Violent Flash Mobs organized through social media

  • Context: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Evo
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Flash Social media
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion centers around the phenomenon of violent flash mobs organized through social media, exploring its implications, legal considerations, and societal impacts. Participants share personal experiences and observations from various cities, highlighting the trend of youth organizing violent gatherings via social media platforms.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Technical explanation

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants note that recent riots appear to be fueled by social media, attracting individuals from outside the immediate area who have no prior interest in the events.
  • Concerns are raised about the impact of social media on public safety, with specific incidents cited from Milwaukee, including violent disruptions during public events.
  • There is mention of legislative efforts to criminalize the organization of flash mobs through social media, with varying opinions on the constitutionality of such measures.
  • Some participants question whether existing laws against inciting violence are sufficient or if new laws are necessary to address the unique challenges posed by social media.
  • Debate exists regarding the role of social media as a facilitator of violence, with some arguing it merely serves as a communication tool rather than a cause.
  • Examples are provided of retail thefts organized via social media, raising concerns for businesses and law enforcement about the effectiveness of policing such incidents.
  • Participants express uncertainty about the legal implications of banning flash mobs, particularly regarding the right to assemble and the assumption of intent to commit violence.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express a range of views on the implications of social media in organizing violent gatherings, with no clear consensus on whether it is a primary cause or merely a tool. Legal interpretations regarding the constitutionality of banning flash mobs also remain contested.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the complexity of legal issues surrounding the organization of flash mobs, including the balance between public safety and constitutional rights. There is also a recognition that not all gatherings organized via social media are violent or criminal in nature.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to those studying social media's impact on public behavior, law enforcement professionals, legal scholars, and community organizers concerned with public safety and civil rights.

Evo
Staff Emeritus
Messages
24,032
Reaction score
3,277


We discussed this yesterday in chat.

http://news.yahoo.com/london-rioters-battle-police-shooting-protest-054921704.html

It seems the riot was fueled by social media, people that had no interest in what happened came in from other areas. Looks like a new trend in mobs and riots caused or worsened by social media.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org


Evo said:
http://news.yahoo.com/london-rioters-battle-police-shooting-protest-054921704.html

It seems the riot was fueled by social media, people that had no interest in what happened came in from other areas. Looks like a new trend in mobs and riots caused or worsened by social media.

Just want to make a quick comment that in my city of Milwaukee, we've been having problems with youths organizing violent mobs via social media. At our 4th of July fireworks we had a mob destroy a 7-11 and then proceed to beat up 20-30 firework watchers. Also just last week we had a mob of 200 youths causing mayhem at our state fair which sent 30 to the hospital. It's a huge issue here. Social media is rearing it's ugly head.
 
Last edited:


Greg Bernhardt said:
Just want to make a quick comment that in my city of Milwaukee, we've been having problems with youths organizing violent mobs via social media. At our 4th of July fireworks we had a mob destroy a 7-11 and then proceed to beat up 20-30 firework watchers. Also just last week we had a mob of 200 hundred youths causing mayhem at our state fair which sent 30 to the hospital. It's a huge issue here. Social media is rearing it's ugly head.
WTF. At least in the '70s there was a reason to protest. What can we do to stop this sort of thing? It's giving the internet a bad name.
 


Greg Bernhardt said:
It's becoming a widespread problem. Philly now has problems too.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-14466369
I saw this on TV this morning here. This bothers me, but if that's what it takes, okay?

There have even been legislative efforts to criminalise flash mobs in recent months.
 
How can this be unconstitutional if it is criminal?

The Cleveland City Council passed a bill to make it illegal to use social media to organize a violent and disorderly flash mob, though the mayor vetoed the measure after the ACLU of Ohio promised it would be unconstitutional.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/08/09/for_flash_mobsters_crowd_size_a_tempting_cover/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Don't we already have laws against inciting violence and organizing criminal activity in general?
 
Evo said:
How can this be unconstitutional if it is criminal?
Tricky question. The right to assemble and associate freely is something that the ACLU will defend all the way to the SC, especially since banning flash mobs carries an assumption of guilt - that the mob will be violent, and there is prior intent of committing violence. As I said, tricky.
 
Evo said:
I've started a new thread on this disturbing trend.

Good move.


Evo said:
How can this be unconstitutional if it is criminal?



