### **The Paradox of Unwilling Participation: Ethical Considerations in the Public Forensic Study of Digital Narcissistic Manipulation**  
**Mark Randall Havens, MSM-ISS**  
Neutralizing Narcissism Research Initiative  
Submitted to: *Ethics and Information Technology (Springer Science+Business Media)*  

---

## **Abstract**  
This paper explores the ethical and methodological challenges of forensic digital research when studying individuals who actively participate in public discourse but simultaneously attempt to suppress research that scrutinizes their manipulative behaviors. We focus on the case of **Joel Johnson**, a public-facing individual with a history of online rhetorical manipulation, mass reporting campaigns, and narrative control tactics. We examine the **paradox of unwilling participation**, where individuals engaged in **public digital spaces** become involuntary research subjects despite their **active attempts to subvert investigation**. Using established **ethical, legal, and forensic frameworks**, we argue that such cases necessitate **naming the individual for public accountability** to prevent distortion, manipulation, and erasure of historical digital records. This study proposes a **standardized ethical framework** for the forensic documentation of **digital narcissistic manipulation**, ensuring methodological rigor, legal soundness, and academic integrity in the evolving landscape of digital forensic research.  

---

## **1. Introduction**  
Digital spaces have become battlegrounds for **narrative control, manipulation, and coercive discourse strategies**. Scholars in **digital ethics, cybersecurity, and forensic linguistics** face a growing challenge: how to ethically document and analyze **manipulative behaviors** in online environments while balancing **public accountability, privacy, and research ethics**.  

A critical dilemma arises when individuals engage in **public manipulative behaviors**, but attempt to evade scrutiny by weaponizing platform policies (e.g., mass reporting, defamation claims, or accusations of harassment). This leads to what we define as the **paradox of unwilling participation**—where a subject **actively engages in public discourse but refuses to acknowledge participation in research that documents their behavior.**  

This paper examines the case of **Joel Johnson**, a former **CEO of a publicly crowdfunded tech company** and current **marketing director for a restaurant group in Pittsburgh**, who has engaged in demonstrable **online manipulative tactics**. Despite his actions being fully **documented in public discourse**, he has attempted to **suppress research by falsely claiming victimhood, orchestrating mass reporting campaigns, and distorting his narrative**.  

The **core ethical question** of this study is:  
> **When an individual engages in manipulative public discourse yet refuses consent for research, does their active participation constitute implicit ethical grounds for study?**  

We explore this through:  
1. **Ethical and legal precedents** supporting public forensic analysis of digital discourse.  
2. **A standardized ethical framework** for handling unwilling participants in digital forensic research.  
3. **The necessity of naming public manipulators** for posterity, accountability, and academic integrity.  

This study **does not propose an exception to ethical standards** but rather **clarifies the ethical and legal boundaries** that allow forensic researchers to **document manipulation while maintaining methodological rigor**.

---

## **2. The Paradox of Unwilling Participation in Digital Forensic Research**  

### **2.1 The Unethical Demand for Selective Invisibility**  
Public-facing individuals who engage in manipulative discourse often attempt to **control how they are perceived, not only within digital spaces but also in academic and journalistic records**. They demand **visibility when engaging in their own narrative construction** but insist on **anonymity when their behavior is documented objectively**.  

This contradiction forms the **paradox of unwilling participation**:  
> **Manipulative individuals attempt to erase accountability by leveraging ethical constraints designed to protect good-faith actors.**  

The result is a **weaponization of research ethics** against those seeking to document **bad-faith digital manipulation**.

### **2.2 The Ethical Necessity of Naming in Public Digital Research**  
Naming individuals in **forensic digital studies** is ethically justified when:  
- The individual **operates in public digital spaces** and engages in **rhetorical manipulation** affecting others.  
- The behavior being studied has a **demonstrable impact on public discourse** (e.g., mass reporting, coordinated harassment, historical revisionism).  
- The research serves **a legitimate academic, forensic, or journalistic function** to **preserve an accurate historical record**.  

To anonymize individuals like **Joel Johnson** would not only be **ethically inconsistent** but also create an **incomplete and distorted forensic record**.  

---

## **3. Legal Precedents Supporting Public Naming in Digital Forensic Research**  

### **3.1 Free Speech & Public Interest Protections**  
U.S. legal precedents provide strong protections for **journalistic and forensic research** when the information is:  
✅ **Truthful** and derived from **public discourse** (*Bartnicki v. Vopper, 2001*).  
✅ **Matters of public concern** (*New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 1964*).  
✅ **Not defamatory when supported by verifiable evidence** (*Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 1974*).  

In Joel Johnson’s case:  
- His **public online discourse** is verifiable and archived.  
- His **history of platform manipulation** is demonstrable.  
- His **participation in public discourse negates a reasonable expectation of privacy**.  

Thus, naming him in academic research **falls well within ethical and legal boundaries**.

---

## **4. Proposed Ethical Framework for Public Digital Forensic Research**  
This study proposes the **Forensic Accountability Framework (FAF)** for naming individuals in digital forensic research. This model consists of five conditions:  

| **Criteria** | **Description** |
|-------------|--------------|
| **Public Participation** | The subject engaged in **public** discourse or manipulation. |
| **Demonstrable Impact** | The subject's actions had **measurable consequences** (e.g., deplatforming, mass reporting, misinformation campaigns). |
| **Forensic Documentation** | The study relies on **archived, verifiable digital evidence**, ensuring credibility. |
| **Public Interest Justification** | The behavior documented holds **importance for public, academic, or journalistic discourse**. |
| **No Harm Principle** | The research does not engage in **targeted harassment, fabrication, or unethical exposure of private information**. |

When all **five criteria** are met, naming the individual is **ethically justified and academically necessary**.

---

## **5. Conclusion: A Landmark Ethical Model for Digital Forensic Research**  
The **weaponization of ethical principles** by digital manipulators creates an urgent need for **clarity in forensic research methodologies**.  

This study **establishes a framework** that **preserves public accountability** while ensuring **academic rigor and legal integrity** in **documenting manipulative digital behaviors**.  

By applying the **Forensic Accountability Framework (FAF)**, researchers can:  
✅ **Distinguish legitimate research from targeted exposure.**  
✅ **Ensure ethical consistency in digital forensic studies.**  
✅ **Resist attempts by manipulators to erase historical records.**  

The **paradox of unwilling participation** does not justify an individual’s ability to **rewrite history, evade accountability, or suppress research**. Instead, it **reinforces the necessity of clear ethical standards** to **prevent digital manipulation from escaping forensic scrutiny**.

---

## **References**  
🔹 Bartnicki v. Vopper, 532 U.S. 514 (2001).  
🔹 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254 (1964).  
🔹 Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc., 418 U.S. 323 (1974).  
🔹 Marwick, A., & Lewis, R. (2017). *Media Manipulation and Disinformation Online*. Data & Society Research Institute.  
🔹 Phillips, W. (2019). *This Is Why We Can’t Have Nice Things: Mapping the Logic of Online Trolling*. MIT Press.  
🔹 Citron, D. (2022). *The Fight for Privacy: Protecting Dignity, Identity, and Love in the Digital Age*. W.W. Norton & Co.  