CURB ON SOCIAL MEDIA CARRIES RISK
PREMIER Peter Gutwein’s decision to pause comments on some government Facebook sites is prudent, but unfortunate. Those who spend much time on social media will be well familiar with the freewheeling nature of comments sections, but the High Court’s ruling in the Voller case will inevitably have a chilling effect on freedom of expression.
The court has decided that those who set up social media pages can be held liable for the legal ramifications of comments posted thereon, rather than the social media site’s owners, or the commenters themselves.
In legal terms, social media is a relatively new phenomenon. The judges of the High Court applied case law and legislation dating back decades, even centuries, to a medium that has existed barely 20 years. Fortunately, it is unlikely that the court’s decision in this case will be the final word on the matter.
In any free society, there needs to be a balance between unfettered right of expression and an individual or group’s right to be protected from false, harmful and malicious commentary. It is an issue being played out on a global stage as communities fight against misinformation in the Covid-era.
Those with an interest in free speech would argue that the Voller ruling has imposed an impossible burden on those who have a social media presence. If the state government, with all the resources at its disposal, is unable to comply with the new burden of moderating comments on social media posts in real time around the clock, what hope is there for media organisations, or community groups, or individuals? Is the chilling effect on free speech, on public debate and on the free exchange of information a fair price to pay for the benefits?
Australia already has one of the most restrictive defamation regimens in the world, one which severely restricts the right of citizens to be informed about matters of public importance. It is something that this newspaper has fought for under the Right to Know campaign.
The trend in recent years has been for greater restrictions on the free expression of opinion, not less. The Voller ruling imposes a fresh layer upon all of us who are active on social media, a decision where the ramifications are yet to be fully realised.
Is what has been gained greater and more desirable than what has been lost? As Tasmanian government agencies ponder their responses to this ruling, it is possible that a valuable avenue for citizens to give direct feedback to those in power is in danger of being lost. Should this problem be solved by legislators, or left to courts alone? A new balance is needed, if in curbing the worst excesses of the social media age, we end up losing the more democratising of its benefits.