Media Ethics Initiative

Home » Posts tagged 'privacy'

Tag Archives: privacy

Reporting on Sexual Assault in India

CASE STUDY: The Ongoing Debate over Victim Anonymity

Case Study PDF| Additional Case Studies


Photo: Media Ethics Initiative

In 2012, a young woman was brutally gang-raped by a group of five men on a bus in New Delhi, India. She and her male companion, who had been knocked unconscious, were then thrown from the moving bus and found on the side of the road. The extreme violence of the assault turned the case into an overnight firestorm both within the country and in the international press. Despite this publicity—which only increased when she died of her injuries—and the guilty conviction of all five men, the Indian press did not publish her name. Instead, they predominately referred to her as “Nirbhaya,” meaning fearless one, or as the Delhi braveheart. Her name was omitted from press coverage not because people did not know who she was—“the train of media persons and politicians to her home made clear almost every person in the vicinity … knew where she lived and what her real name was”—but because to publish her name would be against the law (Bhatnagar, 2016).

Section 228-A of the Indian Penal Code essentially prohibits anyone from publishing the name of a sexual assault victim—unless it is done as part of the criminal investigation, or is authorized in writing by the victim or by their family should the victim be deceased, a minor, or of “unsound mind”—under penalty of up to two years in prison (IBNLive, 2013). The Delhi case highlights the world of potential tensions and contradictions in the law. In fact, Shashi Tharoor, the Union Minister of State of Human Resources, wanted to name an anti-rape law after the Delhi victim, but could not do so for fear of punishment under Section 228-A (IBNLive, 2013). While the law is, of course, meant to protect victims of assault from further trauma, the ethical intent is not matched by practical outcomes and potentially reifies notions of shame directed toward victims.

The victim’s father eventually came forward and revealed her name to the foreign press because he and his wife “want[ed] the world to know her real name” because she “didn’t do anything wrong;” they hoped “revealing her name will give courage to other women who have survived these attacks” (Bhatnagar, 2016). However, because he did not give written authorization through the channels specified by the law, her identity was still artificially hidden, even while her name and face covered the internet. Thus, her mother reiterated that they wanted the victim’s name to be known stating, “whoever has suffered should not hide their name … everyone should know her as Jyoti Singh” (Bhatnagar, 2016).

The same penal code section also prohibits journalists from revealing any other potentially identifying information about victims of sexual assault. For example, the Times of India reported on an alleged assault of a young woman near Hauz Khas Village and revealed “the name of the neighborhood where the victim lives as well as what she does for a living and the area in which she works” (Khullar, 2017). Again, the protection of such personal information intends to keep victims from breaches of privacy and further violence. Yet, some say hiding the victims keeps police from being accountable when they fail to protect women. Swati Maliwal, chairperson of the Delhi Commission for Women, used a victim’s name in an attempt to shame the police. Maliwal echoed the Singhs saying, “why shud [sic] rape victim hide her identity? Shouldn’t rapists be hiding? Is it the shame of a victim that she was subjected to cruelty?” (Bhatnagar, 2016).

Still, there are those who argue that even if the victim, under Indian law, has waived their right to anonymity, reporters should still use their judgment to decide whether naming the victim is appropriate. Bob Steele, a journalism professor at DePauw University, argues that reporters should consider the resources available to victims and the counseling, guidance or other professional help they have received. Steele explains if he does not have this information “you won’t find their names in [my] column” (Khullar, 2017). Journalists in India are still struggling to find a way to balance interests in promoting public safety, holding authorities accountable, and protecting victim privacy.

Discussion Questions: 

  1. What values or interests are in conflict in this case?
  2. Does the practice of protecting the anonymity of sexual assault victims save them from shame or perpetuate it?
  3. Under what conditions, if any, should journalists publish the names of victims? What do they need to know to make that decision?
  4. Is the law prohibiting the press from naming victims a justified restriction of press freedom?
  5. Which of these considerations, if any, should be extended to the naming of alleged perpetrators of sexual assault? What might be different in these cases?

