ChatterBank0 min ago
An Interesting Article . . . .
. . . first published last May, updated to take into account more recent material.
This wrestles with the problem of widespread Social Media interference with the Legal Process, and makes some interesting but worrying points.
Newspapers were/are nearly always discouraged/constrained from over-indulgence in Trial-By-Media, but Trial-By-Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/TikTok etc seems to run amok at times, although as the article shows, unpleasant consequences can result.
The problem however is difficult to solve given the Global nature of the beast. I remember when Margaret Thatcher tried to silence Peter Wright but failed because the "offence" took place in Australia. In a Global environment it will be considerably more difficult. I wonder how it will develop - will the West adopt the (only partially successful) solution applied by more despotic regimes of banning access to the Web. Watch this space?
Happy reading, and beware what you post.
https:/
This wrestles with the problem of widespread Social Media interference with the Legal Process, and makes some interesting but worrying points.
Newspapers were/are nearly always discouraged/constrained from over-indulgence in Trial-By-Media, but Trial-By-Facebook/Twitter/Instagram/TikTok etc seems to run amok at times, although as the article shows, unpleasant consequences can result.
The problem however is difficult to solve given the Global nature of the beast. I remember when Margaret Thatcher tried to silence Peter Wright but failed because the "offence" took place in Australia. In a Global environment it will be considerably more difficult. I wonder how it will develop - will the West adopt the (only partially successful) solution applied by more despotic regimes of banning access to the Web. Watch this space?
Happy reading, and beware what you post.
https:/
Answers
Only 1 answer
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Canary42. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
people seem to think they incur no responsibility for things they recount or retweet. Not so. Still, the damage may vary. If I post a libel that is only seen by my one follower and she's in Peru, then the chances of getting any damages out of me will be slight.
But if I had millions of followers and posted "Your wife, sir, under the pretense of keeping a bawdy house, is a receiver of stolen goods" (which the widely read Dr Johnson did in pre-social media days), I might expect the penalties to be far higher.
But if I had millions of followers and posted "Your wife, sir, under the pretense of keeping a bawdy house, is a receiver of stolen goods" (which the widely read Dr Johnson did in pre-social media days), I might expect the penalties to be far higher.
Only 1 answer
