Talk:Jessi Slaughter cyberbullying case

Name removed

I've removed the real name of the subject. This is extremely similar to the Star Wars Kid case, and (after voluminous discussion) consensus has held that the real names of Internet harassment victims should not be posted here. The relevant policy sections are here and here.

I have not at this time deleted the revisions, as I'm not certain it's necessary, but if someone else wishes to do so I would not object. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 16:48, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

While I agree with the removal of the name, I think the principle objection people will have is that the individual and her parents appeared in a TV interview and so implicitly abrogated their anonymity. I think the objection is mistaken, but I bet I'm in a minority. CIreland (talk) 16:56, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I took some time reading the Star Wars Kid discussion Kafziel mentioned, and after comparing the two situations, there are some important key differences between them:

1. Whereas the "Star Wars Kid" and his family sued for privacy and sought to disassociate themselves from the video, "Jessi Slaughter" has openly sought fame and her family has appeared on multiple media outlets discussing the situation.
2. The "Star Wars Kid" argument suggests a distinction between the meme itself (the image of a kid pretending to use a lightsaber) and the real-life individual; in essence, that the individual's identity is immaterial to the "Star Wars Kid" meme. This is not the case with the Jessi Slaughter videos, where the family is candid and directly addressing the viewers.
3. This article is about the broader cyberbullying case (which has received the most media attention), not an internet meme. An individual's real-life identity may not be relevant to a mere internet meme, but it is relevant to a widely-reported real-life cyberbullying case.
4. "Star Wars Kid" was a private, personal video that was leaked maliciously without the consent of the filmed individual. The "Jessi Slaughter" videos were uploaded and broadcast across the internet voluntarily.

In summary, the "disconnect" between the meme and the individual that occurred with the "Star Wars Kid" is not present in the "Jessi Slaughter" case. Enough sources openly refer to the family's real names that omitting them here seems pointless, nor has the family tried to conceal their identities. Ingersollian (talk) 19:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Numbers 1, 2, and 4 are essentially the same: That in this case the publicity has been voluntary. However, some parts of that voluntary publicity (such as the enraged father's response) have been the cause of the victimization, so the fact that it was voluntary doesn't really make it any different. We're saving them from themselves, if you will, or at least declining to participate in their own admittedly misguided outing of a minor.

As for #3, the very fact that this is about the case and not the meme means that her real-life identity is not relevant to the cyber-bullying. Several reliable news sources reported the Star Wars Kid's name, too, but that's not necessarily the only consideration for inclusion for BLPs. Lots of cases - such as rapes, sexual assaults, and child abuse - go all the way through trial without ever publicly releasing the name of the victim. Roe v. Wade went all the way through the Supreme Court without ever using the litigant's real name. In the same way, this victim's name is not essential to a reader's understanding of her case. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 19:47, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I'd appreciate you taking the time to appreciate the distinctions between my points if you're going to respond at all. Point 1 is about activity after the videos were uploaded (the Leonhardt family's behavior post-notoriety differs strongly from the "Star Wars Kid" case), Point 2 is about the nature of the videos themselves (they are recordings from real people as themselves rather than actors pretending to use lightsabers), and Point 4 is about how the videos came to the public eye (voluntary uploading rather than leaking). Your motive between the two articles might be the same, and I can appreciate it, but the conditions surrounding the two articles are very different. The Leonhardt family has never sought anonymity in their pre-notoriety or post-notoriety actions. Ingersollian (talk) 20:10, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Just caught something else: note that in the Jessi_Slaughter#Videos section, Leonhardt's mother refers to the girl by her given name. There is clearly no expectation of anonymity from this family as was the case in the "Star Wars Kid" situation. Ingersollian (talk) 20:39, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I know all three points have their own nuances, but they do all boil down to whether there is an expectation of privacy. Based solely on the victim's actions (not those of her parents), the answer is yes. Hence the use of a pseudonym in her YouTube videos, and her dismay when people eventually did uncover her identity. She did seek anonymity, albeit poorly. The conditions surrounding the two articles are not "very different"; they are slightly different, which I've already granted (if they had been exactly the same, I would have deleted the revisions from the page history immediately). The main difference between the two cases is how the parents handled themselves after the fact, a distinction which does not necessarily trump the consensus of the Wikipedia community. When it concerns biographies of victims, and especially considering that the article is no less intelligible without the information, it should be left out. If her real name had some significance to her notability, that might be a different story. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 21:27, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I was bold and removed her name as it was still in the article. I think another point is that she is way under age of consent, and must be presumed to have privacy protection if a victim and underage. Her parents revealing their real names, thus making her name accessible, doesnt exonerate our responsibility for protecting her identity on our site. Actually, the parents seeking any publicity with their real identities might even be used against them (rightly or wrongly) as evidence of possible child neglect. I think we are very safe in protecting her, and very unsafe in even having her name in the edit history.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 03:31, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Frankly when I saw the GMA broadcast that mysteriously used the name Jessi Slaughter, then proceeded to specify that this is not her real name but an online name, AND gave the rest of her family's full names, I facepalmed. Truly a great moment in journalism. That said, I think it matters little either way. I don't object to removing her name but there's little reason to pretend we're protecting them from anything - once you go on national television with your real name, privacy is out the window. - OldManNeptune (talk) 04:11, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

