After a primary school student in Wuhan was hit and killed by a teacher's car in school, his mother was attacked online, and the news confirmed that he fell to death from the 24th floor of the community today.
This news is too miserable to bear to look at.
The news uses a neutral word like "fall", but it's hard not to think that her death has nothing to do with the online violence she encountered during her lifetime.
This mother is not only like Ruan Lingyu, who was forced to death by the four words "human words are fearful", but also like Xiaoliuzi who "took powder by caesarean section" in order to prove her innocence.
The online violence she encountered was divided into various "types".
There is a category of complete eroticism.
The gang was driven by the lower body to search for objects of sexual interest on the Internet. The last time they appeared was to "take in" Ukrainian beauties caught in the war, and the last time they appeared was to "dig the bottom" of flight attendants who were grounded due to the epidemic.
This group of people is like toads in the sewers, full of jealousy for the "swans" that cannot be asked, and when the "swans" are shipwrecked, it is the moment of the toad's carnival.
As for the great frustration and sadness faced by those women, these toads, blinded by lust and jealousy, turned a blind eye.
There is also a type of online violence that is a group of moral maniacs who are lenient and strict with themselves.
They look at the victims and their families with magnifying glasses that can see sunspots, and in their eyes, the victim must be a perfect victim without blemish.
Anything they feel is "unreasonable" will be considered an ulterior motive by the victim's family.
Some even maliciously speculated on the mother's work to conclude that her son was dead.
What is this not a beast?
These people are not afraid to speculate on the victim with the greatest malice, which is only their tool, and their purpose is to obtain the pleasure of moral accusations.
Moral purity makes them lose the minimum ability to empathize, and they are accustomed to framing everything that happens in this world with their three views and strangling them.
Happier than killing is killing in the name of justice.
Some people also put "positive energy" in their screen names, which I think is the biggest blasphemy against the three words of positive energy.
Why are these people passionate about online violence? Because pleasure is exclusive and responsibility is shared.
Believe me, even if they read the news of this mother's death, these people will never be condemned by their conscience, and they do not think that their "fluttering" words will lead to such a result.
However, online violence is like lingchi, maybe every knife is not fatal, but the online abuser has been destroyed and suffered thousands of cuts.
So how to put an end to online violence? Punishing online abusers? To be honest, I can't help it.
We can't establish a direct causal relationship between the mother's fall and the online violence she encountered.
The harm of speech is not like in real criminal cases, where the murderer who gave the fatal blow can be found by the fingerprints on the murder weapon.
But as Luo Xiang said, not breaking the law does not mean that these people are not scum.
Failure to punish means that online violence never ends, and that tragedies will happen again and again.
Something has to be done.
For example, prosecute these screenshotted Internet mobs, lead this Internet violence incident to the judicial field, and let legal workers find answers to solutions for us.
And those social platforms, it's not too much to block these accounts, right? Is there nothing wrong with stopping unfriendly remarks? Don't say that your skills are not good, after all, you can do this kind of thing as "mouth Bill".
Some people talk about freedom of expression, arguing that even bad words are the freedom of these people.
But freedom of speech has boundaries. Freedom does not mean that there is no order, and without order, the world will be in chaos.
The economist Rothbard tells us that the boundary of free speech is "private property." To put it bluntly, it's okay if you scold people in your own house, but if you run to my house and scold people, I will pump you with a big mouth.
So platforms can block speech they deem inappropriate, which is the power that property rights give to platforms.
And if there is a platform to allow such vicious speech for the sake of traffic, this is also its freedom, but collective boycott of this platform is the freedom of netizens.
Therefore, from the perspective of interests, the platform should not allow such remarks.
Finally, I would like to say that victims should not be ashamed to talk about money, and do not feel that talking about money means that they do not have deep love for the deceased. Life is priceless but the deceased is gone, and financial compensation is the greatest consolation for the families of the victims and the greatest punishment for the perpetrators.
As long as you are not vexatious, go and claim your rights. Not only should the school and the perpetrators compensate, but also those who abuse the Internet to compensate, so that they don't have a long memory.