Further Information:

IBNLive, “What the law says on a rape victim’s identity.” News 18, January 2, 2013. Available at:

Amanat Khullar, “The Indian media needs to rethink how it reports rape.” Herald, February 23, 2017. Available at:

Gaurav Vivek Bhatnagar, “Disclosing the identity of rape victim remains a grey area in the justice system.” The Wire, July 28, 2016. Available at:


Dakota Park-Ozee & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
November 4, 2019

This case is supported with funding from the South Asia Institute at the University of Texas at Austin. Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom or educational uses. Please email us and let us know if you found them useful! For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.

Don’t “Like” My Children

CASE STUDY: The Ethics of “Sharenting” on Social Media

Case Study PDF | Additional Case Studies


Photo: Jessica To’oto’o / Unsplash / Modified

Sharing life’s joys and documenting our lives online has become a social norm, but are we oversharing important details? This question becomes extremely urgent when it references parents and the posting of information about their children. “Sharenting” is the new word that has been coined to denote parents’ use of social media or blogs to share too many details about their children’s lives. More than half of mothers and one-third of fathers discuss parenting on their social media sites. Many children are posted on social media within the first day of their lives and about 92% of 2-year-olds have an online presence. Children, unlike a parent’s adult friends, have little ability to consent or object to their information being posted on social media. Even parents who want to control their children’s online presence face daunting challenges, since well-intentioned family and friends can independently share photos of someone else’s child.

Parents who discuss parenting on social media do so in order to feel less alone. Parents share photos of their children to keep their family and friends updated on their lives. Posting a photo is an easy way to share their children’s achievements and milestones with those who couldn’t be there. Another common use of social media is for seeking parenting advice. A study conducted by the C.S. Mott Children’s Hospital found that almost 70% of parents “said they use social media to get advice from other more experienced parents and 62% said it helped them worry less.” Commonly posted topics include how to get children to sleep (28%), nutrition and eating (26%), discipline (19%), daycare/preschool (17%) and behavior problems (13%) (“Parents on social media,” 2015). Parents feel they can relate to and benefit from other users that have experience with the issues they are currently facing with their child.

While parents love sharing their children’s joyous moments, some are concerned their posts may create privacy and safety risks. While it seems innocuous, the choice to share information about one’s children online courts several sorts of risk. Some of these risks relate to future embarrassment, perhaps caused by parents posting embarrassing photos of their children being toilet trained, in the bath, covered in food while eating, or on video singing and dancing to a popular song. More worrisome, bullies could also find these posts and target these children through cyberbullying. These embarrassing posts could surface again when these children are adults and affect their chances in getting a job or affect their reputations if they are running for high power positions. Parents may be putting their children in danger by helping identity thieves gather important information of their children like their birth date, full name, where they go to school, and what activities they are involved in.

An even darker worry connected to sharenting includes the new activity of “digital kidnapping,” when an online stranger takes children’s photos from their real parent’s posts and shares them as the stranger’s own children. A case of digital kidnapping occurred in Dallas where a mother found a New York man had been posting photos on Facebook of her daughter claiming that she was his daughter. She was unable to remove the photos because they are someone else’s posts, so she reached out to Facebook. “They’re telling me to report the pictures specifically, which I can’t do because he blocked me,” she said. “The only way I can report anything is by reporting his whole profile.” Copying and posting the pictures that others publically share isn’t technically illegal, however, and when she reported the profile to Facebook their response was that the profile met community standards.

In the brave new social media world animated by daily sharing, how far should proud parents go in attempting to hide their children from the digital light of day?

Discussion Questions:

  1. What are the ethical values and interests in conflict in the debate over “sharenting?”
  2. Is there a way to share information about your children and avoid the risks associated with sharenting?
  3. If many parents share such information about their children, does this lessen the ethical concerns with any given parent sharing such information about their children?
  4. How can social media companies act ethically when it comes to protecting the privacy of minors on their platforms?

Further Information:

Lucia, Andrea, “Child Digitally Kidnapped by Man Posing as Father.” CBS Dallas/Fort Worth, July 8, 2015. Available at:

Beeston, Ariane, “The pros and cons of ‘sharenting’: what parents need to consider when posting about their kids online.” Essential Kids, October 27, 2016. Available at:

Howard, Jacqueline, “The dos and don’ts of posting about your kid online.” CNN, October 21, 2016. Available at:

“Parents on social media: Likes and dislikes of sharenting.” National Poll on Children’s Health. Available at:

“Safe sharenting: Pediatricians encouraging privacy awareness for parents who ‘sharent.’” National Poll on Childrens’ Health. Available at:

“‘Sharenting’ trends: Do parents share too much about their kids on social media?” CS Mott Children’s Hospital | Michigan Medicine, March 16, 2015. Available at:“sharenting”-trends-do-parents-share-too-much-about-their


Kaitlyn Pena & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
November 28, 2018

Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom or educational use. Please email us and let us know if you found them useful. For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.

