De Minimis
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12

An editor’s note on the LSS social media policy

19/10/2015

 
DUNCAN WALLACE
Volume 8, Issue 10
The LSS social media policy has proved contentious. There are those who see it as an appropriate response to hurtful speech, and those who see it as problematic since it is overly prescriptive.
I am hesitant about restrictions on free speech. Restrictions on speech tend to protect the rich and powerful. Richard Ackland, for example, has noted in The Guardian in his discussion of speech-laws in Australia that, “it is the legal bills that force public interest defendants to roll over and shut up. The outcome is a frightful timidity in public discussion of issues that ought to be publicly critiqued."
 
Similarly, Deane J wrote in his minority judgment (at para [18]) in Theophanous that the cost of defending defamation suits have the result that
 
“the informed citizen who is not foolish or impecunious will inevitably be deterred from making, repeating, or maintaining a statement which causes injury to the reputation of another if there be a perceived risk or actual threat that the publication or further publication of the statement or a refusal to retract it will give rise to defamation proceedings. And that will be so even if the defamatory statement is known or believed to be true.”
 
The LSS social media policy may do the same here. It was put in place following comments made on a Facebook post on one of the JD pages regarding the suggestion that a woman’s room be created in the law school.
 
It was the alleged vilification of men, and not women, however, which led the Law School to have De Minimis take down an article on the issue. On the other hand, many women defended the open and frank discussion which occurred. After the decision by the LSS to remove the post, Teresa Gray, for example, made the following insightful comment:
 
“I realise this is a decision that you would have considered seriously. But I disagree that the perceived benefit of removing that particular thread outweighs the negative impact of doing so.
 
Every single person who commented was aware that they had the option of providing anonymous feedback via the form, and chose to comment instead, in the knowledge that their words would be read by around 400 people.
 
The conversation as it unfolded was circular and reductive in some ways, but I think ultimately productive. Interesting and impassioned discussions came out of it and it seems a lot of minds were changed. These kinds of divisive conversations provide the potential to educate each other about our differing experiences of the world.
 
I have no doubt that there was some harm done by the thread and it's possible that that harm actually outweighed the good that was done. But removing the thread is not going to remedy that harm.
 
It's going to undo any progress that was made in listening to each other and it increases the likelihood that we will continue to have the same conversations over and over without progressing (because these issues of inequality, sexism and harassment are not going to go away just because there is now no record that we talked about them)…”
 
As Leo Bailey wrote last week, the LSS social media policy stipulates a “high threshold for acceptable communication”. I am wary about such policies, particularly since the LSS relies heavily on corporate funding.
 
Last year, this amounted to close to $150,000, and such heavy reliance may play into decisions about what comments contravene the social media policy. For example, article or opinions posted about corporate sponsors may be removed out of fear that the sponsor will take offence and withdraw funding. As Leo notes, “trolling” is open to wide interpretation.
 
I happen to agree with him that “an attempt by the LSS via the Social Media Policy to sanitise online discourse comes across as authoritarian, and raises the suggestion of a conformist project.”
 
I recognise that this is a difficult area but I think it is appropriate to take a conservative approach to this issue. I would guard against introducing new and untried social media policies the effects of which are unclear.
 
The burden of proof should be on those who argue that it is necessary to introduce censorship.
 
Duncan Wallace is the Managing Editor of De Minimis

Articles on the same issue:
  • In Defence of Inclusive Language
  • In Defence of Trolling: (Another) Open Letter to the LSS



Amelia (Meals) Eddy
21/10/2015 11:55:15 am

Hello this is excellent. Props and cheers.

KJ
21/10/2015 07:32:42 pm

The purpose of implementing a social media policy is surely not to hinder the ‘freedom of speech’ of JD students, but simply to remind us all of the importance of tactfully expressing our views online. The extremely public context we are in when we engage in posting comments, sharing articles, or posting on social media platforms like Facebook, requires more thought and foresight into how the information will be received - by what is essentially (or potentially) an unlimited audience. The instantaneous and removed nature by which we can impart opinion from behind our screens results often in a fast and toxic outpouring; an unravelling of dialogue that lacks the integrity of a face to face human conversation or discussion. Online statements are not transient, they stick around for everyone to see and thus have longer lasting implications on those whom they offend. No one came to law school to get hurt or to be (in)directly defamed by their peers. Students are under enough stress without having to worry about being attacked on Facebook in front of the entire cohort, and I am glad the LSS has taken initiative, soon to be followed up by faculty, on this important and growing issue. There is a time and place for particular discourse, and if the Women’s Room thread taught us anything I think it is that Facebook is not that place. Think before you post.

Duncan Wallace
21/10/2015 10:38:05 pm

Hi KJ, you make some valid points. But as Teresa's comment, quoted in the article, shows, there are valid points on the other side too. I argue that censoring people's speech, online or otherwise, bears a strong burden of proof given that such censorship can have the deeply harmful effect of sanitising public discourse. This is especially so given the fact of corporate sponsorship which I talk about in the article. In this case, I don't think the burden of proof has been met given the width of the Social Media policy.

Bemused
9/11/2015 02:26:14 pm

It's pretty clear that the reactions and comments expressed in the Women's Room thread which inspired the social media policy exactly meet this all important 'burden of proof' you speak of.

Duncan Wallace
30/11/2015 01:59:24 pm

As I said, Teresa's comment shows that it's certainly not "pretty clear"

text summarizer link
20/11/2015 07:18:12 am

The extremely public context we are in when we engage in posting comments, sharing articles, or posting on social media platforms.


Comments are closed.
    Picture

    Archives

    October 2022
    September 2022
    December 2021
    October 2021
    September 2021
    August 2021
    July 2021
    May 2021
    April 2021
    March 2021
    February 2021
    October 2020
    September 2020
    August 2020
    July 2020
    June 2020
    May 2020
    April 2020
    March 2020
    February 2020
    October 2019
    September 2019
    August 2019
    July 2019
    May 2019
    April 2019
    March 2019
    February 2019
    October 2018
    September 2018
    August 2018
    July 2018
    May 2018
    April 2018
    March 2018
    February 2018
    October 2017
    September 2017
    August 2017
    July 2017
    June 2017
    May 2017
    April 2017
    March 2017
    February 2017
    November 2016
    October 2016
    September 2016
    August 2016
    July 2016
    May 2016
    April 2016
    March 2016
    February 2016
    December 2015
    October 2015
    September 2015
    August 2015
    May 2015
    April 2015
    March 2015
    October 2014
    September 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    April 2014

Powered by Create your own unique website with customizable templates.
  • Home
  • ABOUT US
  • Podcast
  • Your Learned Friend
  • Anonymous Feedback
  • Art
  • Get published!
  • Constitution
  • Archive
    • 2018
    • 2017
    • 2017 >
      • Semester 2 (Volume 12) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (election issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
    • 2016 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 9) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 10) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8 (Election Issue)
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
        • Issue 13 (test)
    • 2015 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 7) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
      • Semester 2 (Volume 8) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
    • 2014 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 5) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
      • Semester 2 (Volume 6) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 12
    • 2013 >
      • Issue 1
      • Issue 2
      • Issue 3
      • Issue 4
      • Issue 5
      • Issue 6
    • 2012 >
      • Semester 1 (Volume 1) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12
      • Semester 2 (Volume 2) >
        • Issue 1
        • Issue 2
        • Issue 3
        • Issue 4
        • Issue 5
        • Issue 6
        • Issue 7
        • Issue 8
        • Issue 9
        • Issue 10
        • Issue 11
        • Issue 12