unfortunately, you are probably correct. to that end, i wont revert if someone else adds it, as long as the family/victim name is sourced.Mercurywoodrose (talk) 18:18, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Being sourced has nothing to do with it. That's the whole point of this thread. WP:BLP trumps every other policy. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:28, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

By the way, if names should not have been revealed, I believe there is a means to get administrator attention and have the information removed permanently. --LegitimateAndEvenCompelling (talk) 18:36, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

I am an administrator, and yes, there is. I've held off for now while we gauge consensus for it. Kafziel ^{Complaint Department} 18:50, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

What's real and what's not

It's hard to figure things out, since so many distortions are created by people posting things on the internet. But there are four things Slaughter is accused of (shocking for someone of her age)=

• 1)Sexual relationships with older men/boys
• 2)Posting child pornography of herself online
• 3)Making death threats
• 4)Using profanity and offensive signs

The latter two unambigously are true, since we have the videos from herself. The first two are murky and unclear. 129.120.176.206 (talk) 17:21, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

That she had a relationship with the emo-pop band member is completely false; it's merely a smear/rumour. What's not certain is her relationships with her older boyfriends that she described, this may have just been... nothing but talk. And its very possible for all kinds of images to be faked online. 129.120.176.206 (talk) 17:24, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I've seen quotes attributed to her where she admits to taking photos of herself that would possibly qualify as child pornography, but it's from a source I seriously doubt Wikipedia would accept (though I personally think it's unlikely that it was faked, for personal reasons). I've also heard that police are investigating that very possibility; in this case I'd suggest the sensible thing is to include mention that it's under investigation, has been alleged, but not state it as fact until news/police verifies it as such. Obviously original research in this case is strongly discouraged, to say the very least, so speculation as to whether it could be or was faked or is real is utterly irrelevant. - OldManNeptune (talk) 00:14, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

YouTube Reactions

Is it worth noting that a tremendous number of parodies have surfaced, including a response by her favorite band (Blood on the Dance Floor) which is extremely critical of her/her family? It's something that is problematic to source, but it is decidedly a noteworthy public reaction to the incident, especially since many of the parodies and response videos are not part of any harassment campaign. - OldManNeptune (talk) 04:16, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Inappropriate protection

I see that User:Kafziel has fully (and indefinitely) protected this article due to the dispute over including the Leonhardt family's names in the article. This protection is extremely inappropriate. While I do not doubt the sincerity of Kafziel's desire to protect the Leonhardt family, there are a multitude of opinions (both on this Talk page and on the AfD page) that support inclusion. As an editor involved in this content dispute, Kafziel should not have exercised his administrator tools in this fashion. I will be sharing this message on the Administrator's Noticeboard. Ingersollian (talk) 22:59, 24 July 2010 (UTC)