When Comedic Stereotypes Cease to Be Funny

CASE STUDY: The Controversy over Apu and The Simpsons

Case Study PDF| Additional Case Studies

istolethetv CC BY 2.0 2

istolethetv / CC BY 2.0 / modified

From characters such as Tonto in the 1950s show, The Lone Ranger, to Apu Nahasapeemapetilon from the highly acclaimed cartoon The Simpsons, racial and ethnic stereotypes remain an abiding concern throughout the media. Though strides toward equal representation and accurate racial depiction in movies and television are being made, racial stereotypes and jokes regarding race and racial stereotypes continue to run rampant across genres. This is especially true for comedy, a genre that thrives on pushing the boundaries of appropriateness, tasteful humor, and what is often called “political correctness.” An important part of this debate centers on whether these stereotypical portrayals made for the sake of getting a laugh are truly harmful or if they are simply making hot-topic issues seem less dauntingly serious.

Following the making of a documentary by comedian Hari Kondabolu entitled “The Problem with Apu,” The Simpsons has faced an onslaught of criticism about Apu, the Indian convenience store owner with a heavy accent. The show responded via a scene featuring a short interaction between characters Marge and Lisa in its 29th season; Lisa breaks the fourth wall and states to the camera, “Something that started decades ago and was applauded and inoffensive is now politically incorrect. What can you do?” Many concerned with the show’s portrayal of Indian-Americans seemed to perceive this response as dismissive. Matt Groening, the creator of The Simpsons, has largely written off the backlash saying, “I’m proud of what we do on the show. And I think it’s a time in our culture where people love to pretend they’re offended.” Others who have worked with the show do not share the same sentiment. The non-Indian voice actor behind the Apu character, Hank Azaria, indicated that “The idea that anyone, young or old, past or present, was bullied or teased based on the character of Apu, it just makes me really sad. It was certainly not my intention. I want to spread laughter and joy.”

Defenders of The Simpsons feel that comedy should be able to delve into controversial issues without repercussions. Danielle Gutierrez exhibited such a perspective on the controversy, writing in a blog post “While tastefulness is a virtue when approaching touchy topics, being overly vigilant can be just as questionable as insensitivity.” Comedy is intended to make audiences laugh. Tense or difficult issues can be perceived as more approachable through jokes. Additionally, there is the chance that stereotypical ethnic and racial depictions can be used in ways that ultimately challenge these negative stereotypes. For instance, the ABC sitcom Fresh Off the Boat attempts to give an accurate representation of Asian American life that does not end up by putting its characters into stereotyped boxes.

When does the use of potentially offensive stereotyped depictions of race and ethnicity go too far in artistic expressions or comedic employments? In Kondabolu’s documentary, actor Utkarsh Ambudkar argues that “The Simpsons stereotypes all races, the problem is we (South Asians) did not have any other representation.” Such racial depictions become harmful when they form a basis for audience opinion and perception of a minority group. A study of stereotypical portrayals of African Americans in television by Thomas E. Ford found that these portrayals have a priming effect: “Stereotypical television portrayals of African-Americans in a humorous context increase the likelihood that whites will perceive an African-American target person in a stereotypical manner.” This study implies that these stereotypical depictions can carry a harmful, social weight. How can we balance the use of stereotypical depictions of race and ethnicity in comedy without reinforcing social biases?

Discussion Questions:

  1. What values are in conflict in the controversy involving Apu and The Simpsons? Is there any way to have made the show with this character that would not create such a conflict?
  2. Did The Simpsons respond appropriately to this controversy? If not, what should they have done in light of these criticisms?
  3. What limits should guide artistic uses of racial and ethnic stereotypes? Do their uses in different genres matter, such as comedy or crime dramas?
  4. Does the intention of the artist, comedian, or film-maker matter in finding a representation such as Apu problematic?
  5. Are there ethical pitfalls in how an audience enjoys shows such as The Simpsons? Is it wrong to enjoy scenes with Apu, or even the entire show that contains this character?

