Retribution Faster Than the Law... Fatal Damage to the Parties Involved

[Online Vigilantes: Justice or Anger?]
Part 1. Trial by Public Opinion and Personal Information Exposure

Victim Appeals Publicized in Communities
Names, Phone Numbers Revealed One After Another
"Verified by Visiting in Person" Posts Too
Indiscriminate Personal Info Disclosure Before Legal Action
Innocent People Also Suffer Damage

[Asia Economy Reporters Seungyoon Song, Jeongyun Lee] "We are accepting tips on OOO's personal information.", "XXX will be verified in person."

Recently, an incident involving a restaurant owner in Daegu who verbally abused a driver asking to move their car, and another involving a McLaren owner in Busan Haeundae who verbally abused a car carrying children, sparked public outrage online. These two incidents became public issues after posts appealing for help were uploaded on online communities.

Angry members flooded the community with comments. Detailed personal information, including the names and phone numbers of the parties involved in the controversies, as well as information about their businesses, were posted one after another. Soon after, enraged netizens launched 'retaliation.' Phone calls and text messages poured in, and star-rating attacks on the businesses registered online followed. Some even visited the stores to leave protest notes.

It is not new for online communities to serve as channels for social whistleblowing. Whenever various social issues arise, online communities have played a role in shaping public opinion or exposing injustices.

As a result, many people now turn to communities to share their stories before seeking investigative agencies when they face grievances. There is a growing perception that 'online vigilantes' who punish offenders through 'public opinion trials' act faster than the law. In fact, many cases triggered by online communities have become social issues that prompted investigative agencies to take action.

On the other hand, there are also many negative views about this atmosphere. It is argued that indiscriminate 'doxxing' before legal action causes irreparable damage to the parties involved. Since investigative agencies with expertise are not involved, innocent people sometimes suffer during the doxxing process. In the recent Daegu Rexton owner incident involving abusive language, a business unrelated to the case was mistakenly identified as the perpetrator’s establishment and suffered unintended damage. In the Haeundae McLaren owner case, the owner was initially identified as the offender, leading to indiscriminate doxxing, but as both sides’ claims conflicted, a battle over the truth ensued.

There have also been cases where private sanctions have evolved to extremes. Representative examples are the Digital Prison and Scarlet Letter, which disclosed personal information of sex offenders during last year’s Nth Room case. At that time, Kim Doyoon, a mixed martial artist and YouTuber, was exposed as a person involved in the 'Miryang sexual assault case,' but was later found to be a namesake, and Professor Chae Jeongho of the Catholic University Medical School’s Department of Mental Health was wrongly accused as a sex offender. Doxxing is a clear criminal act punishable under defamation laws. One can become a criminal in an instant due to actions taken in the name of justice. In fact, the number of cyber defamation and insult cases has been increasing every year. According to the National Police Agency, the number of cyber defamation and insult cases rose from 8,880 in 2014 to 16,633 in 2019, nearly doubling in five years.

This content was produced with the assistance of AI translation services.