Twitter is a common tool in the hacktivism of Anonymous operatives seeking to reduce the amount of evil in the world. This chapter examines two Anonymous operations to elucidate the uncertain terrain of Twitter ethics: "OpAntiBully," a concerted effort to harass and shame alleged online bullies, and "OpPedoFear," an operation to identify (through civilian online sting operations) and publicly shame putative pedophiles. These two cases are interesting for those studying communication ethics because they take advantage of Twitter’s incredibly responsive and interconnected forms of communication. Furthermore, both cases employ “ doxing ” (d0xing), the revealing of private identifying information of online selves that are accused of nefarious online and offline conduct, as a means for pursuing offline revenge.

This paper argues that anonymity in networked digital communications is indispensable as an enabler of other inalienable rights including informational privacy and freedom of expression. Yet, an alignment of industry norms, practices, ethics, and techno-social design asserts a persistent identity ecosystem, making online anonymity more difficult to achieve. This paper reappraises the democratic uses, affordances, and human rights dimensions of online anonymity in order to advance an ethical justification for its protection.

Ward & Wasserman (2010) argued that in the digital age we must rethink and reconfigure journalism ethics from the perspective of an Open Media Ethics framework, rather than the Closed Media Ethics framework of professional journalism. To show how ethical analysis may or may not work in an Open Media Ethics framework I undertake a thematic analysis of the online public debate on media ethics that was fostered by the reassignment of a beat reporter because his disparaging tweet about one of the subjects of his reporting. Drawing on theoretical debates over ethics of objectivity I argue that the age of digital social media we live, journalists and the rest of us, calls upon us to not only take a situational approach to media ethics, but also forces as to conceptualize objectivity-as-a-practice rather than objectivity-as-a-value.

Reputation is an aspect of human existence that is given great importance and value. People spend their lives tirelessly striving to build a reputation that can do their perseverance justice and give their legacy strength. It only takes one moment, one comment, or one person to destroy it all. This becomes especially troublesome and unjust when the words being used to attack one’s reputation are false and malicious. In legal parlance, this phenomenon is called defamation and is a popular topic of study in both civil and criminal law. When we place the already menacing nature of defamation in today’s world, it becomes clear how the internet makes it exceedingly easy for it to occur, by virtue of the scope and swiftness of the digital realm. This transcendence of defamation from the physical world to the virtual one also raises many legal questions regarding the specific nature and evolution of the phenomenon, the present laws surrounding the issue and any possible adaptation it might...

Online defamation and doxing are two of the major problems of the computer age. As technology advances, defamation and doxing become greater problems. Defamation and doxing can cause serious damages to its victims. The laws badly need to be updated to deal with defamation and doxing in the information age. This research paper makes 11 recommendations to effectively combat online defamation and doxing in the United States of America.

The Twitter defamation case between Lord McAlpine and Sally Bercow sent shock waves through the social media world. At first there was disbelief that the case could even happen - and in the end there was a fair amount of anger about the final outcome. Under the current law, as Mr Justice Tugendhat made clear, Bercow's tweet concerning Lord McAlpine was defamatory - and Bercow had to apologise and settle. Whether the result of the case is a good one for freedom of expression, not just on Twitter but in general, is another question - one that this article attempts to address, at least in part. There may be the potential for a chilling effect on Twitter: some people are afraid that those viewed as powerful will use the opportunity afforded by this case to try to squash this new form of media, bringing their big legal guns and deep pockets to bear on something they do not fully understand but fear and dislike. There is also a feeling amongst some in the social media world that many of those caught up in this are effectively innocent: trapped in a mess caused by mistakes made by the conventional media. As Alex Andreou, a journalist and also an active blogger and tweeter, asked in the New Statesman: ‘Can every Twitter user be expected to factcheck Newsnight?’ Defamation law is based on the practices of the conventional mass media: newspapers and broadcasters. As Rowbottom suggests, ‘(t)he safeguards for free speech were shaped by the years of litigation with mass media and thereby framed with the mass media, rather than the casual amateur, in mind.’ The ‘new’ media, the ‘social’ media - and Twitter in particular - works in very different ways than the conventional mass media: should it not be possible for the law to reflect this? This paper suggests a way that it might, suggesting a ‘defence of responsible tweeting’, following the lines of the defence of publication in the public interest, and also suggests that more appreciation is needed for the role of Twitter in freedom of speech.