I’ve got a post up about this (a bit more in depth than my comments here), linked it to you on twitter. Take a read and tell me what you think?

And at the risk of repeating myself as I’ve made a lot of comments on this topic today – a conversation in a pub can be construed as a private conversation (unless the guy is shouting it from on top of the jukebox). A conversation on Facebook is not – it is public broadcast and constitutes publication under the law.

Many people may not realise this, but maybe it is time they did before the defamation writs start landing on people’s mats for the bad tweet or abusive blog post.

If we start saying that every website is responsible for every piece of data that goes their way, even if they’re not aware of it, then why on earth are postal services, phone companies, and internet connectivity providers exempt from this under the common carrier laws? I think that this protection needs to be extended to internet service (not just connectivity) providers in order for the law to be ethically consistent. The law, as it stands, means that an individual is responsible for a letter, phone call, or email that breaks the law, not the vehicle by which it is carried. If we’re being consistent, the same applies to any carrier, which I would argue that Facebook, Twitter, Blogger, Livejournal, and every other user-created content site are. Until Australia Post reads all of our letters, we can’t expect Facebook to read everything submitted to their site.

From my perspective (keep in mind, again, that I’m thinking from an ethical point of view), it’s the responsibility of service providers to ensure that people making use of them are aware that they are publishing (in the legal sense of the term), and it’s the responsibility of the individual to make sure they don’t break the law. If someone publishes on the internet in contempt of a court supression order, then arrest that person. Unless the provider didn’t inform them that this was publishing, then I don’t think they can be remotely held liable.

I’ll have to put my thinking hat on and write a proper post about this. I’ll let you know when it’s up.

I have to side with Stil here – a tweet is publication, a blog post is publicatino and all are liable under the law. To suggest otherwise would be to allow anarchy where people can say or do what they want under the guise of social media. It isn’t up to the lawyers to catch up. e have to take responsibility for the community we want to continue, otherwise we risk forcing those with less understanding to make the regulatinos and changes necessary to solve these issues.

Let’s stop the argument that it’s just too hard. If we admit defeat, we lose. It’s not an excuse to allow trials to be derailed because we can’t envisage an internet that can account for these important issues.

I think we are converging on a theme here around the individual responsibility vs ‘corporate sub-ordinate’ as you so eloquently put it.

However, I might just find myself siding with mr grumpy lawyer when anyone brings out the old ’server not based in your legal jurisdiction’ chestnut. That is an argument founded on an even worse mis-match of technology advance and legal stodginess. If any social-media aware geek ever brings that ’smarte arsed technicallity’ up in front of me I will slap em!

Thanks for the 2c

Fang – Mike Seyfang

All of these legal/ethical issues aside, though, if you make a comment on facebook you’re identified by name (not to mention all the other identifying details there). Why on earth didn’t the cops think “hey, let’s go arrest the people in contempt of court who have conventiently done this under their real name” rather than making a giant beatup with teh intarnets being the completely overrated (and inaccurate) badguy?

Bosun_McShiny’s 2c.