Further Information:

Deb, Sopan. “‘The Simpsons’ Responds to Criticism about Apu with a Dismissal.” The New York Times, 9 Apr. 2018, Available: television/the-simpsons-responds-to-criticism-about-apu.html.

Ford, Thomas E. “Effects of Stereotypical Television Portrayals of African Americans on Person Perception.” Social Psychology Quarterly, vol. 60, no. 3, 1997, pp. 266-75.

Gutierrez, Danielle. “In Defense of ‘Family Guy.’” The Daily Californian, 22 Sept. 2016, Available:

Ito, Robert. “You Love ‘The Simpsons’? Then Let’s Talk about Apu.” The New York Times, 10 Nov. 2017, Available: the-problem-with-apu-the-simpsons.html.

Lee, Christina. “Fresh Off the Boat shows Hollywood there’s life beyond yellow face.” The Guardian, 11 Oct. 2016, Available: fresh-off-the-boat-asian-american-stereotypes.

Victor, Daniel. “‘Simpsons’ Creator Says of Apu Criticism, ‘People Love to Pretend They’re Offended’.” The New York Times, 1 May 2018, Available: 2018/05/01/arts/television/matt-groening-simpsons-apu.html.


Sabrina Stoffels
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
July 5, 2018

Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom use. Please email us and let us know if you found them useful! For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.

Doxing and Digital Journalism

CASE STUDY: The HuffPost Story on Amy Mekelburg

Case Study PDF| Additional Case Studies

TwitterOn May 31, 2018, HuffPost reporter Luke O’Brien published a story revealing the identity of the person behind an infamous Twitter account with over 200,000 followers as 45-year-old Amy Mekelburg. The in-depth profile was part of HuffPost’s ongoing investigation into the most influential anonymous Twitter and Facebook users that, in the words of HuffPost reporter Nick Baumann, “spread hate.” The account, which O’Brien correctly linked to Mekelburg, is a powerful proponent of far-right political ideologies and was active in spreading what many deem as Islamophobic propaganda and factually untrue claims. Averaging around 25 tweets a day, the account quickly gained popularity on social media, it was endorsed by President Donald Trump and members of his administration, making it well-known in conservative circles. O’Brien’s story quickly became controversial due to its use of “doxing” (or “doxxing”), the tactic of revealing the identity and personal details of the person behind an anonymous online account or website. By connecting and publicizing the online actions and words associated with a specific named individual, online activists can coordinate with others and use doxing in a campaign to embarrass individuals, ruin reputations, harm political ambitions, or to get an individual’s employment terminated. The practice is increasingly used by members across the political spectrum, from the far left to the far right, and has become an everyday weapon in the battle of political ideologies. Some think of it as a tactic that leverages the critical power of free speech, whereas others see it as a vigilante approach to online justice given that its practitioners are often anonymous, or at least unaccountable for the harms of doxing individuals. The doxing of Mekelburg is important as it merges tactics of investigative journalism and online activism, and raises many ethical concerns.

The crowdsourced nature of social media has made it possible for everyday individuals to gain celebrity status or to become known as public figures through their online personas. The malleable nature of online identity means that individuals are able to remain anonymous or control which parts of their identity are viewable to others, often making it easier to share controversial opinions or ideas. As such individuals gain more social and political influence, some argue that the public has a right to know who they are. This is why HuffPost started investigations into influential anonymous social media accounts, such as that of Mekelburg, that were spreading what many judge as false information and hate speech. HuffPost reporter Nick Baumann explains that while the First Amendment gives individuals the right to spread hate speech and discredited ideas anonymously, “the identities of influential anonymous people are inherently newsworthy” and should be made know to those who wish to know them. Baumann and O’Brien argued that the story was not a case of doxing at all, since it presented newsworthy information to the public and answered concerns about the possibilities of Mekelburg’s account being an artificial bot or Russian troll. In this manner, they maintain that the story followed journalistic codes of ethics, including reaching out to Mekelburg’s family and her husband’s employer, World Wrestling Entertainment, who subsequently terminated his employment after news of the story broke. The journalists maintained that this was not the coordinated harassment of many doxing campaigns, but was instead the common journalistic practice of seeking comments and reactions from those affected by the story before its publication. O’Brien argued that giving sources and affected parties “a chance to respond to information” is “exactly how ethical journalism works” and defended the information included in his report as necessary to the story. Emma Grey Ellis points out that while doxing campaigns tend to be undertaken by anonymous individuals that cannot be criticized in return, cases such as this involve named reporters who “have bylines, and can therefore be held accountable” for the stories they write and the information they include. Because of this, she argued that reporters like O’Brien “include only personal information that is relevant to a story–facts the public has a compelling interest in knowing.” Many believe that the information in the story was necessary to create a profile of Amy Mekelburg and provided context for her often-bigoted posts. Others consider the story to be a case of justified doxing and as serving the public good. Many, like Marla Wilson, believe that doxing is “an effective way to make people think twice about being so bold with their racism” and that releasing the names of those behind racist online accounts creates a sense of accountability and encourages reflexivity by those who feel inclined to create them. Some argue that doxing forces those uttering unpopular opinions and beliefs to face the public and defend their ideologies rather than just placing them online.

