rettiwt

Aahh, you have to love (hate) social networking don't you? With all the joys come all the dismays and trouble we get from putting content online which "others" weren't meant to see or misinterpreted.

I really don't think most folk know what you put online, anyone with an internet connection can read unless you take precautions by restricting access.

We all remember my post from a bit ago now about this poor fella. No more airport-related jokes going online anymore.

Twitter has thrown up two points of interest lately. First, is on tweeting from a court-room and the differences between it just being a judge and there being a jury present. A professional judge is capable of not being influenced but a jury. Hmm.

As Joshua Rozenburg discusses on the Guardian site, live tweeting in court looks set to run into legal problems.

This has all come about because of a consultation paper from the Judicial Office in England and Wales.

Court reporting is sensitive stuff and heavily involves the Contempt of Court Act 1981 and the attached reporting restrictions. Now, the problem is even if the journalist obeys this, as the consultation paper says: "other users of Twitter may respond to these posts by posting or linking to prejudicial material or commentary which would not be admissible in court"

Lets not forget, courts are open to the public so who can tweet is another grey area. Who do you define as a member of the press? The NCTJ have law examinations which prepare a journalist for court reporting and many media outlets have legal advisors when the grey area comes into focus.

With our contempt laws, if Twitter and other social networking is to be used, restrictions on who and what can be broadcast from the court to the online world have to have some restrictions to avoid a substantial risk of serious prejudice. Maybe a case-by-case basis?

The other question is about the demand for it? Do we need tweets from court? Probably not, with 24 hours and almost instant filing of copy during a recess, but we want it because we can do it and that could run into some sticky legal treacle.

The second twit-astrophe, read about it here from the Independent, is the first time the PCC (Press Complaints Commission) has ruled on the reproduction of material from Twitter. Please read the comments section as well for a good suggestion?!

A Civil Servant has had her complaint of invasion of privacy rejected. Her "Tweets" were published in the Daily Mail and Independent on Sunday in November, but she said there were only meant to be seen by her followers.

However, the PCC ruled the fact the tweets were publicly accesible was the key - tweets can be re-tweeted, meaning original followers can forward on tweets outside of the original group and civil servants rules on polictical impartiality.

I do wonder how many people really consider the things they put online and the consequences of them - let's not forget this social media is still fairly new and the fact that anybody can use it, has to be asking for trouble.

With all these legal difficulties with social media it has got me questioning my participation in twitter, facebook and this blog - one wrong move and bang! You are right in the mess.