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/08/09/for_flash_mobsters_crowd_size_a_tempting_cover/?rss_id=Boston.com+--+Latest+news

Sounds right to me.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #10
jtbell said:
Don't we already have laws against inciting violence and organizing criminal activity in general?
Is there something that needs to be changed if social media is concerned?

turbo said:
Tricky question. The right to assemble and associate freely is something that the ACLU will defend all the way to the SC, especially since banning flash mobs carries an assumption of guilt - that the mob will be violent, and there is prior intent of committing violence. As I said, tricky.
But as jt stated how can
"laws against inciting violence and organizing criminal activity in general", suddenly be unconstitutional? Is it specifically including the method being used that they oppose? Because if they are tweeting to meet and do illegal activities, that's not protected AFAIK.

I don't quite get what the legal issue is.

dlgoff said:
Sounds right to me.
Don, can you clarify, do you think the ACLU is right or wrong?
 
  • #11
Evo said:
Don, can you clarify, do you think the ACLU is right or wrong?
This time I think they are wrong as bodily harm shouldn't be tolerated. But in other times, the ACLU do have some good points. IMO anyway.
 
  • #12
Evo said:
But as jt stated how can "laws against inciting violence and organizing criminal activity in general", suddenly be unconstitutional? Is it specifically including the method being used that they oppose? Because if they are tweeting to meet and do illegal activities, that's not protected AFAIK.

I don't quite get what the legal issue is.
When a mob of sports nuts hits the streets after a particularly big loss (or win!) there can often be violence. We've seen it happen too many times in the US. The UK is well-known for soccer-related violence, too.

Flash mobs can occur for a number of reasons, including premieres, street performance by artists, etc. It is not cut-and-dried if there was intent for this crowd to turn violent. Here's a link to a multi-event a little over a week ago that turned violent.

http://abclocal.go.com/kabc/story?section=news/local/los_angeles&id=8276337
 
  • #13
What's the difference between using social media or having a list of phone numbers of people who are into "rioting"?

I take issue with the idea that social media "fuels" the behaviour. It's just a means.
 
  • #14
drankin said:
What's the difference between using social media or having a list of phone numbers of people who are into "rioting"?

I take issue with the idea that social media "fuels" the behaviour. It's just a means.

The good thing about it is that everything is documented. :) Easier to get to the perps.
 
  • #15
But I'm referring to social media to specifically commit crimes and/or violence, not accidental mobs.

In April, about 20 teenagers entered G-Star Raw, a high-end men's clothing store in the Dupont Circle neighborhood of the District of Columbia, and stole about $20,000 worth of merchandise despite employees' efforts to grab the apparel back, store manager Greg Lennon said. D.C. police have investigated leads but have not made arrests in the case.

Lennon said he later saw Twitter postings, apparently written after the robbery, that referenced the theft, with one person describing having been in the store and making plans to come back.

The National Retail Federation said 10 percent of 106 companies it surveyed reported being targeted in the last year by groups of thieves using flash mob tactics.

"Retailers are raising red flags about criminal flash mobs, which are wreaking havoc on their business, causing concerns about the safety of their customers and employees, and directly impacting their bottom line," the federation said in a report, which advises retailers to monitor social media networks and report planned heists to the police.

That's exactly what Lennon does. He says he checks his store's Facebook page to see who's visiting, and monitors Twitter for any reference to his store and its merchandise.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/08/09/for_flash_mobsters_crowd_size_a_tempting_cover/?page=2
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #16
drankin said:
What's the difference between using social media or having a list of phone numbers of people who are into "rioting"?

I take issue with the idea that social media "fuels" the behaviour. It's just a means.
It's that they can *instantly* send the message to thousands of people, they can *instantly* control the movement of the entire crowd as the criminal activity occurs in order to elude police. They can *instantly* name specific targets and call for backup. This is making it almost impossible for police to be effective. *That's the difference*.
 
  • #17
Mob violence is the fundamental issue here and hence nothing new; the technology component incidental it seems to me. Thus the solution is also traditional.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=1029359724001

Curtis Sliwa said:
... The cops can’t be punching doughnuts out there. They got to be busting their shoes and the way they do that is give a few wooden shampoos, a few attitudinal readjustments out there where they’re sucking concrete, outside of the mall, outside of the store – and you’ll see how quick that antisocial behavior will stop because that’s the language they universally understand.

That's unfortunate but, when the situation escalates beyond the control of traditional police power, required. Its a simple choice. Either choose uncontrolled mob violence which if unchecked will escalate or choose police controlled violence.

An absent police response, the violence in London should be met with some of the same self defense used in the '92 LA riots.
58852252.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #18
The thing mheslep, the crowds can form, commit crimes, and be gone before police arrive. That's what makes this sort of thing so hard to control.

Did you read the articles? Did you read mob crime attacks on stores finished in 5 minutes?
 
