Hate speech Both Ruby and Martha were vilified online, accused of being immoral and were called names. The public engaged in victim-blaming, rather than focusing on the actions of the perpetrators. The women have become victims twice over – first when the video and photos were uploaded, and second, when they were sneered at and defamed by the public. Digital pornography In Ruby’s case, her videos appeared in a pornography website.8 These were also converted into VCD/DVD formats and were sold in the black market, making the videos accessible even to those without internet. Child Cyber-pornography In the third case study, the victims are minors from poor families. Cyberpornography operators, in some instances the minors’ own parents, order the children to perform lewd acts on webcam. The children are groomed and made to watch pornographic materials before they are told to perform in front of the computer. The clients, oftentimes older men outside the country, send payment through money transfer agents. 2. Harms to women E common in the cases of Ruby and Martha. Both celebrities, they feared going to public places where they felt that everyone was staring and looking down at them. motional pain, anxiety, invasion of privacy, and tarnished reputations were Their freedom of mobility was restricted as a result. Both were vilified online. Ruby’s work suffered. She lost product endorsement contracts. She also turned down television roles that portrayed her as villain lest it reinforced the already negative public perception of her. This resulted in income loss and financial insecurity. Ruby suffered from adjustment disorder with depressed mood. For one year, she did not talk to co-workers in the movie industry. 8 10 The website has since been closed and the operators charged in court. <End Violence: Women’s Rights and Safety Online>