Thanks to advertising campaigns, we are all aware of the dangers of drink driving, smoking and alcohol. One thing more and more people are discovering the dangers of is social media.
In Plato’s story of the Ring of Gyges the wearer of a ring is given the power of invisibility. Universally, this would result in the person turning to theft, as they would never be caught. Plato concluded that morality comes from accountability, that without fear of being caught, people act immorally.
What would he say about the Internet?
Crime on social media is on the rise. You only need to look as far as Swansea to see how dangerous social media can be. Liam Stacey of Swansea University was sent to jail for 56 days for inciting racial hatred after Fabrice Muamba had a heart attack on the pitch.
Keir Starmer of the Crown Prosecution Service has said, “Banter, jokes and offensive comments are commonplace and often spontaneous. Communications intended for a few may reach millions.” This is true enough; Liam Stacey only had 94 followers, but after a few retweets, was broadcasting to a much bigger audience.
Jason Clowes paying his respects after the Ely hit and runs. Photo: Facebook
Even closer to home, Jason Clowes of Ely faced hell when a rumour circulated on Twitter that he was the man behind the wheel in the Ely hit and runs in October. Clowes and his family were subjected to death threats in what is normally a tight community. “I hated being accused of something I never did,” he said, “People should think more. [Social media] is dangerous. It ruins marriages and families and lives.” The Ely community has apologised since.
Accidental law breaking
Perhaps more concerning than people knowingly committing crimes over social media, such as racism and hate crimes, is the number of people who have committed crimes without even realising. Racism, as in the Liam Stacey case, is an offence we are all aware of, but increasingly people are breaking laws that they probably did not even realise existed.
Just last month nine people were fined £624 for giving away the identity of the victim in the Ched Evans rape case. The question has to be asked how many people know that giving away the identity of the victim of any sexual offence is a crime?
What this shows is that we as a nation have a shockingly low knowledge of the legal system. The fact is that we need to be more educated, and have an understanding of the laws you or I might be breaking.
The most recent example of this is the Lord McAlpine Twitter case, whereby several thousand users defamed him by naming him as a paedophile. Of course, he responded, asking those with less than 500 followers to donate £5 to Children in Need. This is a far smaller sum than the £125, 000 and £185, 000 in damages that ITV and BBC respectively were ordered to pay him. In the future, you can imagine people will not be so merciful to the general public.
What needs to be done?
Cardiff University lecturer Duncan Bloy has been vocal about this issue. He insists that we need to bring more attention to social media, saying, “I am increasingly advocating that there needs to be more public information, advertising campaigns, about the consequences of misusing social media.”
Right now Starmer is in the process of consulting and drafting guidelines that will be given to prosecutors to decide whether to convict for crime on social media. Bloy feels that people need to see these in order to advise them on how to behave online, “I do think that when these guidelines come out to prosecutors, they should be widely circulated, there should be a lot of publicity.”
It is clear that Mr Starmer does not want to be wasting the public’s money by prosecuting every case that crops up, no matter how big or small, nor does he want to impinge on freedom of speech.
One solution that Bloy suggested was to give users a second chance when posting on social media, much in the same way as when you select a file to be deleted. ‘Are you sure?’ it would ask. That puts the responsibility in your hands
In France, drivers are required to carry two breathalysers in the car. If you go for a meal you breathlyse yourself after, and are over the limit, this serves as evidence. It puts the responsibility in your hands, and you have no defence, because in a free society, you should be responsible for the things you say.