The Mallesons IP Whiteboard blog has a post that should remind all of us to be careful with what we write on Facebook and other social media platforms:
Be careful what you write on Facebook! Adelaide teenager Christoper Cross has recently been convicted for criminal defamation after posting material about a local policeman on a Facebook site. Cross said that he “didn't realise you could get in trouble for things on the internet ”. Pleading guilty in the Kadina Magistrates Court to criminal defamation, Cross became only the second person in South Australia ever convicted of the rarely used charge. He now has a criminal record and was sentenced to a 2 year good behaviour bond.
The message for Cross and any other users of social media is that although anyone can publish material on social media, the laws that apply to traditional media will still apply. Social media is published in real time and the posts are often permanent.
Read it here.
Meanwhile on The Faculty Lounge blog,
I was asked for comment today about defamation and Twitter and, in particular, whether the laws of defamation should apply differently in this new medium. Over the last year or so, there have been a number of cases involving defamation via Twitter, including a high profile situation involving Courtney Love earlier this year.
Despite thinking much about online defamation for my cyberlaw classes, my focus is usually on jurisdictional concerns and ISP liability. The questions that have come up time and time again are issues like:
(a) Is it fair for a plaintiff to sue a defendant in defamation at the place where information was downloaded which may be in a completely different jurisdiction to where the defendant uploaded it? Generally, the answer to this one has been "yes".
(b) To what extent should Internet middlemen (like ISPs and bulletin board operators) be liable for defamatory comments posted by their customers and members? Section 230 of the CDA generally immunizes them, subject to a few exceptions - see, for example, the Roommates.com case.
But I've not really (or at least recently) heard the argument that Internet forums are so different from traditional publication venues that they should be generally exempted from defamation law. Is there a viable argument that Twitter is more like a coffee house conversation than an online publication? If so, should this matter for a defamation analysis? And, if it does, where does one draw the line between Twitter, blogs, online social networks like Facebook and MySpace, and any other online forums (eg massive multi player online games)? Just food for thought as I prepare my notes for next semester's exciting instalment of cyberlaw classes...
I think it is absurd that the uploader can be sued in the region where content is downloaded. Even if what you say is legal in your own country, your life could be ruined by someone from a different country, especially if the two countries have extradition treaties. Legally defending yourself would also be incredibly difficult if you are sued/tried in a different country.
Most people don't fully understand their own countries laws - is it really reasonable to expect them to understand the laws in other countries as well?
Posted by: R | Wednesday, 02 December 2009 at 01:16 AM
Actually was talking about this last night. The friction created by applying laws made for a one-to-many media world in a many-to-many medium is going to eventually break something. Either the laws or the internet is going to end up changing in the next decade.
This is even before you start to consider the consequences of media production tools being incorporated in general conversation in an open online environment in terms of intellectual property and classification laws created for a fundamentally different environment.
Posted by: Anthony | Wednesday, 02 December 2009 at 08:11 AM