Is it illegal to name and shame rioters online?
andyt @ Fri Jun 24, 2011 11:42 pm
EyeBrock EyeBrock:
I’ll play with you for another trolled out page andy.
This lawyer is giving his interpretation of the events. He’s not even saying any offences have been committed by those asking for the rioters to be held accountable. He’s just doing a bit of grandstanding that criminal-lawyers do to up their profile to potential customers.
Even the baying hordes of right-wing reformacons saying ‘they should be strung up’ aren’t committing a criminal offence.
“Utter threats” is a tough one to prove on internet chatter.
There are several specific points to prove before the offence is complete, none of them apply to ‘they should be strung up’. It’s not even an indirect threat . Look it up.
These veiled ‘warnings’ you are handing out come from zero knowledge of the law and as such hold no credibility or weight other than their inherent trolling factor.
Now run along before I taunt you for a second time.
This lawyer is giving his interpretation of the events. He’s not even saying any offences have been committed by those asking for the rioters to be held accountable. He’s just doing a bit of grandstanding that criminal-lawyers do to up their profile to potential customers.
Even the baying hordes of right-wing reformacons saying ‘they should be strung up’ aren’t committing a criminal offence.
“Utter threats” is a tough one to prove on internet chatter.
There are several specific points to prove before the offence is complete, none of them apply to ‘they should be strung up’. It’s not even an indirect threat . Look it up.
These veiled ‘warnings’ you are handing out come from zero knowledge of the law and as such hold no credibility or weight other than their inherent trolling factor.
Now run along before I taunt you for a second time.
Well, here's what he said, rather than what you wish he said:
$1:
Clearly, encouraging vigilante justice can be criminal. But there are other concerns as well.
For example, posting a picture or video on a site dedicated to outing "criminals" may be branding those shown as criminals, which may not turn out to be the case.
Defamation laws protect a person's reputation, but they also permit the publication of facts that can be proven true, as well as opinions based on provable facts.
Posting that someone was a rioter, or encouraged the rioters, is defensible if the audio-visual evidence supports that.
In addition, concluding that a depicted act is deplorable or shameful is protected comment on a matter of public interest.
The law protects responsible communication on matters of public interest, where bloggers can demonstrate that they were diligent in trying to verify their allegations before publication, even where the facts they do publish turn out to be untrue.
On the other hand, labelling someone as a "criminal" could require proof close to the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" if a defamation lawsuit were launched.
For example, posting a picture or video on a site dedicated to outing "criminals" may be branding those shown as criminals, which may not turn out to be the case.
Defamation laws protect a person's reputation, but they also permit the publication of facts that can be proven true, as well as opinions based on provable facts.
Posting that someone was a rioter, or encouraged the rioters, is defensible if the audio-visual evidence supports that.
In addition, concluding that a depicted act is deplorable or shameful is protected comment on a matter of public interest.
The law protects responsible communication on matters of public interest, where bloggers can demonstrate that they were diligent in trying to verify their allegations before publication, even where the facts they do publish turn out to be untrue.
On the other hand, labelling someone as a "criminal" could require proof close to the criminal standard of "beyond a reasonable doubt" if a defamation lawsuit were launched.
And:
$1:
Identifying and showing young people at these riots is perfectly within the law — until they are charged with an offence under the Youth Criminal Justice Act.
At that point, publications have to remove the link between the charges and the identifiable young person involved, and trust that earlier posts still online don't make that link plain.
At that point, publications have to remove the link between the charges and the identifiable young person involved, and trust that earlier posts still online don't make that link plain.
And:
$1:
The fact that the law permits bloggers to help the police identify rioters is beneficial. It discourages potential rioters from believing that they're anonymous and can get away with anti-social behaviour in future.
It also helps us find and punish the right people.
This works as long as we remind ourselves that we are facilitating justice, not working on substitute remedies without the safeguards that are built into our current system to protect innocents caught up in controversial events.
As a society we should withhold judgment, not only where the circumstances are unclear, but where the pictures seem clear but the whole story has yet to come out.
It's easy to get caught up in the frenzy of getting the bad guys.
But we shouldn't forget that we're not only defending ourselves and our property against the actions of particular people, we're defending our civilized democracy, which works because of institutions like the justice system that, by and large, keep us peaceful and secure.
It also helps us find and punish the right people.
This works as long as we remind ourselves that we are facilitating justice, not working on substitute remedies without the safeguards that are built into our current system to protect innocents caught up in controversial events.
As a society we should withhold judgment, not only where the circumstances are unclear, but where the pictures seem clear but the whole story has yet to come out.
It's easy to get caught up in the frenzy of getting the bad guys.
But we shouldn't forget that we're not only defending ourselves and our property against the actions of particular people, we're defending our civilized democracy, which works because of institutions like the justice system that, by and large, keep us peaceful and secure.
Nothing outrageous, no grandstanding, no liberal asshattery. Just a calm exposition of some legal truths. Try reading is slowly, and getting somebody to help you with the multi-syllable words and maybe (can always hope) it will sink in.
There are also now posts about some of the pics shown on the outing sites being Photoshopped. One was very obvious of a guy in a Canucks jersey put in the middle of a riot obviously in Britain. But others may not be so obvious. Also something to keep in mind.
Also, the concern about threats and harrassment goes beyond internet chatter. Some of the outed people have been contacted by e-mail or phone, and apparently threats have been made. You should know that is an offense, to contact a specific person and make a threat at them, not "all rioters should be strung up."
EyeBrock @ Sat Jun 25, 2011 7:46 am
And again, both you and the learned sales-guy fail to miss the point. A criminal act is one that breaks a law as defined in the criminal code.
A criminal conviction is a different matter.
Neither the police nor citizens need a court to give them authority to arrest any person committing a criminal offence. Nor does a court need to convict them before we can all say out loud that they are accused ‘criminals’ committing a ‘criminal’ act.
This is not a complicated concept in Canadian criminal law.
As for the YCJA implications, the courts are finding (as they are in civil injunctions in the UK) that the wired world cares naught for court rulings on privacy. If you are in a public place doing stupid, criminal shit somebody will use their cell phone to capture your idiocy and criminality. 5 seconds later it will be on FaceBook whether you are 17 or 70. No court on the planet can stop this stuff anymore.
I'd love to see those idiots caught on camera committing overt criminal acts try to sue somebody for calling them 'criminals' before a court conviction.
This lawyer is as full as hot air as you are. He has an excuse, he’s pushing for business, you on the other hand are out of your depth as usual.
Trolling, trolling, trolling…..