Some believe that the Mekelburg story included information that was not necessary, or that was counterproductive for improving political discourse. Conservative reporter Kevin Boyd points out that by including background information that revealed the identities of Mekelburg’s family members and their businesses, the story gave “the impression that they either knew about or [agreed] with her tweets” and indicted them as supporters of her account and her beliefs. Because of such implications, many consider the story to be nothing more than an attempt to shame Mekelburg for her views and hurt her family’s businesses, ones that Mekelburg “has never been linked to or involved with” according to her sister-in-law Alicia Guevara. Damon McCoy points out that one of the main reasons doxing is used is to “expose those with whom [people] disagree with,” a position held by those who suggest that the report done by O’Brien and HuffPost was motivated by bringing shame to those with divergent political viewpoints. Some may argue that the revealing the identities of those behind reprehensible or unpopular speech is actually counterproductive to serving the public interest. Tony McAleer, a former white supremacist who now runs a rehabilitation program for neo-Nazis, argues that doxing is not effective in ending hate speech and changing peoples’ viewpoints. “If isolation and shame is the driver for people joining [hate] groups, doxxing certainly isn’t the answer” argues McAleer. It actually “slows things down” in his efforts to rehabilitate those who subscribe to hateful ideologies given its employment of isolation and shame.

The ethics of doxing must be discussed more as its practice grows to include journalists and targets on all sides of the partisan spectrum. Emma Gray Ellis worries that “once you strip away the intentions… both sides are sharing the same swampy low ground” when doxing is used as an attempt to punish individuals for their political or personal beliefs. What are we to think about the uses of intentional or unintentional doxing by journalists working on contentious but important stories that might shed light on the political and social controversies of the day?

Discussion Questions: 

  1. Was the HuffPost story on Mekelburg a case of doxing? Why or why not?
  2. Was the story written and researched in the right way, regardless of whether we label it as a case of doxing?
  3. Can journalists “dox” individuals behind online accounts? When and why can they participate in this practice? What limits should constrain their revelation of online identities?
  4. How does the practice of doxing differ in the context of online journalism from that of activists seeking social justice? Does the role of journalist make any difference to the ethical limits of the act of doxing? How does investigative journalism differ from doxing, either by journalists or members of the public?

Further Information:

Baumann, N. (2018, June 05). “A HuffPost Reporter Was Bombarded With Threats. Twitter Suspended Him.”  HuffPost. Available at:

Bowles, N. (2017, August 30). “How ‘Doxxing’ Became a Mainstream Tool in the Culture Wars.” New York Times. Available at:

Boyd, K. (2018, June 04). “The HuffPost Ruined An Entire Family For One Person’s Tweets.” The Federalist. Available at:

Ellis, E. G. (2017, August 17). “Don’t Let the Alt-Right Fool You: Journalism Isn’t Doxing.” Wired. Available at:

Ellis, E. G. (2017, August 18). Doxing Is a Perilous Form of Justice-Even When It’s Outing Nazis. Wired. Available at:

McCoy, D. (2018, May 01). When Studying Doxing Gets You Doxed.” HuffPost. Available at:

O’Brien, L. (2018, May 31). “Trump’s Loudest Anti-Muslim Twitter Troll is a Shady Vegan Wed to An Ex-WWE Exec.” HuffPost. Available at:

Wilson, M. (2018, June 06). “An Online Agitator, a Social Media Exposé and the Fallout in Brooklyn.” New York Times. Available at:


Jason Head
Media Ethics Initiative
Center for Media Engagement
University of Texas at Austin
June 15, 2018

Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom use. For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative. This case was produced in conjunction with Media Ethics Magazine.

