Increasingly, digital vigilante activity occurs via social media and can have negative consequences in the broader social world, a phenomenon that can be examined productively through a cultural criminological lens. One example of digital vigilantism is the online naming and shaming of people who are convicted or suspected of crime and subjecting them to embarrassment, harassment, and/or condemnation. To contribute to the prevention of negative impacts of online naming and shaming, this study aimed to better understand Australian Facebook users’ views about – and experiences of participating in – online naming and shaming. Participants (n = 122) were primarily young Tasmanian adults who completed an online qualitative survey. Over one-quarter (26%) of participants reported having liked posts that name and shame a person suspected or convicted of crime, with smaller proportions engaging with these posts by sharing or commenting on them. Whilst Facebook users recognised the potential for online naming and shaming to impede justice, they perceived the practice as appropriate if it would foster community awareness and maintain community welfare. The findings are discussed in light of the roles of Facebook users’ emotions, the social media as a cultural product, and the mediascape in constructing versions of reality. Practical implications of the study include the need for policing and media organisations to consider ways to meet their information needs without inadvertently encouraging acts of digital vigilantism. Overall, this study contributes to increased understanding of digital vigilantism and highlights the integral role of social media as a cultural product.
AppaduraiA. (1996). Modernity at large.
Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota Press.
2.
ArvanitidisT. (2016).
Publication bans in a Facebook age: How internet vigilantes have challenged the youth criminal justice act’s ‘secrecy laws’ following the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot. Canadian Graduate Journal of Sociology and Criminology,
5(1), 18–32.
3.
BraithwaiteJ. (1989). Crime, shame and reintegration.
New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
4.
BratichJ. (2009). Secret agents: Popular icons beyond James Bond.
New York, NY:
Peter Lang.
ClarkeR. (1980).
Situational crime prevention: Theory and practice. The British Journal of Criminology,
20(2), 136–147.
9.
Clarke, R. V. (2005). Seven misconceptions of situational crime prevention. In N. Tilley (Ed.), Crime Prevention and Community Safety (pp. 39–70). London, UK: Routledge.
10.
De LaurentiisD.LandersH.RobertsB.(Producers), & WinnerM.(Director). (1974). Death wish [Motion picture]. United States: Paramount Pictures.
11.
De VriesA. (2015). The use of social media for shaming strangers: Young people’s views. In 2015 48th Hawaii International Conference on System Sciences (pp. 2053–2062). Kauai, HI: IEEE. doi: 10.1109/HICSS.2015.215
12.
DimsdaleT. (1866/2003). The vigilantes of Montana.
Guilford, CT:
TwoDot Books.
13.
DuboseM. (2007).
Holding out for a hero: Reaganism, comic book vigilantes, and Captain America. The Journal of Popular Culture,
40(6), 915–935.
14.
FerrellJ. (2013).
Cultural criminology and the politics of meaning. Critical Criminology,
21(3), 257–271.
15.
FerrellJ.HaywardK.YoungJ. (2008). Cultural criminology: An invitation.
London, UK:
SAGE Publication.
16.
FinkA. (2003). The survey handbook.
Thousand Oaks, CA:
SAGE Publication.
17.
FriedmanL. (1985). A history of American law.
New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
HaywardK. (2008). Cultural criminology. In: GoldsonB. (Ed.), Dictionary of youth justice (pp. 119–120).
Cullompton, UK:
Willan.
20.
HaywardK. (2010). Opening the lens. In: HaywardK.PresdeeM. (Eds), Framing crime: Cultural criminology and the image (pp. 1–16).
Abington, UK:
Routledge.
21.
HaywardK. J. (2012).
Five spaces of cultural criminology. British Journal of Criminology,
52(1), 441–462.
22.
HaywardK. J. (2016).
Cultural criminology: Script rewrites. Theoretical Criminology,
20(3), 297–321.
KristoffersonK.WhiteK.PelozaJ. (2014).
The nature of slacktivism: How the social observability of an initial act of token support affects subsequent prosocial action. Journal of Consumer Research,
40(6), 1149–1166.
29.
McLureH. (2000).
The wild, wild web: The mythic American West and the electronic frontier. Western Historical Quarterly,
31(4), 457–476.
30.
PhillipsN.StroblS. (2006).
Cultural criminology and kryptonite: Apocalyptic and retributive constructions of crime and justice in comic books. Crime Media Culture,
2(3), 304–331.
31.
PinkB. (2011). Australian and New Zealand standard offence classification (ANZSOC) (3rd ed.).
Canberra:
Australian Bureau of Statistics.
32.
PowellA. (2015).
Seeking rape justice: Formal and informal responses to sexual violence through technosocial counter-publics. Theoretical Criminology,
19(4), 571–588. doi:10.1177/1362480615576271
33.
RafterH. (2006). Shots in the mirror: Crime films and society.
New York, NY:
Oxford University Press.
34.
RoseM.FoxR. (2014).
Public engagement with the criminal justice system in the age of social media. Oñati Socio-Legal Series,
4(4), 771–798.
35.
SalterM. (2017). Crime, justice and social media.
Abingdon, UK:
Routledge.
36.
ScullyT.MoormanK. (2014).
The rise of vigilantism in 1980 comics: Reasons and outcomes. The Journal of Popular Culture,
47(3), 634–653.
37.
SerleG. (1977). The golden age: History of the colony of Victoria 1851–1861.
Melbourne, Australia:
Melbourne University Press.
38.
SkoricM. (2012). What is slack about slacktivism? In Huat, C. B. et al (Eds.), Methodological and conceptual issues in cyber activism research (pp. 77–92). Singapore: Asia Research Institute.
39.
SmallridgeJ.WagnerP.CrowlJ. (2016).
Understanding cyber-vigilantism: A conceptual framework. Journal of Theoretical & Philosophical Criminology,
8(1), 57–77.
40.
StrattonG.PowellA.CameronR. (2016).
Crime and justice in digital society: Towards a ‘digital criminology’?International Journal for Crime, Justice and Social Democracy,
6(2), 17–33. doi:10.5204/ijcsd.v6i2.355
41.
ThirdA.CollinP. (2016). Rethinking (children’s and young people’s) citizenship through dialogues on digital practice. In McCoskerA.VivienneS.JohnsA. (Eds.), Negotiating digital citizenship: Control, contest and culture (pp. 41–59).
London, UK:
Rowman & Littlefield.
42.
ToerienM.WilkinsonS. (2004).
Exploring the depilation norm: A qualitative questionnaire study of women’s body hair removal. Qualitative Research in Psychology,
1(1), 69–92.
43.
TranterB. (2013). Sampling. In: WalterM. (Ed.), Social research methods (3rd ed., pp. 99–118).
Melbourne, Australia:
Oxford University Press.
44.
TrottierD. (2017).
Digital vigilantism as weaponisation of visibility.Department of Media and Communication,
30(1), 55–72.
45.
UgwudikeP. (2015). An introduction to critical criminology.
Bristol, UK:
Policy Press.
WillisK. (2013). Analysing qualitative data. In: WalterM. (Ed.), Social research methods (3rd ed., pp. 315–336).
Melbourne, Australia:
Oxford University Press.
48.
WillsG. (2002). A necessary evil: A history of American distrust of government.
New York, NY:
Simon and Schuster.
