Tweeting the law
27/04/09 11:13 Filed in: Social
networking practice
A magistrate is in trouble for Tweeting about his
cases - I was annoyed at first as he was within the
law, but then I thought about it...
My first reaction on seeing that a magistrate had
resigned because of complaints that he’d
Tweeted about his cases was
some sort of indignation. He was right, I
thought, he’s not broken any laws and yet
there have been complaints forcing him out of
his job. All because he repeated stuff that was
already in the public domain.
Of course, sober reflection is always a good idea on these occasions. On consideration I’d have to agree he’d been unwise not because of any confidentiality, which he clearly didn’t break, but because of his position as a publisher.
Yes, I said publisher. One of the things that social networks do to people is to turn them into publishers, and maybe more importantly, editors. I’m choosing to comment on this story which is already on the BBC, so I’m probably not bringing it to any wider an audience than it would already have had. If I had a couple of hundred thousand followers on Twitter and friends on Facebook, though, it would be different. I would arguably be expanding the audience for the case, and I’d be doing so by sifting for items in which I consider my readers would be interested.
Now let’s consider it from the magistrate’s point of view. He may not see it in these terms but unless the cases on which he was Tweeting were already receiving loads of attention from the local and national press, he’s expanding the potential audience for selected activities from the court (he is presumably focusing entirely on cases in which he is involved). He is therefore drawing attention to them, based either on the fact of his involvement or his own judgement of whether they’re interesting. He is more or less acting as a publicist.
OK, he’s still not breaching confidences and it’s all in the public domain. But by pushing some cases further into public attention than others, he’s stepped way outside the role of a magistrate. I’m still sorry he’s had to step down and hope this will prompt the publication and development of some sensible guidelines on how these things should be handled - but this case illustrates not that social networks can affect an innocent bystander adversely, but that we’re only just starting to understand the role these networks are going to play in public life and our interaction with it.
Of course, sober reflection is always a good idea on these occasions. On consideration I’d have to agree he’d been unwise not because of any confidentiality, which he clearly didn’t break, but because of his position as a publisher.
Yes, I said publisher. One of the things that social networks do to people is to turn them into publishers, and maybe more importantly, editors. I’m choosing to comment on this story which is already on the BBC, so I’m probably not bringing it to any wider an audience than it would already have had. If I had a couple of hundred thousand followers on Twitter and friends on Facebook, though, it would be different. I would arguably be expanding the audience for the case, and I’d be doing so by sifting for items in which I consider my readers would be interested.
Now let’s consider it from the magistrate’s point of view. He may not see it in these terms but unless the cases on which he was Tweeting were already receiving loads of attention from the local and national press, he’s expanding the potential audience for selected activities from the court (he is presumably focusing entirely on cases in which he is involved). He is therefore drawing attention to them, based either on the fact of his involvement or his own judgement of whether they’re interesting. He is more or less acting as a publicist.
OK, he’s still not breaching confidences and it’s all in the public domain. But by pushing some cases further into public attention than others, he’s stepped way outside the role of a magistrate. I’m still sorry he’s had to step down and hope this will prompt the publication and development of some sensible guidelines on how these things should be handled - but this case illustrates not that social networks can affect an innocent bystander adversely, but that we’re only just starting to understand the role these networks are going to play in public life and our interaction with it.
0 Comments