First, Do No Harm?

CASE STUDY: Doctor-Patient Confidentiality and Protecting Third Parties

Case Study PDF | Additional Case Studies

As a client seeking help from a mental health professional, one expects to have the ability to be open and honest with our thoughts, feelings, and emotions. As a mental health professional, one strives to create an environment that is safe and inviting for all conversations. When disclosing physical symptoms with our medical doctors we typically do so without fear of those details being revealed to others because of the legal and ethical ideal of doctor-patient confidentiality. Should this feeling of security be any different when divulging personal details to a mental health professional?

In 2010, the case of Volk vs. DeMeerleer made this application of confidentiality guidelines more complex. A treating psychiatrist was held liable in a patient’s homicidal actions. One of the fundamental questions of the case was the obligations of mental health professionals to protect third parties from the violent acts of their patients. Jan DeMeerleer was a patient of the psychiatrist, Dr. Howard Ashby, on and off over the course of 9 years. DeMeerleer voiced thoughts of harm both to himself and to others intermittently throughout his sessions over this time period. On what would be his last visit with Dr. Ashby, DeMeerleer did not mentioned any thoughts of violence. But a few months following this final appointment, DeMeerleer murdered his ex-fiancé, Rebecca Schiering, one of her children, and then committed suicide. Following their deaths, Schiering’s mother sued Dr. Ashby for not “mitigating DeMeerleer’s dangerousness or warning the victims.”

The case against Dr. Ashby was motivated by the idea that he should have tried to reduce the chances of harm to third parties or should have warned any targeted third parties of the possible danger that they were in. As the American Medical Association put it, physicians face both an “ethical obligation to protect confidentiality with their patients and their legal responsibilities as a physician.” Dr. Ashby mentions in his notes from the final session with DeMeerleer the positive changes that he noticed in the patient. He observed the occasional suicidal thoughts that DeMeerleer experiences and noted that “at this point he’s not a real clinical problem, but that he’ll keep an eye out.” According to Baird Holm, “Volk is a somber reminder that mental health professionals should always be vigilant and, perhaps, err on the side of disclosing when a patient exhibits violent thoughts and behavior.” Should Dr. Ashby have blood on his hands if he didn’t truly see any potential danger during his last visit with DeMeerleer?

Those defending Dr. Ashby’s reluctance to share information about his patient place more importance on the norm of patient-doctor confidentiality. For doctors like Ashby, it is not uncommon to hear expressions of violent thoughts from people. Telling the difference between vague violent plans revealed in utterances and actionable threats is hard in practice. According to Troy Parks on the AMA Wire, the ruling against Dr. Ashby “requires a psychiatrist to do the impossible: predict imminent dangerousness in patients who have neither communicated recent threats, indicated intent to do harm, nor indicated a target for a potential threat.” Many believe that incorporating this possible risk when taking on new clients would have the potential to limit mental health professionals’ ability to treat patients. It may also make psychiatrists more reluctant to treat clients with difficult cases with a history of violence.

If doctors begin to report more threats observed in client communication, many would worry about the effect of this on other patients. Troy Parks poses the question of what happens “if patients no longer feel safe sharing personal—yet crucial—information with their physicians?” The American Psychological Association emphasized that patients need to feel comfortable talking about private and revealing information. They also mentioned that this should be a safe place for patients to talk about anything without fear of the information leaving the room. This in turn might affect the efficiency/effectiveness of mental health professionals. According to Jennifer Piel and Rejoice Opara, “The [AMA] Code strikes a balance in respecting confidentiality while providing an exception to allow disclosures of patient confidences under reasonable and narrow circumstances to protect identifiable third persons.” Yet the Ashby case throws this balance into question. How can doctors balance the need to create a level of confidence between the physician and the patient with the need to look out for the safety of others?

Discussion Questions: 

  1. What are the ethical values in conflict in the Ashby case? Why are these general values important?
  2. On what side would you err: toward preserving confidentiality in questionable cases, or toward warning others (and consequently violating patient confidence)?
  3. Are there creative ways to uphold both the value of confidentiality and the safety of third parties?

