This introduction to the book Graphic provides a brief overview of today’s digital information and media landscape, underscoring the often graphic nature of online content. Introducing the subject matter through the lens of a journalist who worked on the New York Times’ analysis of George Floyd’s killing, the authors raise the psychosocial risks that can come with engaging with upsetting online content, including secondary or vicarious trauma. Laying out a brief history of the role of visual imagery in advancing social change, they also emphasize the importance of finding ways to stay informed about the major social issues depicted in such imagery. Finally, this chapter provides an overview of the topics addressed in Graphic, ranging from the history of graphic visual content and its impact on human and civil rights, to how images affect people biologically and psychologically, to the ways peoples’ individual identities intersect with their experiences in potentially protective and harmful ways, to how people can increase their agency over their engagement with social media in order to minimize harm, to the ways community can act as a protective force, to strategies for maximizing meaning and other positive experiences from online experiences.

One of the most powerful ways to counter the isolation that often accompanies social media use – whether that use is professional or personal – is to foster community. That community can take various forms. For researchers and online investigators, it may mean working collaboratively or celebrating the cultures of those you are researching. For everyday users of social media, community may mean reaching out to others to talk about what you’re observing or to share your thoughts and feelings online. However, not all attempts to develop a sense of community are equally beneficial: According to recent research, for example, venting can have positive or negative effects, depending on how the user engages. In this chapter, the authors discuss what is known about effective ways to combat the isolation that can be endemic to online engagement, and how to proactively foster community in online and offline spaces to minimize the risk of psychological harm and maximize psychosocial well-being.

While people have similar biological responses when viewing graphic online imagery, our unique identities mediate that affect. This chapter explains how reactions to disturbing images can vary significantly from person to person, and how important it is to understand what makes each of us – and each other – more or less vulnerable to potential psychological harm when engaging online. The chapter explores how we can better protect our kids and communities by becoming more aware of the potential impact of social media content on ourselves and on other people, and the steps we can take to lessen the risk of harm.

In this chapter, we offer a number of recommendations for those who are in a position to do something technically, structurally, and legally or otherwise to minimize the risk of psychological harm that comes with the public’s use of social media and other online sites, especially their engagement with graphic or other upsetting digital material. We outline the policy implications of what we’ve learned from more than three years of desk research and original interviews that we have conducted with dozens of people, ranging from technologists to psychologists to content moderators to human rights investigators and beyond. We first spotlight the competing interests that underscore social media companies and governments’ policy deliberations with regard to content moderation. Next, we lay out our suggestions for companies, governments, and individuals with regard to how to improve the experiences of both content moderators and everyday social media users. We close with suggestions for creating a more “pro-social” online environment, one that not only better mitigates the risks of psychological harm but potentially encourages greater connection, resulting in wellness and even flourishing.

In the concluding chapter of Graphic, the authors recount the story of a pivotal trip they took to San Miguel de Allende, Mexico, where they absorbed the stories and insights of a diverse cohort of women who had gathered to discuss the concept of resilience. Through a World Cafe–style event, where the women discussed their perspectives on both trauma and healing, the authors gathered several insights that can be used to help foster positive experiences in peoples’ engagement with social media and other online spaces. This final part of the book underscores key themes from earlier chapters, including the power of humor, community, and connection to minimize psychological harm when engaging with graphic material online and, ultimately, to maximize well-being.

This chapter outlines the history of graphic visual content and its ability to advance social and human rights. The authors trace a path from 1863 and the United States’ civil war, when photos of beaten slaves were used to advance abolitionist causes, to contemporary images of atrocity in Ukraine, now being used to rally condemnation against Russian aggression. The chapter also discusses the social significance of other seminal, historical imagery, including videos of the beating of George Floyd and Rodney King, photos and videos of John F. Kennedy’s killing, photos from the Holocaust and the Vietnam War, images that documented the beating and killing of Emmet Till, and iconic photographs from 9/11 and the War on Terror. A discussion of the qualitative and quantitative similarities and differences between historic images and digital images shared online today follows the description of these photos and their role in advancing social change.

While graphic online content may be upsetting, people who regularly work with such content – like journalists, content moderators at social media companies, and human rights investigators – have developed various strategies for minimizing the risk of psychosocial harm when engaging with such material. Many of these strategies can be adapted by the general public to limit the risk of harm and maximize the potential for positive outcomes from their online engagement. Such strategies include tactics aimed at increasing our control over when and how users view graphic online material, varying how users engage with upsetting media, treating such content like “toxic waste” and limiting exposure of the user, their loved ones, and their households, and striking the balance between looking at and engaging with such content, and knowing when it may be better to look away.

