March 7, 2008

Blog

Threats on Facebook dismissed by judge

Media Summary

A Canadian judge acquitted a man who had posted blog comments on his Facebook site about bombing a Children’s Aid Society, saying that information on the site is part of a fantasy environment and that the man was just “blowing off steam”.

The man, who had created an online group for bashing the Children’s Aid Society after his son was removed from his care, posted content that according to the news report “stated that if he found out the name of the hospital nurse who contacted Children's Aid, he would be going "straight to Hell" with a "25-year pit stop" in prison. There were also postings that talked of a suicide bomb attack”.

The judge said he understood the society’s response to the blog posts and the response of police in arresting the man. But the judge also accepted the testimony of the defendant who claimed he meant no harm, and the testimony of Jesse Hirsh, a Facebook ‘consultant’ who testified that Facebook is a ‘fantasy-based environment’ where people “in effect, construct an alternate persona” and place exaggerated comments to attract friends.

Linda’s Things to Think About

This ruling begs to be compared to the two cases underway in the U.S. where judges have ruled that companies can subpoena content that minors placed on their social networking sites, and use that information as a basis for denying medical claims and more - see my blog Corporate Cyberbullying -- Your Blogs May Be Subpoenaed.

I’m baffled. How is it that an adult can publicly post his intent to bomb a facility in this post-911 era and be acquitted by a judge for not intending to intimidate because he was just “blowing off steam” on a ‘fantasy-based site’, yet other judges take an entirely opposite view – with minors?

If the acquitted man had emailed the same comments to someone rather than blogging them, would it have been treated as more factual or less factual? Is it more likely to be deemed true when transmitted electronically to one person, or more likely to be true if electronically broadcast to thousands (or millions) of people?

Is there some kind of sliding scale for ‘fantasy-based-environments’ among the various social networking sites? If the bomb threat comments had been placed on LinkedIn (a business oriented social networking site) would the judge have come to a different ruling as it is presumably less of a ‘fantasy-based-environment’? Is MySpace more or less of a fantasy environment? What about Eons, Bebo, Zanga … or Second Life?

If the comments placed on social networking sites – whether publicly or privately - are fantasy and cannot be construed to be an attempt intent to intimidate, can anyone be prosecuted for cyberbullying, or sexual predation due to comments left on such sites?

The difference in rulings may be a national one – Canadian judges vs. U.S. judges – but I doubt cultural disparity is the driving force.

I’m more inclined to believe that the dearth of Internet education provided to judges and courts leads to very inconsistent understanding and interpretation of how to evaluate online content; and that this, in turn, drives inconsistent applications of how online content gets treated by courts of law.

This is a red-flag issue

The apparent disparities highlighted in recent cases indicate that it’s time to ask elected officials what measures have been taken to prepare courts to consistently evaluate and interpret online actions and information. And to ask those in the judicial and law enforcement systems whether they have received adequate, consistent Internet instruction, information and guidance.

Online actions need to be weighed against well considered precedents of relationships between opinion expressed in public media and later actions. Judges and courts need to be trained to distinguish between fantasy and intent, but recognize that their best interpretation will be just a guess. Therefore, they do need to assign responsibility for public statements made by adults, even if people are just blowing off steam, because virtual threats often portend real harm. As a society we have chosen to err on the side of public safety when threats are made.

Until there is standardized Internet training in place for those in the legal system we cannot feel confident that those on trial for cases where the Internet played a role will be evaluated appropriately – and the Facebook consultant who convinced a judge that comments on social networking sites are just fantasy may become a very in- demand guy.

Click here to read the full article.

Linda