Facebook Blamed For Accused Killer's Name Spreading...
from the free-speech-anyone? dept
Steven sent over a story out of Australia, where the guy accused of a triple murder (an adult couple and their 16-year-old daughter), has had his name "suppressed" by the court, in an effort to keep the jury from pre-judging the guy. However, before that could happen, the guy's name got out and quickly spread all over Facebook, leading some to claim that this is Facebook's fault:"Because Facebook is such an interactive site there could be tens of thousands of people who have access to the name," barrister Craig Caldicott said.Frankly, almost nothing Caldicott says here makes sense to me, other than the fact that many people might have access to the name. However, I honestly don't see how the name would have impact on justice. A potential juror could know everything about the case -- three people stabbed in their home, etc. -- without knowing the guy's name. How would knowing or not knowing his name make any difference at all? Separately, it's not Facebook that put the information out there, but the users, people in the community who wanted to share that information. The information is effectively public information, and it's silly to then blame a company, because its users are spreading information that is already widely known.
"It may have a huge impact on justice because a potential juror may have access to that information and opinions that have been published.
"Facebook are in breach of the suppression order -- it's the company who put it out there."
Another oddity in the story is the news that the victims' family had to spend time asking Facebook to take down the name:
Mourning family members and memorial page administrators spent the afternoon trying to delete all references to the man, but his name was public knowledge well before his court appearance.I don't understand why they should be doing this at all. The name is out there -- and you'd almost think they'd like the name to be out there, rather than trying to hide it. I guess they're afraid that it will negatively impact the trial, but again, I'm at a loss for how the name makes any difference if people already know the actual details of the murder.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: australia, jury, names, privacy
Companies: facebook
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
"people already know the actual details of the murder"
I don't *exactly* agree with the UK habit of hiding names in court cases that are public here in the US (so I've no problem with Facebook here, oddly), but it's a big leap to assume that the *facts* are reported by the press. The only fact is that the press loves lurid murders and plays them up; that's a bit worse in the UK, and perhaps because of that courts also tend to suppress the press more.
So let's just stick to "innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt", and *always* disbelieve everything you read in the press.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "people already know the actual details of the murder"
Yeah, it's not Facebook's fault, it's the people who decided they'd break the Order made.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "people already know the actual details of the murder"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: "people already know the actual details of the murder"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: "people already know the actual details of the murder"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "people already know the actual details of the murder"
Secondly. How screwed up is Australia's legal system where the victim's family are tasked with suppressing the facts?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "people already know the actual details of the murder"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "people already know the actual details of the murder"
What an assumption you make! Everything that appears in the press or on Facebook is absolutely true, eh?
I think you're missing the point. Facebook is being accused of releasing the identify of the person in question, not the details fo the alleged crime. What Mike is saying is that knowing the person's name wouldn't have an affect on the objectivity of people who already knew the details of the murder (through "normal" news channels).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "people already know the actual details of the murder"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Look - if I was on the jury, I would be 100% unbiased as to his guilt. Now, if guilt was PROVEN, then he should get the very most the justice system can throw at him.
But just because he's been charged - his name doesn't matter, it's not even relevant - doesn't mean he's guilty.
The problem isn't Facebook - it's the media. The media is the ones to paint a person guilty or innocent half the time.
But in the case of Australia, the UK, the US - surveillance, TSA groping, wiretapping have LONG SINCE tossed out any notion of 'innocent until proven guilty' - the justice system has nothing to do with that concept anymore.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I am also not aware that the UK does suppress the names of the accused in trials, except where the accused is a minor. Mind you I have been away for over 7 years, so perhaps Labour changed this while they were in government.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ex post facto?
So, what if it had been a newspaper that had published the name of the accused killer before the court ordered that the person's name be kept secret? Would the newspaper have to recover every single newspaper sold? Even in the case where the "platform" takes editorial responsibility for publishing information, such as a newspaper, this still wouldn't make sense. You can't unrelease information to the public. Doesn't Australia have rules against issuing ex post facto decrees? Or is this barrister just (preteding to be) ignorant of the law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
If Caldicott still doesn't get it, Australia has facilities where people with conditions like his can receive developmental therapy.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Oh just get it over with
Then ban the printing press. Letting People spread gossip and information willy-nilly was never a good idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Attorney: Mr. Juror, you are being questioned for potential selection in the trial of Joe Smith for murder. Are you aware that Joe Smith is on trial for murder?
Juror: Yes, I saw it on Facebook.
Attorney: Rejected!
Attorney: Mr. Juror, you are being questioned for potential selection in the trial of Joe Smith for murder. Are you aware that Joe Smith is on trial for murder?
Juror: Yes, because you JUST FUCKING TOLD ME. It would be hard for me to serve as a juror on this trial without knowing that the trial was taking place!
Attorney: Approved!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Even if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Even if...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]