THE greater tragedy is that the tragedy could have been averted.
For spreading a photo of Joy, 16, with her breasts exposed, the Regional Anti-Cybercrime Office 7 filed criminal complaints against two boys at the Mandaue City Prosecutor’s Office, reported Kevin A. Lagunda on Aug. 10 in SunStar Cebu. (Names of the victim and the accused perpetrators are withheld to protect the former.)
Joy’s boyfriend Larry, 18, was charged with violating Republic Act (RA) 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and their Children Act of 2004), in relation to RA 10175 (Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012).
Larry threatened to release online Joy’s photo after she broke up with him. She had sent him her nude photo through Facebook Messenger when they were still in a relationship.
In her affidavit, Joy said that Larry passed on her nude photo to a classmate, Ben, 17, who uploaded the photo on the wall of their public school’s official Facebook page.
Ben, 17, was charged with violating RA 9995 (Anti-Photo and Video Voyeurism Act of 2009), in relation to RA 10175.
The aftermath of Joy’s online shaming does not end with the filing of criminal charges against her alleged abusers.
SunStar Cebu reported that Joy’s classmates saw her nude photo posted on social media. Instead of apologizing, Larry and his family reportedly blame Joy for the “reckless act.”
Blaming the victim is a reaction not limited to Joy’s former boyfriend and his family. In an Aug. 11 comment posted on the SunStar website, reader Joyce Schneider of Silliman University, Dumaguete City posted that “the girl also acted incredibly naive” after she recommended that the two boys perform community service as public atonement for the online shaming.
Despite the proliferation of media’s coverage of violators being charged under RAs 9262 and 9995, in relation to RA 10175, why are there still incidents of online shaming, many of which may not even be reported to the authorities?
Institutions, such as schools, and other stakeholders like peer counselors and bloggers, should push for online literacy to educate Netizens so that they will not become a victim of or participate in online shaming.
As they happen to be the most active in social media, youths are among the most vulnerable.
As digital natives, young people may have an altered sense of what’s private and public, what is to be restrained and what is to be shared, and most importantly, what can be unforeseen consequences of digital activity and what online acts are potentially harmful.
Internet sources refer to online shaming as a form of “Internet vigilantism,” which loosely embraces acts carried out from a sense of righteousness and outrage to revenge.
Larry’s acts of threatening Joy with public exposure and later sharing her nude photo with Ben and possibly others fall under the type of online shaming known as “revenge porn.”
Internet sources point out that former partners spread without the victim’s consent images or videos that are sexually explicit to blackmail or shame a victim.
When personal information is shared online without the consent of the victim, this act of internet vigilantism is known as “doxing.”
Some websites practice self-regulation by forming and carrying out policies that rule against the publication of “personally-identifying information,” including information that is not considered as part of public record.
However, most social networking sites are still porous to forms of online abuse like shaming and Internet vigilantism.
Netizens must take it on themselves to practice self-regulation, which includes thinking twice before posting online sensitive information, images, and video; using the internet to vent on a personal issue that may destroy a person’s reputation or peace of mind; and carrying out acts that violate the laws penalizing online voyeurism, cybercrime, and violence committed against women and children.