John Bromley Davenport QC talks about social media law and sentencing |
The BBC’s The One Show looked at the problem which you can
watch here.
Presenting the segment Tony Livesey was right to say that increasing numbers of
social media users are being prosecuted for posting nasty comments on Facebook
and Twitter. However there is real unclarity over the issue of what can be said
and what can’t. Further confusion comes from the lack of sentencing guidelines.
Toney Livesy then told the story of a person given an 8
month suspended sentence for a sexual offence because of mitigating
circumstances whilst a racist Facebooker was jailed for 8 weeks. This is
undoubtedly shocking but it goes to highlight what a dark area of the law this
is.
So Tony Livesey went to John Bromley Davenport QCto clear
things up. Tony then asked: are there really instances when a facebook message
can be dealt with more severely than a sexual assault? John Bromley Davenport QC
quite rightly said that we cannot pass judgement without know the full facts of
the case and made assurances that the judge would have taken everything into
consideration in order to deliver a full and fair judgement.
Toney then asked: why are social media crimes receiving such
high sentences? John Bromley Davenport QC said that it’s due to a number of
circumstances. Partly it’s due to being the fact that it’s the flavour of the
month and partly the fact that the establishment, police and judges are taking
a dim view on it.
It just goes to show what is shaping decisions and the dire
need for proper legal clarity to be delivered on the ever-expanding area of
life. Fortunately social media sentencing guidelines should be published before
Christmas. Unquestionably it’s guidance that not only the authorities need bu
also we the Tweeting public.
Yes ever since Lord McAlpine’s legal team announced that
they would pursue many of those who Tweeted libellous content, we the public have
started to click onto the need to adhere to some basic standards of good
Tweeting conduct.
But as the guidelines approach there’s anticipation that
judiciary will start to take a more relaxed view on what’s offensive. The
authorities are dealing with roughly 50 cases a week of complaints of offensive
comments made on Facebook and Twitter. But the police have been saying that
that is too much. And the director of public prosecutions has even said it’s
excessive.
So it’s expected that the rule makers are going to say that
if you post content that is part of a campaign of harassment or that it is a
credible threat then the police will look into the matter. But if you are
merely Tweeting offensive or even grossly offensive content then it’s likely
that social media users will get away with it.
The director of public prosecutions did note recently: the
right to be offensive has to be protected and the threshold therefore for
prosecution in that case has to be high.
So it looks like you would have a real go at someone on Facebook
or Twitter and target them over a prolonged period or in a highly threatening
manner before you could expect to get a knock on the door. Certainly you could
be pretty offensive on Twitter so long as you don’t overstep the mark and go
into threatening or harassing territory.
The McAlpine-affair is already and will continue to materially
affect the way that the public uses social media. It’s almost a surety that some
sort of legal precedent and change in behaviour will emanate from the shameful
episode. As Lord McAlpine’s lawyers said: Twitter is not the place where you
can gossip with impunity, we’re now about to demonstrate that.
Up until recently 340 millions messages a day are sent on
Twitter and people have felt that they can say whatever they feel like. But
since the truth came out about Lord McAlpine the public have taken a collective
“gulp” and taken on a collective realisation that social media isn’t just a
verbal free for all.
Rather Twitter and social media is a public space like no
other and therefore you must exercise restraint and respect the integrity of
others in that public space.
So yea you can give off and say that a TV presenter has a
big nose or an annoying voice, but you cannot
slander their sexuality or race. The distinction will not always be as
clear but ultimately as Tony Livesey said: “everyone who uses Twitter or Facebook now
will have to become an amateur lawyer at best and learn what can and can’t be
said.”
That appears to be excellent however i am still not too sure that I like it. At any rate will look far more into it and decide personally! los angeles lemon law attorney
ReplyDeleteThis is a fabulous site and I can not prescribe you sufficiently all. I truly value your post. It is exceptionally useful for every one of the general population on the web.
ReplyDeleteresolution law firm lagos