Skip to main content
Open Book Publishers

Doxing as Audience Vigilantism against Hate Speech

  • David M. Douglas (author)
Chapter of: Introducing Vigilant Audiences(pp. 259–280)

Export Metadata

  • ONIX 3.0
    • Thoth
    • Project MUSE
      Cannot generate record: No BIC or BISAC subject code
    • OAPEN
    • JSTOR
      Cannot generate record: No BISAC subject code
    • Google Books
      Cannot generate record: No BIC, BISAC or LCC subject code
    • OverDrive
      Cannot generate record: Missing Language Code(s)
  • ONIX 2.1
  • CSV
  • JSON
  • OCLC KBART
  • BibTeX
  • CrossRef DOI deposit
    Cannot generate record: This work does not have any ISBNs
  • MARC 21 Record
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 Markup
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
  • MARC 21 XML
    Cannot generate record: MARC records are not available for chapters
Metadata
TitleDoxing as Audience Vigilantism against Hate Speech
ContributorDavid M. Douglas (author)
DOIhttps://doi.org/10.11647/OBP.0200.10
Landing pagehttps://www.openbookpublishers.com/books/10.11647/obp.0200/chapters/10.11647/obp.0200.10
Licensehttp://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0
CopyrightDavid M. Douglas
PublisherOpen Book Publishers
Published on2020-10-14
Long abstractDoxing is the public release of personally identifiable information, and may be used as a tool for activism by removing the anonymity of individuals whose actions or stated beliefs harm others or undermine social cohesion. In this chapter I describe how doxing that deanomynises proponents of hate speech is a form of audience vigilantism. I argue that it is a defensible means of combating hate speech if it has the purpose of beginning a process of deradicalizing the identified individuals through reintegrative shaming. Such doxing must be motivated by a legitimate social need (in that they can be justified using premises and evidence acceptable to all in society),and must remain within socially tolerable bounds (in that it does not lead to physical harm, it is not indiscriminate, and is in response to injustices that are in principle recognisable to those who are not affected by it). I refer to several instances of doxing relating to proponents of hate speech to illustrate my argument and to demonstrate the importance of the legitimate social need and socially tolerable bounds criteria.
Page rangepp. 259-280
Print length21 pages