Thank you for providing valuable perspective
I agree with what you've written
Ever since humans squatted in caves, they've communicated. Communication is hard wired in humans. It's why language developed
People have always voiced their opinions - over the fence, on the street, in the workplace, on buses and trains, via phone, in public places, through the print and televised media, etc. Always
Someone posted recently that the numbers of murders per thousand in Australia have remained pretty much constant in the years, for example, 1907 and 1997. Many of us remember many of those murder cases and can remember how it was then before social media
When Graham Thorn was kidnapped and brutally murdered back in the 1960's, thousands of people made their way to the street in which he'd lived. Enterprising others sold coffee, newspapers, ice-creams etc. to those crowds
The print media and tv indulged in sensationalistic updates and devoted hours to coverage which was saturation, Australia wide
As result, discussion of the case was encouraged. It was impossible not to know about the case, so intense was main stream media coverage
Where were those complaining about 'influencing the trial' back then ?
Where were police warning the public not to discuss the case back then ?
Why don't these 'concerned legal people' admit that because of social media -- the mainstream news isn't making the same sort of profit from grisly crimes as they used to and the mainstream media is angry about that and trying every trick in the book to regain it's profitable edge, using 'legal experts' as their tool ?
How long has social media been mainstream? What -- ten years? Less?
So suddenly social media is being portrayed as the villain of the piece -- yet for thousands of years, people have voiced their opinions, speculations etc., about crime -- and for thousands of years, this public voicing of opinion has NOT been seen to 'prevent a fair trial'. Obviously -- because they've still managed to form juries
We're supposed to accept and preach to others now though, that 'social media' could jeoparise fair trials ? Lol. I'm not buying the argument. It's see through. I regard all the blather about the detrimental effects of social media as bulldust, as hoopla, being spun by people who want to sell their latest book or want to create a new job for themselves vetting social media
uch::nurse:
