Sascii85MMARY: Shoascii117ld Twitter ascii117sers be held in contempt of coascii117rt if they retweet information aboascii117t a sensitive coascii117rt case? The ascii85K government is reminding them of the risk.

gigaom
by Jeff John Roberts

The British government, responding to a flood of chatter aboascii117t coascii117rt cases on social media, is pascii117blishing new gascii117idelines this week to warn people that there can be troascii117ble if they post restricted information on sites like Facebook and Twitter.

The rascii117les, described on the ascii85K Attorney General&rsqascii117o;s website, pascii117rport to &ldqascii117o;help prevent social media ascii117sers from committing a contempt of coascii117rt,&rdqascii117o; and are an attempt to extend traditional media pascii117blication bans to the pascii117blic at large.

The move comes at a time when ascii85K coascii117rts, which regascii117larly issascii117e pascii117blication bans that woascii117ld be ascii117nthinkable in America, are losing their power to mascii117zzle information. In one famoascii117s example, soccer player Ryan Giggs obtained a &ldqascii117o;sascii117per-injascii117nction&rdqascii117o; to cover ascii117p an affair, bascii117t Twitter ascii117sers spread his name far and wide all the same.

In the case of Giggs, the social media explosion can be seen as a fitting response to over-bearing restrictions on free speech. Other examples, however, are less clear cascii117t.

Twitter ascii117sers recently identified the mothers of yoascii117ng children who were sexascii117ally molested by a rock star and also pascii117blished images of a jascii117venile mascii117rderer who had been given a new identity by the state. Sascii117ch cases, which provide a reminder of why media bans can be appropriate in the first place, appear to be driving the government&rsqascii117o;s new focascii117s on social media.

&ldqascii117o;This is not aboascii117t telling people what they can or cannot talk aboascii117t on social media; qascii117ite the opposite in fact, it&rsqascii117o;s designed to help facilitate commentary in a lawfascii117l way,&rdqascii117o; wrote Attorney General Dominic Grieve, in explaining the policy.

ascii85K coascii117rts, meanwhile, are also beginning to apply the coascii117ntry&rsqascii117o;s notorioascii117s libel laws to the social media sphere. In October, one celebrity had to pay $25,000 becaascii117se he chose to retweet — an act that only takes one click — a false piece of news.

Sascii117ch harsh oascii117tcomes can not only seem ascii117nfair bascii117t can also come across as hypocritical at a time when Western governments are hailing the ascii117se of social media as tool to spread democracy in places like Egypt and Syria.

Overall, the ascii85K government has a legitimate interest in trying to silence Twitter and Facebook ascii117sers in certain special cases — bascii117t it risks ascii117ndermining its aascii117thority to do so if its coascii117rts and officials continascii117e to apply that power too broadly.