Courts perplexed over hydra headed internet

“I may be the whipping boy, but this is about a court system perplexed and possibly powerless  over a hydra-headed instant communications thing called social media…

“Even  totalitarian states like China and North Korea find their jackboots can’t kill internet.”

 

In the week that Derryn Hinch rejoins the radio industry, as a regular commentator for 2GB (see other story), he is in trouble again with the courts.

Hinch has been charged with contempt of court for publishing supressed material in his online Friday Thoughts editorial. The material has now been blanked out and replaced with a notice saying: “This material has been suppressed by order of the Victorian Supreme Court.”

In the same editorial he also published the name and photo of the ‘prominent Australian entertainer’ who was arrested in relation to the Jimmy Savile case in the UK. This is potentially a defamation matter.

The significance of both publications centres around the law and the internet. For better or worse, old legal rules concerning supression, contempt and defamation are being rendered obsolete by blogging and citizen journalism on the internet.

Hinch is an easy target to make an example of. He is well known and has a history of such offences. But what about the hundreds of other anonymous people on the internet who also posted the entertainer’s name and the salacious details of Jill Megher’s rape and murder? Will they be charged with contempt of court too? If they do not live in Australia they are beyond the court’s jurisdiction, yet anyone in Australian can still read their posts.

The entertainer’s name is all over twitter, as a simple search reveals, but he has not been named by mainstream Australian media yet. Yet another example of the internet running ahead of mainstream publishing and the law.

While what Hinch wrote is of interest for its news value, what is of more interest is the way courts are attempting to use old, ineffective legal methods to deal with the new challenges of the internet, that render many of the old ways of regulating journalism obsolete.

Hince has written about this topic today on his website, saying:

This is not about me. Make no mistake. I may be the whipping boy but this is about a court system perplexed and possibly  powerless  over a hydra-headed instant communications thing called  social media. A lighting fast international information system, often undisciplined, reckless and defamatory with which judges and politicians are trying to wrestle.

They may be able to inhibit it but they can’t control it. Even  totalitarian states like China and North Korea find their jackboots can’t kill internet opinion. Today, Judge Geoffrey Nettle in the Victorian Supreme Court ordered that I be charged with contempt of court over matters covered on this website last Friday.  Comments made under headline ‘Jill Meagher’ and dealing with the man, Adrian Bayley, who has now pleaded guilty to her rape and murder.

On Friday, Bayley – who had earlier pleaded guilty to the charge of raping Ms Meagher —  changed his plea  to guilty on the charge of murder.

On Friday morning the Herald Sun ran an explosive front page article containing information about Bayley and his family. The newspaper also predicted that Bayley was about to change his murder plea to guilty. I figured they must have confirmed that with court sources or his lawyer. Not something you would punt on.

I made no mention of that in my editorial on HumanHeadline.com.au because I had no confirmation of that and because I was posting my editorial  before the court convened. An erratic man could change his mind.

And this is why I believe, with respect, that Judge Nettle is barking up the wrong tree.  

Friday Thoughts was posted Friday morning. The judge’s almost blanket suppression order had not then been made. I could understand if he was angry though because the Herald Sun story did push to the edge of the legal envelope. In fact, I was recently talking to a senior lawyer, well versed on contempt and defamation law, and he said the media guide book on what could and couldn’t be published pre-trial had been ‘ virtually ripped up’ over the Meagher case.

That is why, I think, the courts are angry and worried, and need to make an example…

For the full editorial, go to the humanheadline website.

 

 

s_ahernheadshottight_221This radioinfo article written by

Steve Ahern