Interesting

The media can interact in many different ways with the court system.

1 way

Court show

Arbitration-based reality court show

Far more realistic than their dramatized predecessors, arbitration-based reality versions do not use actors, scripts, or recreations. Rather, they feature litigants who have legitimately been served and filed lawsuits, presenting their cases to an adjudicator (in exchange for agreeing to appear on the show, the litigants must agree to dismiss their genuine cases with prejudice). Behavior and commentary from all participants involved is self-directed as opposed to script-directed. As such, these types of court shows fall into a subcategory of reality television. It is for these reasons that many of these particular programs make clear claims to authenticity, as text and voiceovers remind viewers that the cases, litigants, and outcomes are “real.”

more…

2nd way

Social Media – Challenges for Lawyers and the Courts

1. As the clock ticked into the early minutes of morning on Wednesday, 31 May 2017, all was quiet on the streets of Washington DC. The journalists and political operatives that track the Twittersphere were ready to switch their phones to silent and get some much-needed shuteye for the day ahead. Until … ding! At 12.06am, the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump, had something to share with his 31 million followers about the state of the union. The President is never one to hide his light under a bushel, especially when discussing his concept of fake news. The Twitter post began: “Despite the constant negative press covfefe”.

more…

The judges and the media

One of the easiest things for a reporter to produce is knocking copy about the judiciary and the legal system. The “law is an ass” piece almost writes itself. Readers are more than ready to nod-along with any attack on a supposed judicial idiocy or misapplication of the law.

https://www.ft.com/content/5224851d-af85-37d7-b5f3-07c56d76385b

more…

Tau.Neutrino said:

2nd way

Social Media – Challenges for Lawyers and the Courts

1. As the clock ticked into the early minutes of morning on Wednesday, 31 May 2017, all was quiet on the streets of Washington DC. The journalists and political operatives that track the Twittersphere were ready to switch their phones to silent and get some much-needed shuteye for the day ahead. Until … ding! At 12.06am, the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump, had something to share with his 31 million followers about the state of the union. The President is never one to hide his light under a bushel, especially when discussing his concept of fake news. The Twitter post began: “Despite the constant negative press covfefe”.

more…

Media law is a huge thing. Read through some high profile Australian cases at https://journlaw.com/. Or get a copy of the textbook. It’s interesting stuff and a real minefield.

One interesting thing to note is that you are responsible for everyone’s comments on your Facebook page. So if you post something which gets your friends and followers riled up, you are responsible for their comments.

Such a thing happened in 2012 when Gerard Baden Clay was arrested for his wife’s murder. QPS (Qld Police) posted an update on their public Facebook page saying he had been arrested. Many commenters had already decided he was guilty and called for capital punishment etc. QPS had to delete all those comments because a Victorian court had previously ruled that fb comments are the responsibility of the page owner (ie, the “publisher”), not the individual. As far as I am aware, Australia is one of the only countries in the world where this is the case: other countries have ruled comments are the authors’ own.

For more info on the Gerard Baden Clay/QPS case, see https://journlaw.com/2012/06/14/queenslands-biggest-publisher-the-police-try-to-calm-the-fb-lynch-mob/

For info about you being the publisher of your Facebook page, see https://journlaw.com/2012/06/12/the-liability-time-bomb-of-comments-on-your-fb-fan-page-medialaw/

Divine Angel said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

2nd way

Social Media – Challenges for Lawyers and the Courts

1. As the clock ticked into the early minutes of morning on Wednesday, 31 May 2017, all was quiet on the streets of Washington DC. The journalists and political operatives that track the Twittersphere were ready to switch their phones to silent and get some much-needed shuteye for the day ahead. Until … ding! At 12.06am, the 45th President of the United States of America, Donald J Trump, had something to share with his 31 million followers about the state of the union. The President is never one to hide his light under a bushel, especially when discussing his concept of fake news. The Twitter post began: “Despite the constant negative press covfefe”.

more…

Media law is a huge thing. Read through some high profile Australian cases at https://journlaw.com/. Or get a copy of the textbook. It’s interesting stuff and a real minefield.

One interesting thing to note is that you are responsible for everyone’s comments on your Facebook page. So if you post something which gets your friends and followers riled up, you are responsible for their comments.

Such a thing happened in 2012 when Gerard Baden Clay was arrested for his wife’s murder. QPS (Qld Police) posted an update on their public Facebook page saying he had been arrested. Many commenters had already decided he was guilty and called for capital punishment etc. QPS had to delete all those comments because a Victorian court had previously ruled that fb comments are the responsibility of the page owner (ie, the “publisher”), not the individual. As far as I am aware, Australia is one of the only countries in the world where this is the case: other countries have ruled comments are the authors’ own.

For more info on the Gerard Baden Clay/QPS case, see https://journlaw.com/2012/06/14/queenslands-biggest-publisher-the-police-try-to-calm-the-fb-lynch-mob/

That one needs to change to reflect proper ownership and authors of comments

idea’s borderline dodgy really, not unexpected of the TV world and what’s commercialized

transition said:

idea’s borderline dodgy really, not unexpected of the TV world and what’s commercialized

I counted around 20 arbitration style court shows on the wiki article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_show

If more of these shows are to appear, then someone needs to keep track of the dodgy factor.

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

idea’s borderline dodgy really, not unexpected of the TV world and what’s commercialized

I counted around 20 arbitration style court shows on the wiki article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_show

If more of these shows are to appear, then someone needs to keep track of the dodgy factor.

it’s a neat psychological bridging to trial by media, + lends to some weird shit regards informal behavior controls. Licenses idiots, for idiots. Probably marginally educational, for some, idiots.

transition said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

transition said:

idea’s borderline dodgy really, not unexpected of the TV world and what’s commercialized

I counted around 20 arbitration style court shows on the wiki article

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Court_show

If more of these shows are to appear, then someone needs to keep track of the dodgy factor.

it’s a neat psychological bridging to trial by media, + lends to some weird shit regards informal behavior controls. Licenses idiots, for idiots. Probably marginally educational, for some, idiots.

Yes, marginally educational.

It would be interesting to compare similar cases, normal court vs media court. Or run the same case in a real court then again in media court.

I’d like to see how media judges compare with a computer running the case using the same algorithms judges use or bring it into the show somehow.

Tau.Neutrino said:

That one needs to change to reflect proper ownership and authors of comments

I am unsure about the legalities of Twitter comments, however it does seem clear that Australian law has not caught up with all the uses of social media, let alone the internet. Maybe it is addressed in the new edition of the book?

I am unaware of anyone being charged with defamation over a Tweet, although most companies have a social media clause in their employment contracts which state (more or less) that the employee must not make offensive or defamatory comments with their Twitter account, including comments or complaints about their employer or employer interests. For example, a government worker can be sacked for making comments deriding the government’s official stance on any topic even if they use a throwaway account.

Divine Angel said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

That one needs to change to reflect proper ownership and authors of comments

I am unsure about the legalities of Twitter comments, however it does seem clear that Australian law has not caught up with all the uses of social media, let alone the internet. Maybe it is addressed in the new edition of the book?

I am unaware of anyone being charged with defamation over a Tweet, although most companies have a social media clause in their employment contracts which state (more or less) that the employee must not make offensive or defamatory comments with their Twitter account, including comments or complaints about their employer or employer interests. For example, a government worker can be sacked for making comments deriding the government’s official stance on any topic even if they use a throwaway account.

I would think it hard to defame a tweeter because unlike Facebook it’s not a name so no real life damages.

transition said:

idea’s borderline dodgy really, not unexpected of the TV world and what’s commercialized

spot on.

AwesomeO said:

Divine Angel said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

That one needs to change to reflect proper ownership and authors of comments

I am unsure about the legalities of Twitter comments, however it does seem clear that Australian law has not caught up with all the uses of social media, let alone the internet. Maybe it is addressed in the new edition of the book?

I am unaware of anyone being charged with defamation over a Tweet, although most companies have a social media clause in their employment contracts which state (more or less) that the employee must not make offensive or defamatory comments with their Twitter account, including comments or complaints about their employer or employer interests. For example, a government worker can be sacked for making comments deriding the government’s official stance on any topic even if they use a throwaway account.

I would think it hard to defame a tweeter because unlike Facebook it’s not a name so no real life damages.

it’s the new democracy, mate, that and market forces, to make it all work it helps if you lose the ability to discern, to distinguish between.

whatever puts you amongst the advertisements, that’s the new democracy.

Divine Angel said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

That one needs to change to reflect proper ownership and authors of comments

I am unsure about the legalities of Twitter comments, however it does seem clear that Australian law has not caught up with all the uses of social media, let alone the internet. Maybe it is addressed in the new edition of the book?

I am unaware of anyone being charged with defamation over a Tweet, although most companies have a social media clause in their employment contracts which state (more or less) that the employee must not make offensive or defamatory comments with their Twitter account, including comments or complaints about their employer or employer interests. For example, a government worker can be sacked for making comments deriding the government’s official stance on any topic even if they use a throwaway account.

The tweet that cost $105,000

A NSW school teacher has made legal history after a former student was ordered to pay $105,000 for defaming her on Twitter and Facebook.

