Fake Intolerance and Viral Giving

A week or two ago, a story surfaced about a young child who was asked to leave a KFC because her scars from being mauled by dogs were bothering other patrons of the restaurant. An outpouring of support for the little girl and scorn for the restaurant employees soon followed; thousands of dollars and offers of free reconstructive surgery were offered to the family of the child, and KFCs were boycotted and their employees assaulted by beverages in drive thrus. KFC even offered $30,000 for medical costs.

Today, this article appeared explaining that the whole situation (except for the girl being scarred by a dog mauling) was fabricated by the girl's grandmother; no one asked the family to leave, and in fact the family was not even in a KFC on the day in question. What will be done now is unclear, but so many interesting/disturbing questions are raised by this particular "hoax," as the article terms it. The motivations for lying are fairly clear based on the facts: the grandmother's gofundme.com page had $600 before the "hoax" and managed to raise over $100,000 afterward. What is not certain is why the grandmother resorted to lying and false accusations rather than some more benign method to raise funds needed for her granddaughter's recovery. Innocent people were adversely affected by these lies even while one poor little girl was about to receive necessary care.

Do we respond more strongly to stories of injustice than other sob stories, and if so, why was facial disfigurement of a three-year-old not itself enough for us to open our pockets? Further, why is generosity not enough in these cases--why are people also tempted to retaliate, often ignorantly and indiscriminately, and sometimes violently, against those perceived as unjust? Is intolerance alleviated or simply perpetuated by a person like this grandmother who has fabricated intolerance and animosity where they likely did not exist before? What facts (or fictions) give us reason to be (or not be) generous?