Online Public Shaming: Virtues and Vices

Freedom of expression

“…Billingham and Parr (2020a, 2020b) outline some criteria aimed at guiding this assessment (2020b, pp. 1001‐6).…”

“…1001‐6). These include proportionality, which requires taking into account the negative consequences of online public shaming, only employing it to enforce ‘morally authoritative social norms’ (Billingham & Parr, 2020a, p. 373) and condemn serious harm; considering the norm violator's genuine liability for her behaviour (2020b, pp. 1001‐3); only using shaming if it is no more harmful than alternative options; respecting the privacy of norm violators; not abusing them or attacking them based on their ascriptive characteristics; and aiming for their reintegration back into society.…”

The Moral Risks of Online Shaming

“…It is this final aspect of her shaming that illustrates the key fea tures of the practice. Philosophers have noted that a certain kind of publicity is central to shaming (Jacquet 2015;Thomason 2018;Adkins 2019;Billingham and Parr 2019). Sham ing practices require what I have called the 'marshalling of communal attention' (Thoma son 2018: 181).…”

“…There are generally two motivations for shaming. First, we might say that shaming is meant to inspire self-consciousness or self-awareness (Tarnopolsky 2004;Thomason 2018;Billingham and Parr 2019). We can see this in Hester's shaming: it is meant to make her appreciate the seriousness of her sin.…”

“…More recently, Norlock (2017), Billingham and Parr (2019), and Adkins (2019) have tack led online shaming directly. Norlock situates online shaming in the context of imaginal re lationships (2017: 188).…”