There’s oftentimes a fine line between social justice and vigilantism. The internet has made both information collection and sharing quick and effortless, allowing for social movements to spread rapidly while lowering the barrier needed to participate. This, however, means that masses of well-intentioned people working towards change can end up focusing their vitriol on a few defenseless and mostly undeserving individuals who happen to be so unlucky as to have insulted the sensibilities of the majority in some way. The unfortunate cynosures then find themselves the target of the ire of thousands, if not tens of thousands of strangers, and owing to the public nature of the condemnation, facing very real consequences such as death threats and the loss of their jobs and livelihood.

These cases where the internet is whipped into a fury over some perceived slight are as much social movements as any and deserve study. The most prominent recent example involves the owners of a small pizzeria in Walkerton, IN, who when questioned about their state’s contentious Religious Freedom Restoration Act by a local news crew, had the apparent gall to say that while they would never refuse service to gay patrons, they would never cater to a gay wedding. Their remarks, distorted and amplified in enormity, quickly became the latest fixation for many on the Internet. The pizzeria’s Yelp page was defamed with scathing reviews and pornography, the owners were denounced by one of their Senators, and the family that owned the store announced that the store would be closed, and that it might prove impossible for them to continue living in the state.

While it can be argued that such bigoted views are reprehensible, the punishment in this case certainly did not meet the crime. This was a family that owned a small business that had never, in all its years of operation, been asked to cater to a wedding, let alone a gay wedding. Their statements were essentially irrelevant to the national dialogue. Yet their opinions became the front of a national battle over discrimination, when instead the attention should probably have been focused on how ambiguously worded and poorly written the piece of proposed legislation was.

It’s an interesting exercise to see what platforms were used in this bout of off-color activism, and see how they compare to classic principles of political organizing. The story was first published by the local TV station WBND and eaten up by many online aggregations, which regurgitated the statements with little additional reporting. These articles were then shared over Facebook; people took up their complaints on Twitter. The Yelp page, easily findable on Google, was populated with low reviews. As news spread that the store had been closed indefinitely, putting the family in possibly dire financial straits, a GoFundMe campaign was started to provide support. It eventually amassed close to a million dollars. As of the time of writing, a wave of opposing, anti-gay commentary has risen in response to what was perceived as brutal intimidation at the hands of liberals.

It’s easy to draw parallels between what happened in this case and digital campaigning against SOPA – knee-jerk reactions by many who saw their responses as a part of their identities as digital citizens and were therefore more than willing to spread the word and work towards the bill’s demise. Social media facilitated a need that was already there, a desire to distinguish themselves as part of a specific group. The same case can be made for forms of political campaigning that appeal to voters’ loyalties to identity-defining groups such as working class or ethnicity; acting towards the cause then becomes not only a responsibility but an affirmation of one’s own place in a community.

What distinguishes this from traditional forms of political campaigning is perhaps the lack of leaders. Even campaigns embarked by groups such as Anonymous tend to have leaders who are given more responsibilities and power than others. Motivation in this case, however, seemed to stem mostly from each incensed individual. Nor was there really a need for organization as the target seemed so defenseless and the cause so obvious. The restaurant’s Yelp page was easily accessible to any who had the ability to perform a Google search; sending scalding tweets at their Twitter tag also required little more than a desire to do so.

The lesson to be taken away might then be one of accountability. Mass movements such as the Ice Bucket Challenge and Marriage Equality Profile Picture did not necessarily have leaders either – but the consequences expected were largely positive and not targeted at a small group of people in particular. When the purpose is condemnation, however, it might be wise to have someone in charge to make sure that things don’t go too far.

Note: An overview of what happened can be found here.