The internet has given rise to new crimes –
from hacking and bank fraud to eBay scams – but it’s also created a new kind of
troublemaker: the accidental criminal. No-one would be surprised by an early-morning
knock on the door if they’d hacked an online banking site, but the reach of the
web means it’s never been easier for otherwise well-behaved citizens to break
the law inadvertently.
A
bit of due diligence will help you avoid eBay scams. Only buy items with photos
Neither the law nor common sense have kept pace with a world
in which social networks and fi le-sharing sites have changed the legal
landscape. More importantly, people who previously had no means of libelling a
celebrity or breaching contempt of court rules can now do so simply by hitting
Retweet. We’re all a click away from accusations of harassment or causing gross
offence.
Laws are applied with a varying degree of severity, which
further clouds the issue of just what will or won’t land you with a spell at
Her Majesty’s pleasure. Even if you think you’re no law-breaker, there’s a good
chance that even our most honest reader has broken some sort of law online,
whether by ripping a CD or using a song or photo without permission, even if
it’s by mistake.
Social Services
Nowhere is it easier to break the law than on Twitter or
Facebook, partly because people who are untrained in libel laws are now
publishers, and subject to the same controls as newspaper editors – who are
(theoretically) trained in media law.
Often, we see Facebook and Twitter as extensions of a pub
discussion, where banter and alcohol-enhanced opinions are routine but
ephemeral. Online, however, our comments stick around and spread quickly,
potentially reaching a wider audience than intended – sparking a “Twitter
storm”.
Twitter has
open-sourced Storm, its distributed,
fault-tolerant, real-time computation system
“Twitter is so short and instant, so much about the heat and
the heart of the debate, that it’s a temptation for people to tweet too quickly
without considering the consequences. There could be contempt of court,
defamation or data-protection issues,” said Kathryn Wynn, a senior associate
with tech law firm Pinsent Masons. “We’ve seen real-world examples of this...
people can’t substantiate a tweet as they don’t have any evidence. In the heat
of the debate, people don’t go away and check, because the debate would have
moved on – so they don’t stop to think.”
It’s because of incidents like this that a social network user
could find themselves facing court. Several trolls have served time, and libellous
posters have had to dig deep to pay damages.
Despite the grave consequences, the authorities are still
coming to terms with how to deal with Joe Bloggs gaining a platform to air
opinion and humour. Look at the farcical trial of Paul Chambers, who was found
guilty of sending a menacing message when he jokingly threatened to blow up
Robin Hood Airport near Doncaster after it was closed due to snow – common
sense and law don’t always mix.
Since that case, Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) guidelines
have laid out where prosecution for harassment or web threats is justified,
focusing on whether threats are credible, how persistent the harassment is, and
the level of offensiveness.
“Representing the
communities we serve to improve outcomes for all victims and witnesses”.
In its guidelines on when to prosecute, the CPS says most
Twitter rant cases shouldn’t go to court, even if the post involves “the expression
of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, banter
or humour; even if distasteful to some or painful to those subjected to it”.
According to lawyers, it’s easy to libel someone via social
networks: each post, tweet or retweet could be subject to its own legal action,
although it’s often impossible to take action against everyone. “A retweet of a
false and defamatory tweet isn’t immune from legal action. Just as the tweeter
is liable if the tweet is defamatory, untrue and cannot be defended, so the
retweeter will be liable,” said Rendle.
