Publication Bans in a Facebook Age: How Internet Vigilantes Have Challenged the Youth Criminal Justice Act’s “Secrecy Laws” Following the 2011 Vancouver Stanley Cup Riot
Bibliographic record
Abstract
On June 15th, 2011, a hockey riot occurred in Vancouver, British Columbia. This event is prominent in Canada’s history for, among other reasons, the unprecedented extent to which it was documented via photographs and video footage. The days that followed the riot saw much of this media documentation uploaded to social media platforms on the Internet, where Internet users worked together to identify and collectively “name and shame” those believed to have been involved in the disturbance. Several individuals targeted by these “Internet vigilantes” were young offenders whose identities are legally protected from publication under the Youth Criminal Justice Act (YCJA). This article examines the phenomenon of “Internet vigilantism”, and raises the issue of whether those provisions within the YCJA that prohibit the identification of youth remain relevant today, given the current difficulties in enforcing these provisions. Following an overview of these “secrecy provisions”, the phenomenon of Internet vigilantism is defined, and challenges posed by acts of Internet vigilantism are discussed. A “naming and shaming” Facebook group created for the purpose of identifying participants in the 2011 Vancouver riot is then looked to as a case study of Internet vigilantism in action. This article concludes with recommendations for how justice officials and social media outlets may modify current practices to better protect the safety and security of young offenders, and to minimize harmful instances of Internet vigilantism.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.009 | 0.034 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.038 | 0.016 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.017 | 0.006 |
| Open science | 0.003 | 0.009 |
| Research integrity | 0.005 | 0.008 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.004 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".