It certainly isn’t social media’s responsibility and besides, they have little authority e.g. the bloke who tweeted about the fire on a Qantas plane which never actually occurred.

What would happen if someone tweeted about a paedophile and it wasn’t true? LAWSUITS not to mention the damage it does to people’s lives.

No one is saying that social media can’t have a voice but it HAS TO use it responsibly and not just to be the person whose tarts the “next big FaceBook group” or massive retweet!

This is the basis of the discussion as far as I am concerned … RESPONSIBILITY

Daniel Oyston’s last blog post..WHY MUST WE OBEY SOCIAL MEDIA RULES?

It certainly isn’t social media’s responsibility and besides, they have little authority e.g. the bloke who tweeted about the fire on a Qantas plane which never actually occurred.

What would happen if someone tweeted about a paedophile and it wasn’t true? LAWSUITS not to mention the damage it does to people’s lives.

No one is saying that social media can’t have a voice but it HAS TO use it responsibly and not just to be the person whose tarts the “next big FaceBook group” or massive retweet!

This is the basis of the discussion as far as I am concerned … RESPONSIBILITY

Daniel Oyston’s last blog post..WHY MUST WE OBEY SOCIAL MEDIA RULES?

Instead it used its powers to go and harass and threaten the lives of his mother and ex-girlfriend who as far as I know haven’t been accused of anything apart from knowing the bloke! I am happy to stand corrected if I am wrong on this one but regardless, social medias actions insighted potential violence and that cannot be a good thing. Surely?

And there lies the problem. Social media is hiding behind a veil of “free speech” and “you can’t stop us” which really just encourages hate mongering. It is childish and definitely not in the spirit of “community” which is a bedrock of real social networking.

People need to step back and do some self reflection on this issue and think about how their actions may be contributing to the problem.

Daniel Oyston’s last blog post..WHY MUST WE OBEY SOCIAL MEDIA RULES?

Instead it used its powers to go and harass and threaten the lives of his mother and ex-girlfriend who as far as I know haven’t been accused of anything apart from knowing the bloke! I am happy to stand corrected if I am wrong on this one but regardless, social medias actions insighted potential violence and that cannot be a good thing. Surely?

And there lies the problem. Social media is hiding behind a veil of “free speech” and “you can’t stop us” which really just encourages hate mongering. It is childish and definitely not in the spirit of “community” which is a bedrock of real social networking.

People need to step back and do some self reflection on this issue and think about how their actions may be contributing to the problem.

Daniel Oyston’s last blog post..WHY MUST WE OBEY SOCIAL MEDIA RULES?

If he’s on trial, he isn’t next door with your daughter, so any concerns you would have would be for events that had already happened. If a paedophile is on bail, he is under police watch and unable to approach or be near children – hence why ferguson was moved to different houses. There is no NEED for you to know unless he is found guilty as there is little risk once he has been apprehended. But if it turned out he was innocent, your desire to know and spread the news could destroy his relationship with the community and any future life he may have. That is why we have media suppression orders – not for revenue raising!

We are not discussing the suppression of genuine messages but shoudl someone broadcast mesages they feel to be “important to the lifeblood and weelbeing of the community” if they turned out to be wrong? If we take away the presumption of innocence in our legal system, the whole pack of cards comes down and you have the totalitarian state you just described. It is precisely BECAUSE we want to maintain our civil freedoms and human rights that we must preserve the right of a defendant to be tried fairly and without the input of gossip, innuendo and uninformed assumption – even if those assumptions later turn out to be correct.

Emotion has no place in law – your fear of a paedophile living next door does not negate his human rights and basic civil liberties under the law and the same applies to an arsonist or anyone else.

As for Galbally’s internet knowledge, he was contacted by Sunrise the night before as a legal expert and is not involved with the case at hand. He was brought in with barely any time to read up on the issue, never mind a complete crash course in the internet. He is not the issue here.

Kimota’s last blog post..Unsocial Media – or Why I Need to Stop Being Mr. Nice Guy!

