Social Media Accountability: Facebook, Riots & Celtic

Reading this piece on the BBC news site today gave us a chilling reminder of how the world of social media communication is changing.

Judges came down hard on those involved in the UK riots earlier this year, and MP’s and barristers cried foul play at some of the “OTT” sentences handed out following those convictions. I am sure we all agree – it was important to send a message to those involved that this behaviour just wouldn’t be ignored and would certainly not go unpunished. Two young men had their appeals turned down today, after receiving prison sentences of four years for encouraging rioting on Facebook (rioting that did not in fact take place). Is it just us, or does that not seem heavy handed? When we see other rioters receiving lighter sentences for crimes like burglary and selling stolen goods, does it seem fair to send two young men to prison for four years for a flippant (albeit ill conceived) remark on a social network?

Opinions are divided. It has been well publicised that the riots were inflamed by user behaviour on social networks – and in many ways, these same networks enabled the riots to grow and fester in a way that no other medium could have. But, can we go from an atmosphere of free speech and expression (something we expect and should be very proud of, throughout all our media) to a situation where social media updates are being used to send users to prison?

An ill-advised but innocent tweet made by Paul Chambers in January 2010 about an airport delay landed him a conviction and a £385 fine (plus £600 costs). His mantle was taken up by a number of high profile Twitterers and celebrities – including Stephen Fry, Rufus Hound and Graham Linehan. His appeal is ongoing, but is a matter of principle at the end of the day. Thankfully for Chambers, he is unlikely to be serving time for his lapse in judgement.

The same cannot be said for Stephen Birrell, a Glaswegian sentenced to eight months in prison this week following a conviction for sectarian hate crimes – he was responsible for posting anti-Catholic (and anti-Celtic) comments on Facebook. His posts were certainly nasty and came just days after Birrell was released early from serving a twelve month prison sentence. However, as defense solicitor John McLaughlin pointed out, “These postings were distasteful and abusive. However, his postings did not contain threats or incitement to violence.” Harsh verdict?

So what does this all mean for the future of social media and the law? Thankfully, a post-riot knee jerk reaction was avoided by David Cameron and the UK government, following talks with the UK police force and representatives from the major social media sites. Are we likely to see any new legislation to deal with future situations like this? At the end of August, the Home Office confirmed that “the government did not seek any additional powers to close down social media networks”.

So – the message? Social media content needs to being taken seriously.

Anyone who chooses to post content onto a social media network needs to think twice about it – which is a good and a bad thing of course.  Be aware that once that content is out there, it is publicly available to anyone who wishes to access it. Upcoming changes to the Facebook profile itself (namely, the Timeline feature) are going to make checking into your past activity on Facebook a lot easier…