On Nov. 24, Jackie Danicki (an American blogger and social media consultant living in London) was physically and verbally assaulted by two men in the London Underground. She reports, "The assault took place on the southbound Bakerloo line platform at Baker Street, and the abuse continued from there to Piccadilly Circus." She also noted that this abuse went on for 15 minutes before anyone tried to intervene.
It's awful. I'm sad to say, I've been through similar experiences myself. It's infuriating, scary, and humiliating. I completely understand Danicki's outrage.
Danicki went one step beyond what most people -- probably even me -- would have done in that situation. She took a photo of one of her alleged assailants. After she returned from making a lengthy police report, she posted that photo to her weblog along with a description of what happened, and asked people to identify this man to the British Transport Police. In the comments, she also included a description of the second alleged attacker.
How did she get the photo? Said Danicki, "The guy was already berating me verbally (this was after the physical assault) when I took the picture. Maybe it was stupid of me to whip out my camera, but I am defiant that way."
As I said, I completely empathize with Danicki's outrage. I also share the concerns raised by University of Florida journalism professor Mindy McAdams, whose Nov. 25 blog post brought this incident to my attention.
McAdams wrote of the man in Danicki's photo, "Now more than a dozen other bloggers have linked to or reposted the picture of this young person. He might be guilty -- but doesn't Britain have courts to determine that? I live in a country with a long and horrifying and all-too-recent history of lynching. This viral photo manhunt in London scares me down to the marrow of my bones."
It's a valid concern. Someone who merely resembles the man in the picture could end up in dire straits.
That said, it's also true that many perpetrators of violent crimes (especially those that include abuse or intimidation of women) are never arrested and tried. Strictly from a position of shifting more power to victims of violence, and possibly deterring future attacks (by increasing fears of getting caught), Danicki's effort might make some sense.
Finally, there's libel. I'm no expert on U.K. libel law, but I know it's fairly different from U.S. libel law. I suspect that by posting the photo and claiming that this man was one of her attackers, Danicki might be opening herself up to libel charges. If someone reading this article understands the U.K. libel implications, please comment below. (Update Nov. 28: U.K. communications ethics blogger Philip Young did some digging on this angle.)
What do you think of this incident?
Although I understand her anger at the assault, some of...
