Index relies entirely on the support of donors and readers to do its work.
Help us keep amplifying censored voices today.
The teenager accused of making “grossly offensive” comments about the deaths of six British soldiers in Afghanistan has denied charges against him. Azhar Ahmed, of West Yorkshire, appeared before Dewsbury Magistrates’ Court today. Ahmed is charged under the Communications Act 2003 after allegedly posting a message on Facebook earlier this month commenting on the relative coverage of British soldiers killed in a bomb blast in Afghanistan and the deaths of Afghan civilians. The teen also faced a racially-aggravated public order charge, but this was withdrawn before the court today. Ahmed will will stand trial at Huddersfield Magistrates’ Court on 3 July.
Another week and another case of a young man getting into trouble over social media postings.
Last week, it was Azhar Ahmed, who angrily ranted about soldiers on his Facebook page, and now faces trial under the Communications Act 2003 (though the initial charge that his posting had been “racially aggravated” has been dropped).
This week, it is Swansea student Liam Stacey. Twenty-one-year-old Stacey today pleaded guilty of a “racially aggravated public order offence” after he tweeted racist remarks about Bolton Wanderers footballer Fabrice Muamba, and then addressed further racist remarks at tweeters who challenged him. (you can view Stacey’s now-deleted timeline here. Very strong language http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nA5v2eZ5ZZE).
The two cases have several common elements. Both involve social networking sites. Both involve young men. Both outbursts were reactions to widespread, communal grief.
And both raise the question: is the law as it stands fit for purpose? The pace at which social media changes the way we communicate is startling, even though the intuitive nature of much of the technology we use makes it seem normal. It is difficult now for many to remember life before Twitter, and almost impossible to think of life before YouTube, just seven years ago. We do not really think of posting a tweet or a Facebook status update as “publishing” or “sending a message” in the same way as printing a leaflet or even sending a text message.
The Twitter Joke Trial rightly upset many people, who saw in the prosecution of Paul Chambers a misunderstanding of both the message and the medium. But the question is, can a law be formulated that will accommodate free expression online? Or, given the changing nature of electronic communication, is any law doomed to obsolescence?
Padreig Reidy is Index on Censorship’s news editor
A former New Zealand cricketer is suing a former Indian Premier League boss over a Twitter posting at the High Court today. Chris Cairns is taking action against Lalit Modi following a Tweet from January 2010 which alleged Cairns was involved in match fixing. The case is being heard in London, despite the the claim only 35 readers of the post were from England and Wales.
A former Conservative council candidate has lost in his attempt to sue Google for hosting “defamatory” comments on a blog.
Payam Tamiz, who was ditched as a council candidate in Thanet, Kent, after being found to have referred to local women as “sluts” on Facebook, claimed that Google was the publisher of the comments, hosted on the company’s Blogger platform. Mr Justice Eady rejected this notion and refused to allow Tamiz continue the case.
The troubles of one misguided young politico don’t amount to a hill of beans in this crazy world, but Tamiz has inadvertently established something quite important here. Google and other internet service providers cannot be considered publishers.
Publishing is a conscious act, and even with all the resources in the world, Google could not publish all the content that appears on its platforms every day.
This is not the first time someone has tried to sue Google as a publisher. In Spain, attempts have been made to hold Google responsible for content that appears on government and newspaper websites. Meanwhile, former motorsports chief Max Mosley is attempting to sue the company in 22 separate jurisdictions.
The judgment chimes with the government’s latest publication on libel reform, which recommends that ISPs be recognised as conduits rather than publishers in any dispute. Mr Justice Eady has taken a lot of criticism from the press in the past, but this is an excellent decision.