  • #19
Evo said:
The thing mheslep, the crowds can form, commit crimes, and be gone before police arrive. That's what makes this sort of thing so hard to control.

Did you read the articles? Did you read mob crime attacks on stores finished in 5 minutes?
Yes I get the point of the word 'flash'. Watch the video especially at 4:20 or so with the psychologist and Sliwa. Not everyone gets away, there are usually a handful that are caught and treated lightly, and despite the large numbers as always there are hard core criminal leaders of the pack. Leadership means it's also possible given the use of technology to preempt the mob with an informer or two.
 
  • #21
rootX said:
Looking at this video, I feel like police response can be more harsh.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-14456050
Looking at the video, why were the police even there if they were not to do anything except retreat, further encouraging the mob to act out.
 
  • #22
Evo said:
But I'm referring to social media to specifically commit crimes and/or violence, not accidental mobs.



http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2011/08/09/for_flash_mobsters_crowd_size_a_tempting_cover/?page=2

criminal activity is already against the law. why do you need a new law to prosecute people breaking existing laws?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #23
Proton Soup said:
criminal activity is already against the law. why do you need a new law to prosecute people breaking existing laws?
That's my question, are they needed? And if the messages are clearly inciting crime and violence, how can they be protected by the constitution?
 
  • #24
mheslep said:
Mob violence is the fundamental issue here and hence nothing new; the technology component incidental it seems to me. Thus the solution is also traditional.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/video-embed.html?video_id=1029359724001



That's unfortunate but, when the situation escalates beyond the control of traditional police power, required. Its a simple choice. Either choose uncontrolled mob violence which if unchecked will escalate or choose police controlled violence.

An absent police response, the violence in London should be met with some of the same self defense used in the '92 LA riots.
58852252.jpg

Yep, except that there just aren't many gun owners in London proper.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #25
Evo said:
That's my question, are they needed? And if the messages are clearly inciting crime and violence, how can they be protected by the constitution?
Actually, such messages would not be protected by the constitution, and never were. The right of speech and press (writing) only goes as far as expressing opinion or providing information. It does not extend to organizing or facilitating criminal/illegal activity.
 
  • #26
Evo said:
That's my question, are they needed? And if the messages are clearly inciting crime and violence, how can they be protected by the constitution?

There aren't any Constitutional protections for parties to a conspiracy to commit a violent act - ask the Mafia.
 
  • #27
Astronuc said:
Actually, such messages would not be protected by the constitution, and never were. The right of speech and press (writing) only goes as far as expressing opinion or providing information. It does not extend to organizing or facilitating criminal/illegal activity.

True, there is no constitutional right to incite a riot. But, will this turn into the governments ability to shut down social media during social unrest? They were already doing this in the middle east, Iran I believe?
 
  • #28
drankin said:
True, there is no constitutional right to incite a riot. But, will this turn into the governments ability to shut down social media during social unrest? They were already doing this in the middle east, Iran I believe?

That would of course be the "slippery slope".:wink:
 
  • #29
Astronuc said:
Actually, such messages would not be protected by the constitution, and never were. The right of speech and press (writing) only goes as far as expressing opinion or providing information. It does not extend to organizing or facilitating criminal/illegal activity.

I guess one pitfall is how broadly "organizing or facilitating" is defined. If I post a message on twitter like "there's a flash mob at city hall," am I promoting it? Or merely reporting on it? What if I try to get people to attend a protest that later becomes violent, even if it didn't start that way? Would I get in trouble for spreading the word?

There's actually a huge grey area here.
 
  • #30
Jack21222 said:
I guess one pitfall is how broadly "organizing or facilitating" is defined. If I post a message on twitter like "there's a flash mob at city hall," am I promoting it? Or merely reporting on it? What if I try to get people to attend a protest that later becomes violent, even if it didn't start that way? Would I get in trouble for spreading the word?

There's actually a huge grey area here.
Yes - it could be a grey area. The statement "There's a flash mob at city hall" is a simple declarative statement or observation, but it's meaning/context depends on is it a view of a witness, or is it a statement of a participant, who is informing other participants.

This wasn't an issue prior to three days ago, but has become an issue with the riots. Now technology is being misused.

Owning guns wouldn't be an issue if they weren't used in criminal activity, e.g., murder, assault, but rather were only used for protection and hunting for food.
 

Similar threads

News Baltimore riots after Freddie Gray funeral
  • · Replies 125 ·
5
Replies
125
Views
11K
News Why Are Riots Escalating in London?
  • · Replies 195 ·
7
Replies
195
Views
24K
News Bush Honest & Trustworthy Until How Many Lies?
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
11K