Social media can be a wonderful place to share information and ideas but when social media is used to incite people to harass, threaten, or otherwise cause harm to individuals, it may be used for unlawful conduct. We know of teenagers and preteens using social media for cyber bullying, however, it is becoming increasingly prevalent within a small but active group of people who see themselves as self-appointed saviors of companion animals. Arguably, these are adults. Oft times they lack experience in or knowledge of animal husbandry and despite having little or no basis for their firmly held beliefs about what is right or wrong in the care of animals, they hold onto them with a tenacity that rivals extremist religious beliefs and act on those beliefs as if conducting a crusade.
Many calls to arms come after an anonymous report is made to local animal control or law enforcement claiming animals are abused or neglected. Unless the authorities find evidence of wrongful conduct during an investigation, the reporters and their followers become enraged. Dissatisfied with the findings of local officials, they go to the internet and solicit people far and wide to embark on a campaign of intimidation and harassment, not only against law abiding citizens who are the target of their ire, but they also try to bully law enforcement personnel, animal control officers, and veterinarians wheb the find no evidence of abuse or neglect.
While petitioning government for redress is constitutionally protected activity, it does not cover unabashed, unsolicited and threatening communications to individual citizens. In some of these cases, names, addresses and contact information for individuals are posted in public forums and followers are encouraged to embark on a spree of letter writing, telephone calls and even personal visits to the homes or property of the bully’s victim. It isn’t uncommon to view comments to these posts that claim the person will go and “rescue” the animals, generally by stealing them, or they express a threat to do harm to the owners or their family. Some have gone so far as to threaten young children for perceived violations of their narrow view of the world. These threats are met with enthusiasm and encouragement by a small, but active and vocal, group of supporters. They seem to blindly follow anyone with a penchant for fiction and a misguided sense moral duty when they attempt to provoke authorities into acting without cause or to intimidate law abiding animal owners into submission. Seldom is there any compassion or concern shown to the humans involved.
This type of vigilantism is unlawful, and in certain cases criminal. Wisconsin defines harassment as “a pattern of conduct composed of a series of acts over a period of time, however short, evidencing a continuity of purpose”. Harassment can result in forfeiture if the actor engages in a course of conduct or repeatedly commits acts which harass or intimidate the victim and which serve no legitimate purpose.
Harassment is subject to jail if the conduct is accompanied by a credible threat that places the victim in reasonable fear of death or great bodily harm. Under certain circumstances, it is a felony subjecting the wrongdoer to a possible term in prison. Other states may have similar provisions. Intentionally filing false police reports can also be the basis for charges of obstructing justice, a misdemeanor in Wisconsin.
While an actor or group of actors may have a subjective belief that their threatening or intimidating conduct has a proper purpose, their subjective beliefs don’t matter. The standard for determining what constitutes legitimate purpose is an objective one based on what a reasonable person in the community would believe. If law enforcement, animal control, and veterinarians see nothing wrong, subjecting a community and its citizens to a torrent of telephone calls, emails, trespasses on private property and threats of personal harm serves no legitimate purpose.
Forcing someone to give up their lawfully owned property or legal enterprises to escape continued abuse by those vigilantes is equally unreasonable and quite possibly extortion. It can never be proper to promote violence or other criminal conduct. This is the behavior of street gang leaders. While police and prosecutors have been reluctant to charge these people, that reluctance will vanish when someone gets hurt or killed.
In two very well documented cases in Wisconsin, both concerning horses, campaigns were launched against people who were doing nothing wrong other than they owned horses and treated them like horses. They disrupted the duties of law enforcement, caused chaos in the community and tormented lawful owners, public servants and private citizens who assisted in the investigation.
In one instance, a local sheriff felt the need to post an officer at a horse owner’s property to protect the horses and owner from harm by the very people who claimed to want to save the animals. Evidence was gathered at the scene that indicate people were trespassing on the property and feeding the horses food not suitable for them. In their ignorance, their help could have caused the horses to become ill or even die. The tax payers of that community were burdened with the cost of protecting people and property from vigilantism. Those horses could have born the ultimate cost, their destruction, by the actions of ignorant people called to action by someone with an agenda.
In Illinois, a local animal control officer was seduced by people who decided an owner of a litter of purebred puppies didn’t deserve them because they failed to obtain a $25.00 permit. They took the puppies while acknowledging the puppies and dogs in the home were well cared for and healthy. That action could have been a costly mistake for that community. The puppies were ultimately returned to the owners but not before the army was called and the harassment began. Names and addresses of the dog’s owners were made public and some irrational people showed up at the home and intimidated and threatened the owners and their young children.
I personally believe Facebook and other social media sites should take a more proactive approach in situations that occur on their forums. Recently a Facebook page directing people to harass law abiding dog owners was shut down for violating Facebook policies on harassment. The following day it was resurrected by the same people with a symbol added to the original name. It is only a matter of time before someone is hurt or killed by one of these zealots because they don’t like that horses are outside or someone intentionally bred a litter of puppies.
It is a very predictable outcome to the rage that is cultivated within these groups of people. If a person yells “fire” in a crowded theater when there is no threat and in the ensuing panic someone is killed, that person is a murderer. When law enforcement or animal control says there is no crime, orchestrating a pattern of harassment for the purpose of intimidation that causes, physical, financial or emotional harm, should be no different. The instigators should be held accountable for the conduct they incite.
Social media needs to make group pages more transparent. If owners of pages were required to identify themselves, they may not be so reckless in their conduct. If the forces unbridled or unleashed can’t be controlled, careful thought must be used before letting them loose.
