人肉搜索的限度

當Rachel在她專欄中談及,有聲稱非禮案犯人的家屬,在facebook中搞了個group,把受害者的資料公開,搞得不少性犯罪受害者人人自危,話雖不知誰搞這個group出來,小弟並不排除有人借刀(典故出自借刀殺人),但大家有一點要注意,在網上參與什麼活動,或成為花生黨一員前,應該思考清楚是怎樣一回事。

在未有互聯網前的花生黨,與現時的花生黨不同時,舊的花生黨只是食花生,最多是見死不救,但不會搞出二次傷害,甚至成為幫兇,但互聯網世代的花生黨,你加入一個facebook的group,甚至在討論區提供人肉搜索的資料,你搞不清楚真相的結果是,你被人借了刀也不知,出了事才一生歉疚都已經遲得很。

小弟從事網絡政治研究差不多十年,大家要意識到,大家擁有的力量與過往不同,今時今日網民被賦了權,但empowerment背後的前提絕對是負責任。正如民主普選後,政府膠了的責任便是人人有份,能力越大,權力越大,責任越大。

不過現時小弟最怕是,看慣網的人,有沒有去在邏輯思考上下功夫,雖然現時香港司法制度有不少問題和漏洞,而香港與性犯罪相關的法律條文,由於過時陳舊,變了應告的告不進(例如女人強姦男人,苦主有冤無路訴),但不應告的,卻可能能夠入罪,因為一些膠案例,但是不是黑暗得非要用這種方法不可?特別在窮盡所以司法途徑前,如果這樣公開原告資料,又會否自己犯了妨礙司法公正罪也不知。用腦袋仔細想一下,就不會隨便變了別人的打手也不知什麼事。

在這個光怪陸離的年代,思想的武裝更為重要。解決病態欺凌,以至防止某些人煽動非理性力量,作一些為非作歹的事,關鍵不是明光社那些人朝思暮想管制互聯網,而是獨立思考以及理性教育。越沒理性,人民越不用負政治責任的地方,網民行為越瘋狂,你看中國流行人肉搜索,網頁放木馬無王管,大家應知道問題出在哪裡。

延伸閱讀:
繆美詩:病態欺凌

4 thoughts on “人肉搜索的限度

  1. 正如我前幾日所留言,抓人辮子而不去疏導網民不滿,究竟對解決問題有何好處呢?既然要獨立思考,首先要是其是,非其非;肯定家屬有權質疑,希望有議員/義務律師協助從正常途徑解決,又或者澄清個中法律觀點;反對某d網民渾水摸魚,藉起底來中傷他人 

    所以有點失望的是,我覺得正視法律問題同保障個人私隱同樣重要,為何大眾只傾向討論網絡欺凌呢,而不是兩者都關注呢?事件唔盡快澄清, 其實受害者一樣會一世背黑鑊的!

  2. 補充: 作為一個普通人, 我最覺得難以理解的是, 一是傳媒甚少討論此事, 二是全部都用網上欺凌的角度來切入; 可能傳媒一向自詡保護女性受害者 (雖然我覺得唔係)

    問題是: 而家唔係叫傳媒做判官, 可唔可以係批判網絡欺凌之餘, 搵個律師睇下份上訴判詞點講, 覺得網民冇道理嘛澄清; 覺得質疑可能成立既嘛如實報道? 謠言止於智者, 我覺得對受害者才算最公道, 最能令她如釋重負的方法……

  3. Ur blog is posted in that facebook group and that is why i am here. I have been reading their group discussion/uwants discussion/gold dicussion about this whole thing. I ended up break down in tears. I could feel the girl’s pain even I do not know her.

    Like those group members, I am very disappointed with HK and its law policy, but not because of “innocent citizen in jail” or “law only protects the rich”. But, a sex victim’s identity and privacy not well protected. Also, I am stunned that such a large group of our young generation is lack of critical thinking skills, empathy and perhaps common sense.

    When they express their views, nearly none of them give evidence to support their thinking. I find it very ridiculous that tons of people are asking for the girl’s picture in order for them to judge the case. To them, appearance and image means everything, so ignorant.

    The group creater is very naive and is just giving her uncle (the criminal) more trouble , whether or not he has commited the case. I see her as a person with no logic. 1. The name of her group “16大曬”, Appellate Jurisdiction report never mentions that the girl gains her credibility because she is underage. The group creater is just manipulating the public. 2. what makes her think that a decent man wont commit crime? what makes her think a family man wont commit sex crime? what makes her think people do not commit crime in public? or not in uniform? 3. what makes her think that every sex crime victim should react the same? Also, she fails to give a single evidence to show the girl has a low credibility. (taking sexy picture, skiving lessons, having abortion, with multi sex partners….all has nth to do with credibility, not mentioning the fact that she does not hv any evidence to proof any of those things, excluding sexy pic)

  4. To Jacky:

    問題係傳媒無能力去了解香港一大棚陳舊過時法律造成的弊端,有好心給我判詞看,一看是Crime Ordinance s.122,我就知一定同UK Sexual Offences Act 1956有關,現時網民同樣把焦點看錯了。

    查實Rachel也只是一片好心。

發表迴響

你的電子郵件位址並不會被公開。 必要欄位標記為 *

Time limit is exhausted. Please reload CAPTCHA.