Further Information:

American Psychological Association, “Protecting your privacy: Understanding confidentiality.” American Psychological Association. Available at:

Gene Johnson, “Killer’s psychiatrist can be sued by victim’s family, Washington Supreme Court says.” The Seattle Times, December 24, 2016. Available at:

Troy Parks, “Court case threatens physician-patient confidentiality.” AMA Wire, October 14, 2015. Available at: 

Troy Parks, “Patient-psychiatrist confidentiality hampered in liability ruling.” AMA Wire, January 4, 2017. Available at:

Jennifer L. Piel, JD, MD, and Rejoice Opara, MD, “Does Volk v DeMeerleer Conflict with the AMA Code of Medical Ethics on Breaching Patient Confidentiality to Protect Third Parties?” AMA Journal of Ethics, January 20, 2018. Available at:


Haley Turner
Media Ethics Initiative
University of Texas at Austin
April 27, 2018

Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom use. For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.

Finsta Fad

CASE STUDY: The Real Ethics of Fake Social Media Profiles

Case Study PDF | Additional Case Studies

Instagram is the largest social media platform for teenagers. Not only are teens posting images for their numerous followers on their primary Instagram account to see, they are now creating a more selective, secondary account they refer to as their “Finsta,” short for “fake Instagram” account. Their real account is used to post pictures of their “best-self” having various fun and exciting experiences, while their “Finsta” is often used to post pictures of their unfiltered—and perhaps more authentic—self. What ethical decisions come with the ability to have an Instagram account for a filtered self and a fake profile for a “real” self?


Template: Jim Covais

Many teens use their Finsta account to post pictures that would not be posted on their “real” Instagram. Finsta posts might include pictures of teens’ goofy, emotional, or rebellious activities. Teens will typically create Finstas under a name that is not related to their own so that this profile or its posts will not be traced back to them; these accounts are often set to “private,” limiting them only to their approved followers.  Many adults might see this as a red flag that their teen is participating in scandalous and inappropriate behavior that they would not want their followers on their primary account to see. This is not always the case.

Instead of hiding harmful behavior, some Finstas seem to exist to escape the pressure to be perfect in the digital panopticon of the online world. Many Finsta owners see their second account as a way to post and like what they want without the judgment and criticism of friends, family, and co-workers. Teens see their Finstas as a release from crushing social media pressures to be popular and as a way to truly express themselves. The privacy of a Finsta creates a sense of freedom to show their silly and vulnerable self to their small group of friends they have approved to follow their Finsta.

Finstas hold the potential for harm, however. The idea that only their small circle of followers have access to these posts may encourage teens to post inappropriate, mean, and scandalous pictures or comments. This sense of privacy, however, can prove illusory. There is nothing to stop a follower—perhaps a friend or ex-friend in real life of the account holder—from taking a screenshot of a post and showing others this supposedly private content. In this way, comments and pictures can be shared far beyond the limited group of approved followers of one’s Finsta account. Beyond the negative comments of the Finsta account holder, such shared content could be used in courses of bullying against the account holder themselves. In the search for a safe way to separate different images of who they are for different audiences, Finsta owners may find out the hard way that what they post is still traceable and potentially very public.   In many ways, Finstas represent the Faustian bargain of the ability to create and remake our online selves—they can be a helpful outlet for teens and their processes of self-discovery, but they can quickly create real repercussions.

Discussion Questions: 

  1. What are the ethical issues with having both a “real” Instagram account and a Finsta?
  1. How might the use of Finstas create good consequences for teens? How might they go wrong?
  1. Do Finstas involve deception? If so, how do you balance this ethical concern against any good consequences they may enable?
  1. Are there ethical limits to how teens (or others) should use their Finstas? Or are the ethical limits mainly for their “public” and “real” account?

Further Information:

Joanne Orlando, “How Teens use Fake Instagram Accounts to Relieve the Pressure of Perfection.” Available at:

Karena Tse, “Pro/Con: The Finsta Phenomenon.” April 10, 2017. Available at:

Savannah Dube, “Finstas and Self-Idealizing in the Digital World.” October 3, 2016. Available at:


Morgan Malouf
Media Ethics Initiative
University of Texas at Austin
April 24, 2018

Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom use. For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.

