You may have heard of Amina Lawal, a young Nigerian woman sentenced to death by stoning for bearing a child out of wedlock. Her plight prompted contestants to boycott the Miss World pageant, slated to occur in Nigeria, in protest. If you’re an avid user of e-mail, a recent online petition, headlined AMINA LAWAL SET TO BE STONED ON 3RD JUNE, may also have caught your attention — and tugged at your heart. The petition implores readers to sign their names on Lawal’s behalf. It bears the logo and name, in Spanish, of Amnesty International. And it reports a seemingly disturbing development in a case that’s become a cause célèbre for human-rights advocates worldwide.

As you may also have heard, however, the petition is fake. Lawal, to be sure, still faces execution. Earlier this year, her harsh sentence, handed down last August under Muslim sharia law, was suspended until January 2004 so she could breastfeed her infant daughter. As her case winds through the Nigerian courts on appeal, Amnesty International has, indeed, posted online petitions protesting Lawal’s sentence. But last week, it was revealed that this latest document had it all wrong. Not only is Lawal not set to die next month, but Amnesty officials say they have no idea who authored the e-mail.

Whoever the culprit may be, he or she has set off a furor. Nigerian human-rights groups, working on the frontlines, have put out their own online plea correcting the misinformation — and urging people to stop the protest campaign. They claim that the e-mail has only put Lawal’s safety in greater jeopardy.

The flap over Lawal illustrates an interesting dilemma. On the one hand, human-rights groups need to generate publicity about individual cases to reverse abuse. On the other hand, the easiest way to do so these days — via the click of a mouse — might damage the human-rights movement in the long run. To find some answers, the Phoenix called Josh Rubenstein, the Northeast regional director of Amnesty International USA, whose office is located in Davis Square. Here’s what he had to say:

On how disruptive international petitions based on false information can be to human-rights cases like Lawal’s: The human-rights movement is based on the credibility and integrity of our reporting. If we say someone is in trouble, it’s based on hard information. The Internet is a fabulous tool for disseminating hard information. Regrettably, it’s also a tool for disseminating misinformation, which can be disruptive to our campaigns. Amnesty International has been highlighting the case of Amina Lawal for the better part of a year. Thanks to us, Oprah Winfrey cited the case on her show. Details about Amina were referenced in Parade magazine, which is picked up by newspapers nationwide. This exposure has generated tremendous support for Amina. It’s generated tremendous pressure on Nigerian officials to treat her fairly. Now, someone has circulated this petition that contains misinformation. We don’t know who’s responsible. So it’s become an easy way to distract attention away from the legitimate campaign.

On when high-profile advocacy campaigns do more harm than good: If the campaign is based on misinformation, it undercuts the pressure that legitimate campaigning has accomplished. It can — I’m not going to say it will — but it can make it easier for state officials to ignore legitimate pressure. They can say, "We got five million signatures based on something that isn’t even happening. What’s all this brouhaha about? What credibility do these international groups have when they say things we’re not doing?" Campaigns based on misinformation drain our energy. Then, we have to put out a correction to set the record straight.

On the most effective strategy when fighting against human-rights abuses: Letters, telegrams, and hard-copied petitions are much more effective than an online petition. A genuine e-mail from a person who identifies him- or herself is powerful, too. Public pressure is important. Government officials need to hear from the international community. They expect to hear from the international community. If they don’t hear protests, then, in many cases, they feel they can proceed with impunity. Only when they hear from us through faxes, individual e-mails, letters do they restrain their worst instincts. Our strategy is to generate protest, but at the right time.

On what the well-intentioned do-gooder who receives an online petition imploring action on a human-rights case should do: Unless they can feel confident that the online petition is associated with a credible human-rights organization that stands behind the petition, I’d ignore it. If they’re not confident, call Amnesty International, look to our Web site, check the facts in the case. Right now, there’s a press release responding to this online petition on our site. Just as people read a newspaper skeptically, they need to read such petitions skeptically. After all, anybody can put anything online.