If he’s on trial, he isn’t next door with your daughter, so any concerns you would have would be for events that had already happened. If a paedophile is on bail, he is under police watch and unable to approach or be near children – hence why ferguson was moved to different houses. There is no NEED for you to know unless he is found guilty as there is little risk once he has been apprehended. But if it turned out he was innocent, your desire to know and spread the news could destroy his relationship with the community and any future life he may have. That is why we have media suppression orders – not for revenue raising!

We are not discussing the suppression of genuine messages but shoudl someone broadcast mesages they feel to be “important to the lifeblood and weelbeing of the community” if they turned out to be wrong? If we take away the presumption of innocence in our legal system, the whole pack of cards comes down and you have the totalitarian state you just described. It is precisely BECAUSE we want to maintain our civil freedoms and human rights that we must preserve the right of a defendant to be tried fairly and without the input of gossip, innuendo and uninformed assumption – even if those assumptions later turn out to be correct.

Emotion has no place in law – your fear of a paedophile living next door does not negate his human rights and basic civil liberties under the law and the same applies to an arsonist or anyone else.

As for Galbally’s internet knowledge, he was contacted by Sunrise the night before as a legal expert and is not involved with the case at hand. He was brought in with barely any time to read up on the issue, never mind a complete crash course in the internet. He is not the issue here.

Kimota’s last blog post..Unsocial Media – or Why I Need to Stop Being Mr. Nice Guy!

But whereas the heritage media would have supression orders all over its back, the ‘jungle drums’ would ensure that people were warned. But rather than jungle drums and whispered secrets, we now have a communication landscape that allows for such secrets to be whispered loudly.

What difference, I ask, would you feel in your level of comfort, indeed your faith in the judicial system and the network of friends in your community, if Stalinist silence was absolute and only after the court case was heard and the verdict announced did you find that Michael from next door was, in fact, a pedophile or rapist and many times you had happily, unwittingly let your daughter/children play there after school?

Talk to some of your heritage media friends and I bet they will agree that sometimes the suppression orders are awarded more for political reasons than the alleged ‘safety of the community’. We here in South Australia are apparently the leading state in Australia for handing out suppression orders, a situation that drives local journalists mad with frustration.

Kim, I’m not arguing with your point about the necessity for personal accountability — I totally agree with you, as I do with @Stilgherrian’s tweeted remarks over on Fang’s post:

* @SilkCharm Well done on Sunrise today. The other guy hadn’t a clue and wasn’t going to listen, but you did well. #sunrisearson 23 minutes ago from TweetDeck

* @justkyp Facebook is just too big. The only way that kind of thing would get picked up is if somebody reported it. #sunrisearson 21 minutes ago from TweetDeck in reply to justkyp

* @SilkCharm Precisely my point. The law is woefully outdated. How many people realise every tweet is, legally, “publication”? about 2 hours ago from twibble

and Laurel’s comments :

* @wmeissner I assumed Sunrise would want a light touch. Shoulda come in with “imagine how much $$ lawyers make, suing 4 million Facebookers” about 2 hours ago from web in reply to wmeissner

* @susannadee I think that law was important when the Press were the only ones to help us form an opinion. The good/bad news is, that’s gone. about 3 hours ago from web in reply to susannadee

and

* @stilgherrian you USED to be not allowed to discuss an election 48 hours beforehand. THAT law got changed. Unenforceable laws get changed. about 3 hours ago from web in reply to stilgherrian

Which is *one* of my points.

No, I haven’t willfully and unnecessarily picked on the lawyer, Kim, after all he is a QC, a trained barrister and verbal rotweiller; if he were representing Dr Patel you can bet he would be ‘up to speed’ on medical terminology and procedures, so why are we willing to forgive him for not being even slightly competent on what are now mainstream cultural issues? His playing of the ‘fear’ card was predictable and as has been pointed out by others logically full of holes.

My main point is that communities have NEVER (except under totalitarian regimes with secret police troops) stopped communicating the messages they believe to be important to the lifeblood and wellbeing of their community.

Heritage media were given suppression orders partly because they could be held accountable and a shedload of money gotten out of them if they slipped up. Individuals have no such resource to fall back upon unless they are a North American investment banker (another one caught defrauding his clients today — significantly bigger fraud than the last one, apparently), so there’s little point in tying up valuable time trying to ‘get them’ — it would be like trying to hold water in one’s grasp.