In the first Twitter defamation battle in Australia to proceed to a full trial, District Court judge Michael Elkaim ruled that former Orange High School student Andrew Farley should pay compensatory and aggravated damages for making false allegations about music teacher Christine Mickle.

more…

Defamation by social Media by David Rolph

Internet technology, particularly social media platforms, has transformed the way people communicate. By facilitating the dissemination of user-generated content, social media
platforms have exposed a greater number of people to the risk of defamation, both as plaintiffs and defendants, than mainstream media

More…

Tau.Neutrino said:

Divine Angel said:

Tau.Neutrino said:

That one needs to change to reflect proper ownership and authors of comments

I am unsure about the legalities of Twitter comments, however it does seem clear that Australian law has not caught up with all the uses of social media, let alone the internet. Maybe it is addressed in the new edition of the book?

I am unaware of anyone being charged with defamation over a Tweet, although most companies have a social media clause in their employment contracts which state (more or less) that the employee must not make offensive or defamatory comments with their Twitter account, including comments or complaints about their employer or employer interests. For example, a government worker can be sacked for making comments deriding the government’s official stance on any topic even if they use a throwaway account.

The tweet that cost $105,000

A NSW school teacher has made legal history after a former student was ordered to pay $105,000 for defaming her on Twitter and Facebook.

In the first Twitter defamation battle in Australia to proceed to a full trial, District Court judge Michael Elkaim ruled that former Orange High School student Andrew Farley should pay compensatory and aggravated damages for making false allegations about music teacher Christine Mickle.

more…

Well there you go.

It is harder to prove you’re behind a Twitter account, but I believe Twitter is stepping up its policies and technology to mine more data from you in the pretense of making the platform a safer place from trolls and the like.

> The media can interact in many different ways with the court system.

I haven’t read the links yet, so am not sure if you’ve covered these two.

• Hounding of the defendant and his/her lawyers by dozens of reporters.
• Hyping every minor court case (eg. burglary, brawl) in the press. ie. Crime paparazzi. I noticed this most in England.

I noticed two media articles in two days with big headlines like “accused murderer enters not guilty plea” for crimes committed 20 and 25 years earlier. Yeah, like that’s news.

PS. I like arbitration. It’s literally 3,000 times as fast as the more familiar system.

Tau.Neutrino said:

Interesting

The media can interact in many different ways with the court system.

1 way

Court show

Arbitration-based reality court show

Far more realistic than their dramatized predecessors, arbitration-based reality versions do not use actors, scripts, or recreations. Rather, they feature litigants who have legitimately been served and filed lawsuits, presenting their cases to an adjudicator (in exchange for agreeing to appear on the show, the litigants must agree to dismiss their genuine cases with prejudice). Behavior and commentary from all participants involved is self-directed as opposed to script-directed. As such, these types of court shows fall into a subcategory of reality television. It is for these reasons that many of these particular programs make clear claims to authenticity, as text and voiceovers remind viewers that the cases, litigants, and outcomes are “real.”

more…

> produced in a simulation of a small claims courtroom inside of a television studio.

Huh? They’re fake?

> Far more realistic than their dramatized predecessors

Like Perry Mason.

Tau.Neutrino said:

The judges and the media

One of the easiest things for a reporter to produce is knocking copy about the judiciary and the legal system. The “law is an ass” piece almost writes itself. Readers are more than ready to nod-along with any attack on a supposed judicial idiocy or misapplication of the law.

https://www.ft.com/content/5224851d-af85-37d7-b5f3-07c56d76385b

more…

Like the McDonalds coffee incident. Third degree burns to your genitals is no laughing matter, and McDonalds got hundreds of millions of dollars of free publicity out of that.

Divine Angel said:

For info about you being the publisher of your Facebook page, see https://journlaw.com/2012/06/12/the-liability-time-bomb-of-comments-on-your-fb-fan-page-medialaw/

Thanks for that DA. I had no idea. Some quotes from the link.

“What if someone posted a comment to your Facebook fan page alleging a leading businessman in your community was a paedophile? … Defamation and contempt are matters of ‘strict liability’, where you might be liable even if you are ignorant of the defamatory or contemptuous content you are publishing. The only intent required is that you intended to publish your publication or were ‘reckless’ in the publishing of the material. And neither has offered protection for publishers providing a forum for the comments of others. If the Federal Court has ruled you should remove unmoderated material breaching consumer or race law within a reasonable time of becoming aware of it, what will courts deem a ‘reasonable time’ for a serious allegation of child molestation about a prominent citizen to remain on a publisher’s Facebook fan page? It will be no defence for the respondent media outlet to say, ‘But we only published what the reader sent us’.”