Official: Facebook is a blog

The Age yesterday reported that “blog” rants on Facebook about an alleged arsonist had been pulled down. (Yes, Facebook isn’t a blog but for once heritage media’s failure to understand these things isn’t the point.) 

The posts in question had threatened an alleged #bushfires arsonist. Threatening people is illegal of course but there is also the potential contempt of court by anyone reporting on those who have been charged with a criminal offence but whose trials have not concluded. (Margaret Simons wrote on sub judice in Crikey earlier this month)

Laurel Papworth, social network strategist, vs David Galbally, TV QC

This morning Laurel Papworth tried to school the massed forces of Mike Munro, Melissa “What’s the Internet?” Doyle, and David Galbally, a QC from television. M, M and D were suggesting on Sunrise that Facebook should assume complete responsibility for everything its users write. Laurel was playing the part of Reason. After all, do we blame the telcos when mobile phones are used to set off bombs?

The wrong question

They were (not unusually) asking Laurel the wrong question. Facebook will, like any other company, hop to when presented with the right notification. And that shouldn’t trouble lawyers too much — just as they get paid to issue cease-and-desist notices in intellectual property cases, they’ll get fees to patrol Facebook and everyone will be happy.

The right question

The right question is: What can we expect of ordinary users now they are publishers? Giving away the address of an alleged criminal caught in the judicial process is one thing in the pub — although no less illegal, I’d venture — but it’s quite another screaming it to a potential audience of millions, as was being done on Facebook.

The answer: STFU

Laurel tweeted after the interview:

“When the cameras were off, Mel and Mike said to me “we (journalists) can’t do it, so you can’t”. When is news ‘News’ & when is it ”chat’?”

And Melissa and Mike are right about that.* We, the people, do not have the right to do more than journalists do. If we as a society believe reporting certain information about a crime will affect the fairness of any trial, we have to shut up about it. And that “we” can’t just be heritage media. This blog post could turn up in anyone’s Google search so why should I be held to different standards than the Sydney Morning Herald? I’m not held to different standards when it comes to defamation or other laws.

If, on the other hand, we’re in favour of unrestrained comment at any point in the judicial process, then we must change the law through our elected representatives, not call the courts and officers of the law stupid because they try to enforce the law we asked for. (But, to echo my earlier point, fair play to anyone calling them stupid for thinking Facebook can filter its millions of users without help.)

The silver lining

In the meantime, let’s see this for what it is: more mainstream recognition of social media and networks as the powerful forces for organisation and dissemination that they are. In making that recognition, the establishment is showing us the respect and — in some cases — contempt we deserve. There are plenty of “new” media mavens who bemoan the earlier lack of recognition and who talk up the fact that Twitter is now first on the scene of many major stories. Well, here are the media QCs of Queensland and the hosts of Sunrise delivering your recognition: “new” media shapes public perception and with great power comes great responsibility (or something less pompous than that but you know what I mean).

Laurel vs David on Sunrise (YouTube video)

*Although whichever of Laurel or Melissa is calling Melissa a journalist is most definitely wrong.