Social Due Process

About The Social Due Process Project

Our Mission

Developed by experts in law, education, and psychology, the Social Due Process Project offers a nonpartisan, ethical framework for the use of social media, news media, and interpersonal communication.

The Social Due Process framework focuses on:

1. Setting higher standards for truth (what is said and written should be true, fair, and accurate);

2. Demanding due process (fair, adequate, and reasonable opportunities for individuals to defend or explain themselves, and provide a more complete version of stories, accusations, and allegations) on social media, in news media, and in interpersonal communications; and

3. Protecting privacy by not sharing or engaging with other people's private information, messages, pictures, etc.

Our Vision

The Social Due Process Project hopes to foster a renewed society-wide commitment to pursuing truth, committing to due process within our social context, and respecting privacy.

Less bullying, less cancelling, and less gossip.

Our Plan

We understand that a project dedicated to fundamentally changing the use of social media, news media, and interpersonal communications is an ambitious and long-term commitment.

Our plan to promote the pursuit of truth, commitment to due process, and protection of privacy includes,

1. The launch of our website and social media presence;

2. The design and dissemination of educational curriculum for schools; and

3. The advocacy for laws and policies that better protect individuals and society, including the expansion of revenge porn laws, anti-defamation laws, anti-doxing laws, as well as anti-bullying policies and changes in practices used within news media policies. This advocacy and legal work looks to develop a balance between protecting free speech rights (including political speech) and social due process.

The Social Due Process Framework

The Social Due Process Project offers a framework for the ethical use of social media, news media, and interpersonal gossip.

Traditional notions of due process generally refer to an individual’s relationship with the government.

Social Due Process is a modification and application of similar principles to the social context, including among friends, family, colleagues, classmates, and the public in general.

In other words, Social Due Process refers to foundational principles that we should apply within the social world, including on social media, in the news media, and through interpersonal interactions (e.g. gossip).

Social Due Process is grounded on 3 ethical foundations:
1. Pursuing Truth - The things that are said should be true and fair and accurate;
2. Demanding Due Process - People should generally always have an adequate opportunity to tell their side of the story and consequently provide a more full and complete understanding of issues; and

3. Respecting Privacy - People's personal lives are generally no one else's business.

In other words, when encountering negative information, gossip, or rumors, individuals should require that what is said:

1. Be verified true, fair, AND accurate;

2. Not include medium (e.g. social media, news media, or interpersonal gossip) that fails to offer a full understanding of the facts, including the ability to fairly and adequately explain and defend oneself.

Social media, news media, and interpersonal communication generally fail notions of due process. In other words, once a story is posted or shared, the target of the story can never fairly and adequately defend themselves; and

3. Not violate other people's privacy.

Truth

Due Process

What is said or written should generally focus on truth.

What is said and written should be true, fair, and accurate.

Truth generally means that what is discussed about someone actually happened.

Accurate refers to whether the full story was included.

Fair requires that what is said about someone reflect the context of the issues at hand.

Too often, people intentionally or unintentionally take things out of context.

Overall, what is said about others should require an adequate understanding of all the facts and perspectives.

Due Process

Due process means an individual has a fair and adequate opportunity to explain themselves and defend themselves against humiliations, accusations, and other forms of bullying and harassment, including an adequate opportunity to provide a more complete understanding of the whole story, including providing context, which requires that all sides of the story have a fair and adequate opportunity to be heard.

Generally speaking, whether on social media, news media, or during interpersonal conversations, discussions, posts, stories, or gossip about others normally takes place in a context in which they can never have a fair and adequate opportunity for due process.

Privacy

Due Process

Privacy

While we tend to "make it our business," most people's personal lives are not our business.

Consequently, whether the stories, posts, or gossip about them is true or false, people's personal lives should never be posted on social media, shared in news media, or discussed through interpersonal conversations.

While this will be a challenging ethical foundation to shift in society, we should not discuss or know about other people's personal lives (e.g., people's personal lives, relationships, sexual behaviors, etc.).

When other people's personal lives or behaviors violate crimes or policies, those alleged indiscretions should be properly reported to authorities so they can receive some semblance of due process. If their personal lives do not violate laws and policies, we should generally conclude that it is not our business to know about or discuss them.

Unless, they consent, their conversations, pictures, and behaviors do not need to be public.

If respect for truth, due process, and privacy are not met, we need to start focusing on the violations of Social Due Process and working to ending such behaviors. And while there may be unique circumstances in which some might reasonably argue that Social Due Process could or should be violated, the default should still be to prioritize Social Due Process, and require those who violate it to properly justify their violations, not the other way around.

Subjective notions of self righteousness and justice generally fail to justify violations of Social Due Process. The alternative is the culture we currently have in which anyone can “justify” their unethical behavior with self-righteous and subjective claims of injustice. The power to violate social due process is sometimes irrationally or unethically wielded against people, businesses, and other organizations. Those who violate social due process often justify their abuses of power and harassment under the guise of justice, acting as judge and jury against those whose social due process they violate. Violating social due process rarely achieves that goal, and often results in injustice. Violating social due process can serve as a modern-day social lynching, where mobs of outraged people form to physically, socially, or otherwise destroy the lives of people who never had a fair opportunity to explain or defend themselves against malicious or self righteous attacks.

We acknowledge the challenges of balancing free speech and notions of social due process, and understand the instinct to challenge this framework by looking for examples of unique contexts in which it may not be ideal. We prefer and welcome constructive critiques and discussions that foster the evolution of the framework. It is the conversations that we value. And currently, those conversations are not taking place.