As Laurel most aptly points out, the only ones to benefit would be the lawyers charging exhorbitant amounts to send out ‘Cease and Desist’ letters.

As for you, anon3.0 — I completely ignore your ad hominem simply because you don’t have the guts to give us your name. No guts, no glory; sorry. I have removed your ability to post further comments.

But whereas the heritage media would have supression orders all over its back, the ‘jungle drums’ would ensure that people were warned. But rather than jungle drums and whispered secrets, we now have a communication landscape that allows for such secrets to be whispered loudly.

What difference, I ask, would you feel in your level of comfort, indeed your faith in the judicial system and the network of friends in your community, if Stalinist silence was absolute and only after the court case was heard and the verdict announced did you find that Michael from next door was, in fact, a pedophile or rapist and many times you had happily, unwittingly let your daughter/children play there after school?

Talk to some of your heritage media friends and I bet they will agree that sometimes the suppression orders are awarded more for political reasons than the alleged ‘safety of the community’. We here in South Australia are apparently the leading state in Australia for handing out suppression orders, a situation that drives local journalists mad with frustration.

Kim, I’m not arguing with your point about the necessity for personal accountability — I totally agree with you, as I do with @Stilgherrian’s tweeted remarks over on Fang’s post:

* @SilkCharm Well done on Sunrise today. The other guy hadn’t a clue and wasn’t going to listen, but you did well. #sunrisearson 23 minutes ago from TweetDeck

* @justkyp Facebook is just too big. The only way that kind of thing would get picked up is if somebody reported it. #sunrisearson 21 minutes ago from TweetDeck in reply to justkyp

* @SilkCharm Precisely my point. The law is woefully outdated. How many people realise every tweet is, legally, “publication”? about 2 hours ago from twibble

and Laurel’s comments :

* @wmeissner I assumed Sunrise would want a light touch. Shoulda come in with “imagine how much $$ lawyers make, suing 4 million Facebookers” about 2 hours ago from web in reply to wmeissner

* @susannadee I think that law was important when the Press were the only ones to help us form an opinion. The good/bad news is, that’s gone. about 3 hours ago from web in reply to susannadee

and

* @stilgherrian you USED to be not allowed to discuss an election 48 hours beforehand. THAT law got changed. Unenforceable laws get changed. about 3 hours ago from web in reply to stilgherrian

Which is *one* of my points.

No, I haven’t willfully and unnecessarily picked on the lawyer, Kim, after all he is a QC, a trained barrister and verbal rotweiller; if he were representing Dr Patel you can bet he would be ‘up to speed’ on medical terminology and procedures, so why are we willing to forgive him for not being even slightly competent on what are now mainstream cultural issues? His playing of the ‘fear’ card was predictable and as has been pointed out by others logically full of holes.

My main point is that communities have NEVER (except under totalitarian regimes with secret police troops) stopped communicating the messages they believe to be important to the lifeblood and wellbeing of their community.

Heritage media were given suppression orders partly because they could be held accountable and a shedload of money gotten out of them if they slipped up. Individuals have no such resource to fall back upon unless they are a North American investment banker (another one caught defrauding his clients today — significantly bigger fraud than the last one, apparently), so there’s little point in tying up valuable time trying to ‘get them’ — it would be like trying to hold water in one’s grasp.

As Laurel most aptly points out, the only ones to benefit would be the lawyers charging exhorbitant amounts to send out ‘Cease and Desist’ letters.

As for you, anon3.0 — I completely ignore your ad hominem simply because you don’t have the guts to give us your name. No guts, no glory; sorry. I have removed your ability to post further comments.

And glad I’m not the only one waving the flag for taking the responsibility ourselves, Daniel.

Kimota’s last blog post..Unsocial Media – or Why I Need to Stop Being Mr. Nice Guy!

And glad I’m not the only one waving the flag for taking the responsibility ourselves, Daniel.

Kimota’s last blog post..Unsocial Media – or Why I Need to Stop Being Mr. Nice Guy!