going to Africa. Hope I don’t get AIDS. Just kidding. I’m white!”(page 68) This set the tone for this part of the chapter that Ronson goes on to hear how Justine was handling the devastating lose she was going to have to endure after the shaming. Justine had landed at the airport and turned her phone back on and got a text from someone she hadn’t spoken to since high school, the text read “I’m so sorry to see what’s happening”. (page 68) As Justine was exiting the plane her phone was blowing up with hundreds of notifications of others bashing her and calling her names even as far as wishing what she tweeted about AIDS upon herself. A trending hashtag had started labeled “#HasJustineLandedYet”(page 70) and that is where thousands of twitter users were waiting for the moment she had landed to see her reaction of how they received her tweets. Three weeks had passed after the whole AIDS incident and Justine finally went and sat down with Ronson to discuss how she was doing after the fact.

Justine’s mental state was taking a toll on her as Sam Biddle a journalist from the Gawker and the one who had over 15,000 followers on twitter emailed Ronson on how he felt about the whole thing at this point Ronson is sort of confused as to why someone like Sam Biddle would find ruining someone’s life a good thing. He states in his email that “The fact she was a PR chief made it delicious”(page 78), Biddle also said that taking down a member of the “media elite” was “continuing of that in the civil rights tradition that started with Rosa Parks”.(page 78) Ronson went on to say and question why certain things happen on social media and they either become the “hero or the sickening villain”. This section Ronson goes as far as asking questions as to why this has become a part of our culture and why the need of seeing people’s downfall has become some sort of entertainment. “A life has been ruined. What was it for: just some social media drama?” Sam Biddle continued in his email that he was “surprised” to see how quickly Justine was destroyed: “I never wake up and hope I get to fire someone that day- and certainly never hope to ruin anyone’s life.” (page 79) Towards the end of the email Biddle said that he had a feeling that she’d be fine eventually, if not already. Ronson later on that day had told Justine of what Biddle had said about her being fine now, she was not fine when she answered Ronson. Justine said that “I’m really suffering. I had a great career and I loved my job and it was take away from me and there was a lot of glory in that. Everybody else was very happy about that. It was incredibly traumatic. You don’t sleep. You wake up in the middle of the night forgetting where you are, You’ve got no- purpose”. (page 80) Ronson would meet Justine in a few months because she didn’t want what had happened to her to define her as a person. Overall Justine never wanted this joke she made to affect her work and her life, after all of this she felt remorseful but was still so confused as to why the backlash was so imminent when she knew herself that they were jokes. Ronson ended this part of the chapter by saying he didn’t want what he put on paper about Justine to be her story for the rest of her life.

Connecting the dots to the next topic in the chapter of how public shaming really does and could take a toll on a person mentally. After Ronson left Justine he then goes to introduce another person Former judge Ted Poe for his odd ways of pleading his defendants with certain tasks to show others what not to do when it comes to the law. One of the defendants he had convicted was Mike Hubacek. “In 1996, Hubacek had been driving drunk at one hundred miles per hour with no headlights. He crashed into a van carrying a married couple and their nanny. The husband and the nanny were killed. Poe sentenced Hubacek to 110 days of boot camp, and to carry a sign once a month for ten years in front of high schools and bars that read I Killed Two People While Driving Drunk.(page 83) Going through something so traumatic as killing innocent people because being selfish was more important then others on that same road as this individual. Ronson went on and stated that another individual had killed a teenage girl due to the same thing that Mr. Hubacek had did and it was proved that “too psychologically torturous for other people”.(page 83) The parents of Susan Herzog sued Kevin Tunell and were “awarded $1.5 million in damages, but offered the boy a deal. They would reduce the fine to just $936 if he’d mail them a check for $1, made out in Susan’s name, every Friday for eighteen years. He gratefully accepted their offer. Years later, the boy began missing payments, and when Susan’s parents took him to court, he broke down. Every time he filled in her name, he said, the guilt would tear him apart: “It hurts too much,” he said. (page 83) Poe gave Ronson information that many people like Hubacek were “forever grateful” (page 87) for Poe and this is where Ronson shifts his judgement about him rather then expecting how he was portrayed by everyone else, and this is essentially a turning point in the chapter as to why people need to experience public shaming so others learn from many mistakes sought out by other people.

Public shaming has been around since the beginning of time and will continue until this world is long gone, but public shaming has been imbedded in todays culture as something everyone wants to jump in on. From Judge Poe and his tactics to Justine and her jokes that were harshly misconstrued in a way that it ultimately changed her life for the worse. The shaming can be seen as taking away the power from the ones whose comments or actions should be handled with accordingly. Ronson made it very clear what these interviews were like and the perspectives of how each individual feels about these things on a personal level.

Chapter 4 has made it clear on how humans view others and their thoughts and sayings. I truly agree with Ronson solely because we tend to become infatuated with bringing down others and keeping up with their every move until they become aware of what’s really going on. Shaming has brought upon a whole realm of nit picking certain things and making a bigger deal then what they really are and Ronson seems to do that very well in explaining it. Sensitivity has become more common and more accepting because someone some how can flip the script on anybody and potentially dig deeper into someone’s personal private life.