Social-media and the law
Sunday, November 14, 2010
 |
| Photo credit: Jonathon Pow/Rossparry.co.uk |
According to an article by Sarah Lyall, Paul J. Chambers found himself frustrated by a snowstorm that grounded his flight to Northern Ireland to meet a woman he'd met online,
In his frustrated state, Chambers tweeted, "Robin Hood Airport is closed. You've got a week to get your [expletive] together, otherwise I'm blowing the airport sky high!!"
It was by mere coincidence that the tweet was even found.. An airport manager looking for Robin Hood Airport-related items saw the post a few days later and reported it.
This is an indication, not only of how public social-media can be, but also of the potential consequences a single comment can have on someone's life.
Chambers was not a household name or even a local celebrity, but because of the circumstances of his court case, he has acquired a following of supporters on Twitter.
The judged charged Chambers with "sending a "menacing message" over a public telecommunications network under the Communications Act of 2003."
His followers disagree with the charge and are arguing for free-speech by reposting the Twitter message or by writing tweets of a similar content.
This should serve as a reminder to journalists and anyone who uses social-media tools of the impact their writing can have on people and the potential danger it could bring upon them even unintentionally.
Chambers had no intention of starting a media debate, but his comment and the way the case was handled by the judge, brought attention to how the law adjusts slowly to the quickly changing social-media environment.
Many other people sent similar messages, but faced no damaging consequences. How should the law deal with potentially threatening statements while still upholding the first amendment to free speech?
This and many other questions are still being pondered in the case Chambers has brought to the surface. At this point, social-media users should exercise great caution on the Internet and always be aware of what they are saying.
3 comments:
I'm just curious what went along with the charge. Will he have to pay a fine or something worse? This is a really interesting story. It reminds me of the stories of suicide notes left on Twitter, or that kid who fell off a tower during football practice and tweeted about how scared he was beforehand. They are all comments placed in the public eye. Do we have the responsibility to act after reading them? Of couse, I understand that they are different. However, if someone would have saw the suicide tweets, as well as the tweets from the tower, we could have prevented something horrible from happening. I understand that the situation with Chambers was different, and I am assuming that he was just upset. However, what if he wasn't? What if like the others he was warning us? It's interesting to think about. Yes, I am for free speech. However, it's tricky.
People post things all the time on Twitter, Facebook and other social media sites. They can be about how they hate so and so, they can bash their employers, co-workers, friends and family.
This has been happening since I was in middle school. Back then it was said through a note or e-mail. Now people use Twitter and Facebook to express themselves.
However, times have changed and social media has become more a part of the professional world than before. People need to remember to be careful about what they post because EVERYONE can see it.
Tara, there was a fine of about $4,000 that someone who supported his argument offered to pay.
You make some really good points about why we should or shouldn't take these messages seriously. This is why it has been such a difficult decision for the law.
I agree completely Victoria and I think as things like this happen more and more that people will learn to censor what they say on the Internet.
Post a Comment