A video recording of the detention of elderly woman Geeta Singh during an operation against illegal immigration in the city of Pietermaritzburg caused a wide resonance on social media. The 70-year-old woman was subdued and taken to the police station in an SAPS vehicle. According to reports, she was charged with harboring illegal foreign nationals, but after being brought to the station, she was released without charges.
Although the law acquitted Singh, social media effectively condemned her. Reports suggest that the woman was left traumatized and humiliated, and subsequently left her home due to the widespread circulation of her image on social networks. This incident makes one reflect on the moment when another person's suffering turns into entertainment.
The artificially created dopamine rush from likes, views, and shares gives people a false sense of significance. For a short time, the person behind the camera feels influential and involved, while the subject of the video may face consequences for years.
A phone recording captures only a fleeting moment, not the entire course of the investigation, the evidence base, the detainee's explanations, or the final decision of the authorities. It does not tell viewers whether the accusation was true, exaggerated, or completely false. Nevertheless, as soon as the video is uploaded, this incomplete frame becomes the person's permanent digital identity.
It is necessary to clearly distinguish between documenting police actions in the public interest and publishing content intended to mock or condemn someone. Citizens have the right to record potential abuses of power, as such recordings can promote transparency and accountability. However, responsible documentation differs from turning a confused and vulnerable elderly woman into a spectacle.
The right to dignity remains even at the moment of arrest. The Constitution establishes that everyone possesses inherent dignity and the right to its respect and protection. This right belongs to everyone—young and old, citizens and foreigners, suspects and innocent. Arrest itself is not a verdict. The police may detain a person if legal requirements are met, but the detainee retains the right to due legal process. Release without charges does not automatically prove the illegality of the arrest, just as the arrest itself does not prove guilt.
Determining guilt must be done through a legal investigation and, if necessary, judicial proceedings, not through the crowd, signatures, or comments on social media. While immigration enforcement is a legitimate function of the government, and South Africa has the right to apply its immigration laws, the application of these laws must be lawful, based on evidence, proportionate, and properly overseen by authorized state bodies.
The public can report alleged violations, but it cannot act as immigration officers, prosecutors, or judges. Public pressure should never dictate to the police whom to arrest. Law enforcement agencies are obliged to independently assess the information presented and determine if there are legal grounds to deprive a person of their freedom. The fact that the accusation concerned illegal foreign nationals does not lower constitutional standards. Immigration has become an emotionally charged topic, but disappointment with government failures cannot justify popular justice, public humiliation, or collective punishment.
The consequences of online publication do not end when the video stops gaining popularity. The recorded person may be recognized in shops, places of worship, and family gatherings. They may fear neighbors, lose community trust, and be afraid to return home. The decision to click 'share' takes seconds, while restoring a damaged sense of self-worth can take years.
It is necessary to cultivate a culture of digital restraint. Before sharing a video recording of an arrest, people should ask themselves: does the publication serve a genuine public interest, does the person's face need to be identified, does the caption imply guilt, and could the same goal be achieved by blurring the person's identity?
On all social media platforms, fertile ground easily forms for racists, homophobes, sexists, sexual predators, misogynists, Islamophobes, xenophobes, and bullies. A natural question arises: who are these people in real life?
Social media users may experience disappointment, anger, confusion, and irritation. In the context of online culture, where algorithms and anonymity combine with toxicity that destroys rational discussions, there is a clear trend toward an outburst of fierce hatred in comments on sometimes harmless posts.
An example is given of a mother facing a barrage of accusations and hatred after her children died at the hands of their father, as well as a young girl whose swimsuit photos provoke mockery and comments degrading her appearance.
On the vast highway of the internet, ordinary people transform into aggressive animals. The safety provided by the screen acts as a kind of protective barrier. Any mention of the world, humanity, compassion, inclusivity, anti-racism, anti-xenophobia, or gender violence provokes a negative reaction. Online abuses, from crude profanity to personal attacks, aim for one goal—to silence and humiliate a person.
Psychologists call this phenomenon the 'online disinhibition effect,' which arises due to physical distance and the illusion of no consequences. People say things they would never dare to say face-to-face. Perhaps in this bullying lies a sense of bravado they do not receive in everyday life.
The author notes that trying to understand the psychology of this dangerous behavior may lead more to disappointment than enlightenment. However, it can be objectively concluded that without common sense and with moral and intellectual bankruptcy, online bullies and haters are incapable of logical debate. Their standard mode of communication becomes sarcasm, to which readers are accustomed in the comments on news and personal pages.
The author, having personally encountered online hatred, comes to the understanding that the truth often elicits a strong emotional reaction. Going beyond what is permissible and calls for unity and compassion have their price. At the same time, the author sees something greater than hatred and bullying.
The author testifies to people from different parts of the community and country who stood up against online hatred when necessary. Loud voices do not reflect the opinion of the majority in the community or the country. Social media algorithms feed on outrage, amplifying division and creating the appearance that the country is drowning in xenophobia, racism, sexism, Islamophobia, and other forms of prejudice.
Some people benefit from this situation. The reality is that online culture skillfully distorts rather than reflects society. When platform creators and other structures monetize profiles, morality and humanity become financially unviable, while hatred brings greater profit.
The author emphasizes that the residents of South Africa continue to live daily in multi-confessional and multi-racial harmony with greater tact and dignity than suggested by social media comments. This is not an attempt to oversimplify the problem, but a way to understand the origin of the madness.
People prone to humiliating others and suppressing constructive conversations are generally insecure, unnoticed, or suffering from pain, seeking fleeting fame and pleasure. This demonstrates the worst impulses of a small segment of users, not the soul of the entire community or country.
However, distortions have real consequences: online hatred and harassment undermine mental health, especially among young people. In the local community, this exacerbates external racism with internal mechanisms such as colorism, religious intolerance, and marginalization of people. Conservative groups quickly become judgmental towards those who express their opinions, especially women challenging the status quo. These disagreements are not localized; they weaken solidarity and penetrate the national landscape, deepening distrust at a critical moment.
There is an obvious fact: behind every hateful comment is a real person targeted by that hatred. Cases of suicide due to social media bullying have been documented, which in itself should awaken conscience. Therefore, it is crucial that decent people refuse to remain silent or afraid, standing up for justice.
Changing frequency or algorithms may not ensure popularity on social media, but it can be decisive in the effort to restore humanity. This is the moral battle of our time: keyboard warriors versus the unity of the community and the country. Neutrality is not an option here.
