Anonymitet som problem i de sociala medierna!

Hej,

Idag tänkte jag ta upp ett viktigt problem, nämligen det här med att gömma sig bakom anonymitet i de sociala medierna.

Att detta verkligen är ett problem blir tydligt när vi ser alltfler fejkprofiler som far runt och kränker andra användare.

Det finns också juridiska problem kring det här eftersom olika länders lagar och jurisdiktioner styr vad som får sägas och hur det får sägas.

Mark Pearson som skrivit boken Blogging & Tweeting Without Getting Sued – A Global Guide To The Law For Anyone Writing Online lyfter fram den här problematiken på ett bra sätt.

Han tar bland annat upp exempel från olika länder genom att hänvisa till olika rättsfall och hur domstolarna dömt i olika mål som berör just anonymitet i de sociala medierna.

När det gäller USA så påpekar han att “Even in the US, authorities can move with considerable speed and secrecy to demand account details of suspects when plaintifs or prosecutors can prove their action has merit. In 2010 the editor of the Home In Henderson Blog, Jason Feingold, was ordered by the North Carolina Superior Court to turn over identifying information on six anonymous commenters on his blog post “Arrest Made in Elder Abuse Case”. The posings of “Beautiful Dreamer”, “Fatboy” and others were ruled actionable and disclosure of their identities ordered despite First Amendment and state shield law protections”. (Pearson.2012:73-74)

Redan 20111 kom det ett prejudikat på området, och Mark Pearson berättar i sin bok att:

In mid-2011, Colorado District Court magistrate Judge Boyd N Boland produced an excellent summary of US decisions on discovery of anonymous sources and pieced together the criteria US Judges apply before ordering their identification in the course of delivering his judgment in Faconnable USA Corporation v John Doe 1-10. The tough US tests pre-dated the Internet and were shaped by Supreme Court decisions over five decades protecting anonymous speech as a First Amendment right”. (Pearson.2012:74)

Mark Pearson also tells us that:

In his Faconnable decision, Judge Boland cited Talley and explained that litigants seeking to out an anonymous writer must:

1. Give notice of their action

2. Identify the exact statements that constitute allegedly actionable speech

3. Establish a prima facie (“at first sight”) case against the defendant with enough evidence for each basic element of the action

4. Balance the defendant´s First Amendmenut rights of anonymous free speech against the strength of the case

5. Show that the disclosure serves a substantial governmental interest

6. Ensure it is narrowly tailored to serve that interest without unnecessarily interfering with First Amendment freedoms, and

7. Convince the court that the case could not proceed without disclosure of the identity

(Pearson.2012:74-75)

Att det finns problem med jurisdiktionen när olika rättssystem är inblandade visar sig i fallet där en fotbollsspelare från Wales försöker sätta stopp för anonyma kommentarer om honom på Twitter.

Mark Pearson redogör kort för detta fall och vad som hände, och skriver då att:

Lawyers for a famous Welsh footballer were not as successful in discovering the anonymous tweeters who had revealed the celebrity sportsman´s name in breach of a UK injunction issued to protect his privacy. They had gone to London´s High Court and won an order that Twitter reveal the details, but the US microblogging company seemed to have disregarded it because they were not obliged to comply with court orders from outside their jurisdiction”. (Pearson.2012:77)

I Kanada däremot så tillämpas ett fyrpunkts test för att avgöra om man skall skydda anonyma bloggares identitet eller inte. Mark Pearson skriver kort om hur det fungerar i Kanada och påpekar att:

Judges need to consider whether:

1. The unknown alleged wrongdoer could have a reasonable expectation of anonymity in the circumstances

2. The litiggant has established a prima facie case against the unknown alleged wrongdoer and is acting in good faith

3. The litigant has taken reasonable steps to identify the anonymous party and has been unable to do so, and

4. The public interest in disclosure outweighs the interests of free expression and right to privacy of the anonymous authors”.

(Pearson.2012:80)

Advertisements

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: