Blogs, Tweets and Etalk – Risk Management and A New Legal Frontier Part One

Blogging and tweeting through mediums such as Facebook, LinkedIn and Twitter have become a mainstream medium of communication. These various mediums have also been used to develop brand and business or cult web presence. There are many examples of brands that have been able to become household names on account of their extensive web footprint. Any business or individual that is intent upon increasing their level of notoriety (in a positive capacity) can ill-afford not to have a strong web footprint.

Web communication in many respects has become a substitute for letter writing, the facsimile, postal means of communication and even conversation. Web communication; be it by blogging or twitter has also changed the application of language use. There is now a very large sub culture of ‘web speak’ which is characterised by an abbreviated turn of phrase, a new vernacular, a pigeon English or pigeon French, let’s just call it plain pigeon. ‘Web pigeon’ is all about conveying a message as quickly as possible and this is engineered by abbreviated discourse.

Coinciding with the evolution of abbreviated discourse is a relaxation and inadvertent disregard for the traditional rigours, that were part and parcel of the more traditional means of communication such as carefully considered letter writing.

By virtue of the trend where ‘web speak’ has become a substitution for conversation participants endeavour to type or blog as quickly as they can talk. Yet emails, blogs, and tweets are not substitutes for conversation.

Blogging, tweeting and emailing are all mediums of publication

That means they can all be defamatory, insulting, caustic and acerbic. The frightening thing is once “the genie is out of the bottle” the genie can never be shoved back into the bottle. Intemperate and acerbic email communications can go “viral”. This metaphor perfectly describes that given opinions or comments albeit brief comments, if they catch the public imagination can be republished and recirculated thousands if not millions of times. The communications are in a sense nomadic, no fixed place of jurisdictional domicile. That which makes the front page of the Melbourne Age or The Times may only attracted local readership. That which is published on the web, regardless of whether it hits the right note or the wrong note, can quickly assume an international audience.

That is why social media has accelerated the spread of civil disquiet, civil revolution and regime change in the likes of the Middle East; a Baghdad tweet or smart phone footage segment can hit the TV screens of faraway shores of the likes of New Zealand within two hours of the publication.

Organisations and people have not fully appreciated the seismic shift in risk and accountability that has been perpetrated by the ‘web speak’ revelation

Too often a retort to the question “did you know that tweets and blogs can be defamatory” is “no I did not”. Too many assume that this new substitute for conversation endows one with some sort of immunity. It categorically does not. The risks associated with ‘web speak’ or ‘web pigeon’ are abundant; to name a few:

• Defamation
• Breach of confidentiality
• Potentially criminal conduct
• Racial, religious or cultural vilification
• In circumstance where offence is taken the potential for serious reprisal
• The forfeiture of one’s privacy and anonymity
• The characterisation of one’s self as being something that is
  at odds with a better definition of who one actually is

Potential for serious statutory censure

The leaking of confidential information can culminate in high level censure. The United States has taken umbrage with the publication by Wikileaks of that which it considers to be of state secret persuasion. Currently Mr Assange is “enjoying” political asylum at the Ecuador embassy. He is concerned by the fact that the Swedish government wishes him to stand trial for alleged matters to do with female complainants. His concern is that if he were to be extradited to Sweden the USA may be able to ‘rapidly migrate’ him to the US for prosecution of breaches of security regulation. Although he has the patronage of prominent civil libertarians and well-meaning advocates the old adage ‘do not mess with City Hall’ may well apply to him.

Any citizen of any jurisdiction must appreciate that anything that is published on the web that will give the security arm of government pause will be noted and if the government believes there is a threat to national security then there is every chance that the sovereign will have legislation that can impose criminal sanction which could be detention in perpetuity. J.Edgar Hoover would have revelled in the age of web communication because so much of the unfavourable material that he had to locate by surreptitious means can now be found in the public domain.

It is therefore vital that the citizens be encouraged to exercise the highest level of restraint in regards to the expression of views that could be considered a threat to national security even in the most democratic of societies. Furthermore if the case of Julian Assange is of any guidance it amplifies the notion that one`s country of birth will not necessarily becomes one`s benefactor or protector. Because the internet is a world-wide medium a foreigner can publish material that is an effrontery to another jurisdiction and if that jurisdiction is powerful it can assume sovereignty for want of a better word over the unwitting individual.

In circumstance where offence is taken the potential for serious reprisal

Three years ago an outspoken Christian extremist filmed himself burning the Koran. This footage went viral and Muslim extremists announced on the web that he should be assassinated. There may have been no specific law that banned the burning of the Koran but under any criteria that was conduct that was bound to cause considerable offence and angst. One surmises that the conduct was designed to cause offence and it most certainly did. The “incinerator” would have been most ill-advised to take a vacation in the likes of Afghanistan unless he was intent upon purchasing a one way ticket.

This is a more extreme example of conduct and publication that is designed to cause offence. One surmises that on any given day, material or comment is published on the internet that either by accident or by design causes offence. Once offence is taken then unintended consequences and reprisal can ensue.