Abstract
In today’s digital age, the Internet is ubiquitous. The people who use the Internet, however, do so with different motives. Most Internet users are familiar with trolling on the Internet—posting deliberately offensive or provocative content intended to upset and elicit anger—but are less familiar with the ways in which some use the Internet in a far more serious way to target people, especially women. In her insightful and exceptionally well-written exploration of hate on the Internet, Danielle Keats Citron details the profound impact that Internet harassment, stalking, and nonconsensual pornography have on victims, while also outlining a legal approach to dealing with these incidents.
First, Citron provides three primary case studies of digital hate: (a) the tech blogger, (b) the law student, and (c) the revenge porn victim. These case descriptions are an essential aspect of the presentation, moving the reader to care about the issue in a way that more abstract descriptions of digital hate would not; I will admit that reading about these cases upset me in a way that quantifiable numbers would not have, and I very much doubt that anyone would read them without a similar reaction. Each of these cases convincingly details the serious emotional, professional, and financial impacts of digital hate on the victim. One of the most striking aspects of Citron’s presentation of these cases was the way that she emphasized the lasting presence that the harassment had. Because the harassment is “cyber,” hateful posts and photos are easily catalogued by search engines, “extending the life of destructive posts.”
Second, Citron details the characteristics of the Internet that facilitate altered behavior. Many of these characteristics are those often exalted as the most important features of the Internet: anonymity, the ability to connect to others, and the ability to seek out information. Here, Citron effectively grounds her discussion in social psychology. People are more likely to exhibit extreme behavior when they feel more anonymous—when they are wearing masks, in darkness, and in groups, for example. In such cases, individuals may “deindividuate” or lose their sense of self. In effect, the Internet allows users to operate behind the mask of their computer screen. In some cases, they may be completely anonymous. But, even when they are not, they still feel as if they are; Internet users cannot see those with whom they are interacting, they cannot receive or interpret social cues, and they experience interactions as if others do not know who they are. At the same time, the Internet allows people to come together in a way that they cannot in the physical world. People are, for example, able to seek out those with similar viewpoints, even when those viewpoints are antisocial or deviant. Individuals acting in groups are more likely to exhibit extreme behavior, and this situation is only exacerbated on the Internet where individuals feel relatively anonymous and free from social control.
Citron then concludes with several chapters devoted to carefully articulating the potential legal responses to Internet harassment, stalking, and nonconsensual pornography. In this regard, one particularly important contribution may be the model state law for combating revenge porn provided on Page 152; scholars of hate crime will know that a model statute (crafted by the Anti-Defamation League) also played a particularly important role in the production of the nation’s first hate crime laws at the state level. Most of the discussion in these chapters is aimed at discussing legal avenues for dealing with digital hate without impeding free speech and expression on the Internet. In this regard, Citron relies heavily on criminal law as the primary legal response to these incidents. As a society, we overrely on incarceration as a response to deviant behavior, and an expansion of the criminal justice system into the digital world has potentially wide-ranging repercussions. There was a limited discussion of other approaches, but I would have preferred a more thorough engagement with noncriminal interventions.
I have only a few other minor criticisms of the book. First, the author could have engaged more with research on hate crime generally. Citron uses the term “hate crime” in the title but is largely referring to separate, but related, phenomena throughout the book. Although Citron presents a thoroughly well-reasoned argument, the parallels between digital hate and hate crime in the physical world are considerable, and advocacy for legislation in the digital world could potentially benefit from a consideration of similar legislation in the physical world. The author discusses how, in many cases, victims are met with indifference from police and prosecutors; hate crime victims in the physical world are also met with resistance and skepticism by police and prosecutors. Citron’s calls for more law enforcement training on digital hate also echo similar calls for increased training on hate crimes. Second, this book is focused mostly on Internet hate directed at women. This focus makes sense; women are much more frequently victimized on the Internet than others. But, I would have liked to have seen some more discussion of other victim groups, including lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) and minority victims. LGBT people, especially, are probably frequent victims of cyber harassment and similar behavior, given that they are bullied and discriminated against so severely in the physical world.
Overall, however, this highly readable book is an excellent call for further research and legal action regarding Internet harassment, stalking, and revenge porn. Citron is obviously aware of current research, the chapters are well organized, the arguments are supported by data and sound logic, and the book should be of use to policy makers and scholars alike. All told, Citron’s book represents an important first step in a larger—and necessary—agenda aimed at translating the civil rights guaranteed in the physical world into the digital sphere. The agenda will probably encounter significant resistance; the same resistance was experienced by those battling for protection for victims of hate crime only a few decades ago. But this victimization does not occur only in the physical world, and extending the battle for protection to the digital world is the next logical step in curtailing hate and bias directed at women and minorities. Citron has clearly articulated the issue at hand; hate on the Internet is a social problem, and it is our job as a society to condemn hate and bias in all of its forms.