Online vigilantes persecute people who may not be guilty of anything
The Internet exploded recently into a cyber witch-hunt when the sister of a 21-old-man who committed suicide pointed the finger of blame at his "gold-digger" girlfriend. A police report on the case finally exonerated the girlfriend, after the damage was done.
We have to ask: How can cyber bullying in the name of justice be stopped?
The man, known only by his screen name "Pangmao" (chubby cat), took his own life in the southwestern city of Chongqing because – according to his sister – of a financial conflict with his girlfriend.
The sister, who claimed online to be named Liu Jialing, said on her Weibo account that her younger brother gave his girlfriend Tan Zhu 510,000 yuan (US$70,600) during their two-year relationship, despite the fact that the two met only twice during the period.
Pangmao was a paid game player who "lived on takeaway meals costing less than 10 yuan," his "sister" claimed. He transferred all his remaining money – some 60,000-plus yuan – to Tan before throwing himself into a river, she said.
Her post made waves on various social networking services in an uproar that lasted for a week. Netizens sent bouquets to the river site where Pangmao committed suicide and ordered takeaways in his name.
However, the alleged girlfriend quickly became the villain of the incident. In the "digital court," she was deemed guilty, even though no formal charges were laid against her. The cyber persecution showed no sign of abating after a week. The names, addresses and ID numbers of her and her family members spread online.
No social networking platform intervened to stop the vilification, even though that is their social responsibility.
Three weeks later, however, a statement from the Chongqing police overturned Liu's narration. Their investigation found that Pangmao and Tan were a couple who dated frequently and had met Tan's family and friends. The two had a normal financial relationship while dating, and no hint of fraud was found.
Liu, on the other hand, faces prosecution for intending to defame Tan by posting her address on various online accounts. Liu, police said, also hired several netizens to write posts supporting her version of events, making her story look genuine and sincere.
The vindication comes too late for Tan, whose life has been shattered by the false claims.
This is not the first "online trial" conducted on social networking sites, and presumably it won't be the last.
Eleven years ago, a high school student from Guangdong Province committed suicide after her personal information was exposed online. A clothing store owner accused the student of shoplifting posted a surveillance camera video online, asking netizens to find the student.
After the student died, the store owner was detained by the police.
It seems that no tragedy will stop many netizens from taking the moral high ground and hurting others in the name of upholding "justice."
We should note, first off, that the era of an information explosion makes it much easier than before to stir up public outrage. A post or several screenshots of chat records can create a convincing story for people to draw hasty conclusions, but few take the trouble to verify the information they see online.
Take Pangmao's case for example. The story told by his sister ignited the online vitriol without any supporting police statement, legitimate news story or third-party investigation to back up her claims.
Making matters worse, some people choose to ignore common decency and try to milk every public cause célèbre for all its worth.
In the Sichuan Province city of Luzhou, a 23-year-old man pretended to be Tan Zhu online, uploaded forged chatting records to catch attention and tried to make some money out of it. Later, Luzhou police said that the man was caught and penalized, and his fake accounts deleted.
Even if Pangmao's sister was telling the truth and Tan Zhu was indeed a gold-digger, does that give anyone the right to publish her personal information and subject her to a "cyber trial?"
The answer is an absolute "no."
Lawyer Liu Chunquan said that in a law-based society, vigilante online trials cannot be tolerated, but sometimes it's hard to control a situation that has mushroomed into a major public opinion event.
According to the current Criminal Law, cyber manhunting amounts to a crime of infringing on citizens' personal information. Anyone who illegally collects, publishes or sells such information may face a maximum of three years in prison and other penalties.
"Sometimes it's hard to investigate 'cyber manhunting' cases because these lawbreakers are scattered everywhere, possibly even in a different corner of the world," Liu said. "Besides, many victims of these manhunts are sometimes criminals or have moral flaws, adding to the public outrage."
But that's not how the law sees it.
In 2007, a man named Wang Fei sued three websites that published his personal information online and won in court. The case involved the suicide of his wife after she discovered his extramarital affair.
The court stated that a civilian's privacy and personal information should not be infringed upon even if he or she has moral flaws.
The sad truth is that cyber witch-hunts, if tolerated, leave no one safe. Let's give back the power of investigation, prosecution and trials to law enforcement and the courts, and end "cyber trials."
