Social media is a juggernaut. It's way too big and embedded to control or shut down. It can be regulated though, with the cooperation and common sense of everyone involved in it. I think internet communities have been given a huge amount of power and its largely up to them to consider how they use it. It has grown too quickly for the law to keep pace. Australians have always valued a fair go and as a culture I think we strike a pretty good balance between not letting ourselves be dictated to by authority but also respecting the rights of others. That's why I love the joint. We're not perfect but i think we do it better here than in most other places.
I know almost nothing about Mr Baden Clay except that the QPS believe he murdered his wife. As a fellow Aussie I reckon I owe him the right to a proper hearing based on the evidence that passes the court's test for fairness. I reckon his family and those who care about him, including his kids, also deserve some respect and consideration. It would be bad enough having lost one family member then having another one accused of killing her without every Tom, Dick and Harry suggesting all sorts of other horrific things without any regulation at all. If enough people repeat an allegation, no matter how little real evidence there is for it, it starts to acquire the trappings of 'fact'. People forget where the rumour started and it gets passed on as if it's true. That can be truly hurtful to the subject of the allegations but also totally devestating if the the subject is facing a serious criminal charge that could result in them having the rest of their life ruined and their family torn apart.
On the other hand, I don't feel any particular sympathy for the guy beyond that, for all the reasons that were discussed here before the arrest. And all the talk about permanent stays on indictments and aborted trials I reckon doesn't really help. It just confuses people further and it causes defensive reactions and perhaps even intensifies the level of animosity when people feel their right to have an opinion is threatened. I listened to the lunch break video on the CM yesterday and it all just sounded like confused waffle to me. All well intentioned but full of mixed messages and uncertainty about what they were actually trying to say.
I also reckon that most people are fair minded enough that when a judge tells them to make a decision based only on the evidence they hear in the court that they can and will do that. Presumably judges are fair and decent enough to follow that advice themselves, so why can't we extend the same assumption of decency to the members of the community who do jury service? So many people are on social media and internet forums now that there's little point in hoping that vague warnings about subjudice will just stop internet speculation. That would be just sticking our heads in the sand.
I've got no answers to any of this, but I think that each of us could at least pause for thought before we press 'submit' on a post and consider whether what we are doing or saying is fair to all concnerned. I don't reckon that the law can effectivley regulate, on its own, what happens in social media these days but we can all play our part by valuing the wider audience it gives to our thoughts and by continuing to question our own actions. Just MOO. I'd really like to hear other people's opinions about this.
