In response to the call last month by Victorian police to stop internet blogging about the alleged Victorian bushfire arsonist:

When the alleged Victorian bushfire arsonist was outed with his photograph published on Facebook and numerous blog posts, did the social network and possibly the self-publishers breach a court order that prevents media discussing the case? Should social networks be subject to the same conditions as other media publishers and broadcasters?

By revealing the accused’s identity, the Facebook posts could jeopardise his right to a fair hearing. The reason the law binds traditional media is that prejudice could result in a guilty man walking free, or an innocent being found guilty.

Some social network operators claim speaking freely is the right of their members and equate it to catching up with a mate in the street. The reality is that social networks are as public as your local newspaper.

Take another recent high-profile case: when purported pictures of Pauline Hanson turned out to be fakes, people asked, ‘have the media gone too far?’ This highlighted two issues:
1.    The individual’s moral right to privacy: were these tacky 30-year-old images in the public interest?
2.    What are Pauline’s legal rights? If the pictures were published on a social network, what would be her legal rights then?

These two cases open us all to the possibility of being victimised for a crime we did not commit, or being subjected to embarrassment or harassment if inaccurate or sensitive information is published, either online or offline.  Proving false accusers are wrong in court is costly and, sadly, even if you win, mud sticks.

Without regulation, social networks can become a great playground for bullies - and they already are to a degree. Just ask Jodie Melbourne of CQR Consulting, a white hat hacker who is crusading against cyber-bullying.

Even if you lead a pristine existence, would you want your entire private live opened up for all to see, from birth to grave, whether by writing, image, video or sound, without your permission?  The whole issue of privacy, online and offline, reminds me of the Ben Elton book Blind Faith, which paints an ugly picture of a world where it’s illegal NOT to expose every moment of your life publicly.

Whereas smaller social forums have tended to be self-policed by their members, the mega-networks have much bigger challenges.  I believe that if they can’t control malicious or illicit content, they will eventually implode. There will be more and more cases of inaccurate opinions and indiscreet pictures taken in private circumstances — leading to legal challenges and a mass turnoff by people who want to keep their private lives private.  The Twitter network has some precedents - there already are laws governing harassment by text message.

The “Wild West” feel of social networks is exhilarating; suddenly we don’t need to rely on third party media channeling our opinions. But both advocates and owners of social networks who feel they have a right to freedom of speech at any cost are heading down a slippery slope.

COPYRIGHT© 2009

Share This (Digg it, Furl it, e-mail it, etc)

Tags: journalism, loral papworth, social networking
Posted in News, Social Media | 1 Comment »