Swipe Right to Expose

CASE STUDY: Journalism, Privacy, and Digital Information

Case Study PDF | Additional Case Studies

In a world where LGBTQ people still often lack full protection and equal rights, it can be a challenge for someone to be public about their sexuality. Some have taken to dating apps such as Grindr, Tinder, and Bumble, which allow for a more secure way for people to chat and potentially meetup outside of cyberspace. On such apps, one’s dating profile can often be seen by anyone who is also using the app, illustrating how these services blur the line between private and public information.

Nico Hines, a straight and married reporter for news site, The Daily Beast, decided to report on the usage of dating apps during the 2016 Rio Olympics in the Olympic Village. Relying upon the public and revealing nature of profiles—at least to potential dates—Hines made profiles on different dating apps and used them to interact with a number of athletes. Most of his interactions were through the Grindr app which is a dating app for gay men. This app works through geotagging so that people can match up with others who are geographically near them. Profiles include information such as height, ethnicity, and age which can often be used to identify a person even if a full name isn’t given. He eventually wrote up his experiences in the article “The Other Olympic Sport in Rio: Swiping.”

To preserve the anonymity of the individuals with whom he was interacting, Hines did not use specific athletes’ names in his story. He did reveal details about those seeking dates including their physical features, the sport they were competing in, and their home country.  Readers and critics found that it was relatively easy to identify which athletes he was talking about using the information he provided. Since many of these athletes were not openly identified as LGBTQ, critics argued that he was “potentially outing” many of the athletes by describing them in the course of his story. Amplifying this concern was the fact that in some of the home countries of men who were potentially outed, it was dangerous or illegal to be openly gay.

In his defense, some pointed out that Hines didn’t intend to out or harm specific vulnerable individuals in the course of his story about the social lives of Olympic Athletes. His published account didn’t include the names of any male athletes he interacted with on Grindr, and he only named some of the straight women who he found on the Tinder app. The Daily Beast’s Editor-in-chief, John Avalon, stated that Hines didn’t mean to focus mainly on the Grindr app but since he “had many more responses on Grindr than apps that cater mostly to straight people,” Hines decided to write about that app. When Hines interacted with the athletes on the various dating apps, he didn’t lie about who he was and, as Avalon noted, Hines “immediately admitted that he was a journalist whenever he was asked who he was.”

The controversy eventually consumed Hines’ published story. After the wave of criticism crested, The Daily Beast first removed names and descriptions of the athletes in the article. But by the end of the day, the news site had completely removed the article with Avalon replacing it with an editor’s note that concluded: “Our initial reaction was that the entire removal of the piece was not necessary. We were wrong. We’re sorry.” Regardless of the decisions reached by this news site, difficult questions remain about what kinds of stories—and methods—are ethically allowed in the brave new world of digital journalism.

Discussion Questions: 

  1. What are the ethical values or interests at stake in the debate over the story authored by Hines?
  2. Hines tried to preserve the anonymity of those he was writing about. How could he have done more for the subjects of his story, while still doing justice to the story he wanted to report on?
  3. There are strong reasons why journalists should ethically and legally be allowed to use publicly-available information in their stories. Is the information shared through dating apps public information?
  4. How does Hines’ use of dating profile information differ, if at all, from long-standing practices of investigative or undercover journalism?

Further Information:

Frank Pallotta & Rob McLean, “Daily Beast removes Olympics Grindr article after backlash.” CNN, August 12, 2016. Available at: media/daily-beast-olympics-article-removal/index.html

John Avalon, “A Note from the Editors.” The Daily Beast, August 11, 2016. Available at:

Curtis M. Wong, “Straight Writer Blasted For ‘Outing’ Olympians In Daily Beast Piece.” Huffington Post, August 11, 2016. Available at: https://www.huffingtonpost. com/entry/daily-beast-grindr-article_us_57aca088e4b0db3be07d6581


Bailey Sebastian & Scott R. Stroud, Ph.D.
Media Ethics Initiative
University of Texas at Austin
April 24, 2018

Cases produced by the Media Ethics Initiative remain the intellectual property of the Media Ethics Initiative and the University of Texas at Austin. They can be used in unmodified PDF form without permission for classroom use. For use in publications such as textbooks, readers, and other works, please contact the Media Ethics Initiative.

%d bloggers like this: