The “authorities” don’t trust communications technology and social media. They don’t control it (yet). It empowers communication between ordinary people. It can facilitate mass movements, and that can be “dangerous”. Western governments tend to sing the praises of this new technology when it is used by the citizens of other countries, such as in the recent “Arab uprising”. They’re suddenly not so keen when it is used by their own citizens, as in the recent riots in England.
The English government, for example, is considering claiming the power to shut down text messaging and social networking during times of unrest. That will be a fascinating debate on a large stage.
While such big debates go on in public, more specific cases are playing out in the legal system, and precedents are being set. Consider the example covered in The Guardian yesterday of two young men convicted for posting messages on Facebook inciting people to riot in their home towns. The Guardian reports that “No trouble resulted from their actions”. None the less they were tried and sentenced . Do you want to guess the nature of the sentence? What is an appropriate punishment for their actions?
Keep your answer in mind – here’s what happened. They each got four years jail time. In my opinion that is totally disproportionate, and blatantly vindictive. Fortunately it has provoked a backlash of criticism, and the glare of publicity might bring about a reconsideration. If legal precedents are going to be set for this kind of case, then the public need to keep a watchful eye and make sure that the precedents are sensible. There should be nothing legally different about the use of “new” technology. Posting something on Facebook should be legally equivalent to sticking up a poster or publishing a letter in the paper.
Powered by WPtouch Mobile Suite for WordPress