Too often, people mindlessly scroll through their social media feeds and other online spaces to catch up on the activities of their friends and family or simply to pass the time. However, this behavior can leave them vulnerable to the more insidious aspects of online engagement, especially if they come across graphic online content – whether intentionally or without warning. In this chapter, the authors of Graphic discuss how bringing greater intentionality to one’s online engagement can serve as a protective force. They summarize the most recent research and insights from their interviews with diverse experts to illustrate tactics for deriving greater meaning from time spent online and ultimately how to use that engagement to not only protect oneself from psychological harm but also to potentially even flourish.

This chapter from Graphic discusses humans’ biological and psychological responses to viewing the suffering of others, including through graphic videos and photographs found online. The authors discuss the sometimes-negative effects of such images on human rights workers and journalists – including the risk of secondary or vicarious trauma – referencing the most recent research as to what happens in the body when people view and process upsetting images.

In this foreword to Graphic, Sam Dubberley of Human Rights Watch discusses the history of graphic visual media in advancing human rights and social justice. He underscores the psychological challenges that come with viewing potentially upsetting information on the Internet today and underscores the need for all social media users to better understand how to view such content while protecting themselves and their communities from psychosocial harm.

Iran engaged with global decolonization movements on two levels: state-to-state and non-elite contexts. As Iranians observed global crises such as apartheid and race riots unfold in South Africa and the United States, they sharpened their understanding of racial politics. At the same time, Iran tried to assume a prominent role in these debates by hosting the UN Human Rights Conference in 1968. The shah faced a quandary: on the one hand he saw Iran as aligned with other Third World countries that had suffered from imperial politics. On the other hand, he wanted Iran aligned with the United States and the West in a partnership of equals. Moreover, although the king supported global human rights, he was unable to facilitate democratic political participation in Iran.

This chapter shows how involuntary sterilisation and castration have become problematised in international law. The chapter discusses the rise of international law and human rights in the post-war context. Despite being regarded as international crimes on meeting certain criteria since the Nuremberg trials, the interventions are rarely prosecuted in practice. Efforts to mainstream involuntary sterilisation as human rights violations have been more successful. This development began in the 1990s and has since gone from soft law to binding legal obligations. The chapter shows that uncertainty prevails regarding the legal and remedial conceptualisation of involuntary sterilisation and castration in international human rights law due to inconsistent and incidental treatment of such cases. Ultimately, the argument is made that international law provides a socio-legal master frame for national legal claims. In the case of involuntary sterilisation and castration, however, this master frame is not sharply defined, effectively impeding investigation and problematisation of the practices in national contexts.

Chapter 5 proposes an interpretation of Article 12 that allows for decision-making by substitutes as a last resort through relocating personhood from recognition of autonomy to recognition of dignity. It settles on a concept of dignity as inherent, as a legal principle (not a right) that underpins human rights and the CRPD, and as having five dimensions. The first dimension recognises the equal worth or value of all human beings. The second recognises autonomy as an important component of dignity for people who have autonomy but seeks to position autonomy as only one very valuable good amongst others. The third recognises dignity as reflexive and acknowledging the interdependent, interpersonal and social nature of being human. The fourth recognises personhood as embodied and particular, thereby acknowledging the residual impacts of impairment and the materiality of our lives. The fifth dimension demands an understanding of rights as interdependent and indivisible.

Chapter 3 explains the principle of the indivisibility and interdependence of human rights (‘the principle of indivisibility) as recognising: (a) the equal importance of economic, social and cultural rights with civil and political rights, and (b) the interdependence of rights within and across categories. It explains how the privileging of civil and political rights, including the right to legal capacity, erroneously frames state restraint as always rights-affirming; such framing, in turn, demands the abolition of decision-making by substitutes. It argues that depending on how an adult with cognitive disability is contingently situated even after all supports are provided, they may require a decision to be made by a substitute to fulfil an immediate socio-economic need and to claim their human rights. It argues that Article 12, in requiring supports for legal capacity, is a ‘hybrid’ civil and political and socio-economic right, illustrating and driving the principle of indivisibility in the CRPD.

Chapter 7 summarises the book’s findings and explains their implications for advocacy and law reform. It argues that recognition of the indivisibility of human rights is important to ensure that targeted services are provided for people with disability to address their disproportionate levels of socio-economic disadvantage. It decries the privileging of civil and political rights especially the right to legal capacity over all other rights, for encouraging the ‘lazy state’ that erroneously justifies its neglect of marginalised people in the name of upholding their human rights. It provides the example of personalised or individualised services premised on simplistic notions of choice and control, which often fail to uphold the rights of people with cognitive disabilities. It stresses the importance for the state and community of acknowledging difference to promote services that ensure civil, economic, political, social and cultural inclusion in all cases.