Peter Black's Freedom to Differ

Defamation on Facebook

As if to demonstrate Judge Ryrie's point from my previous post about the uncertainty of Facebook pages ("that anyone can create an identity that could mimic the true person's identity"), I then read this story about a defamation case in the UK centred around a fake Facebook page:

A businessman whose personal details were "laid bare" in fake entries on the Facebook social networking website has won a libel case at the High Court.

Mathew Firsht was awarded £22,000 in damages against an old school friend, Grant Raphael, who created the profile.

The judge ruled that Mr Raphael's defence - that the entry was created by mischievous party gate-crashers at his flat - was "built on lies".

The profiles were on Facebook for 16 days until they were taken down.

Mr Firsht accused Mr Raphael of creating a false personal profile, and a company profile called "Has Mathew Firsht lied to you?".

Mr Raphael claimed that "strangers" who attended an impromptu party at his house in Hampsted in London sneaked off to a spare bedroom and created the profiles on his PC.

The judge heard that the private information concerned Mr Firsht's whereabouts, activities, birthday and relationship status and falsely indicated his sexual orientation and political views.

Bearing a grudge

Mr Firsht complained about allegations that he owed substantial sums of money which he had repeatedly avoided paying by lying, and that he and his company were not to be trusted.

Deputy Judge Richard Parkes QC awarded Mr Firsht £15,000 for libel and £2,000 for breach of privacy.

Mr Firsht's company, which finds audiences for TV and radio shows and provides warm-up services for live audiences, including the evictions on Big Brother, was awarded £5,000 for libel.

He accused Mr Raphael of bearing a grudge against him since they fell out in 2000 and of creating a false Facebook entry with the aim of causing him anxiety and embarrassment.

Read more here (from BBC News).

Service via Facebook?

When legal proceedings are initiated in Queensland, a copy of the claim and statement of claim must be given to or 'served' on the defendant.  This is usually done by way of personal service, where the relevant documents are personally handed to the defendant.  However, in cases where that is a practical impossibility, substituted service can be ordered by the court.  Substituted service allows for the documents to be served by some other means, usually by post.

In Citigroup Pty Ltd v Weerakoon [2008] QDC 174, Judge Ryrie considered whether service could occur via Facebook:

An alternative was requested in the amended application in order that a sealed copy of the claim might be emailed to the defendant's  - what is described as "Facebook page" on the web.  I am not so satisfied in light of looking at the - the uncertainty of Facebook pages, the facts that anyone can create an identity that could mimic the true person's identity and indeed some of the information that is provided there does not show me with any real force that the person who created the Facebook page might indeed be the defendant, even though practically speaking it may well indeed be the person who is the defendant.   

At this stage, however, I am not inclined to make the alternative order being sought in the amended application.  However, I am prepared on the material I have got to order substituted service, as I have stated.

This seems like the right conclusion.  However I am sure that the day will come when service can occur via Facebook or other similar social networking sites.

One more Big Brother post

Given my gushing rant on Monday night you probably thought that would be the last post on Big Brother for some time, possibly ever.  However, I thought I'd post this video that pays tribute to the 2008 housemates:

Can Jayent Patel receive a fair trial?

An op-ed piece I wrote looking at how the internet may impact upon whether Jayent Patel can receive a fair trial is in today's Courier Mail.  It is available online here.

While on hiatus ...

While this blog was on hiatus I was mainly concentrating on a few different research projects, but I did manage to do a few things that may be interest to regular readers.

First, I attended Microsoft's inaugural Politics and Technology Forum in Canberra. The keynote address was delivered by Matt Bai, political writer for the New York Times magazine and was followed by two panel sessions focusing on Blogging, social networks, political movements and the media and Politics 2.0 – information technology and the future of political campaigning.  I was on the first panel, which you can watch here.  If you're interested you should also check out Stilgherrian's Twitter stream of the event here.

Second, I attended a fantastic conference hosted by the ARC Centre of Excellence for Creative Industries and Innovation, Creating value: between commerce and commons.  You can follow my Twitter stream of the event here.

Third, I attended The Future of Federalism Conference, hosted by the University of Queensland.  Once again you can follow my Twitter stream of the event here.

Fourth, I had a op-ed piece posted to ABC News Online Opinion on the preliminary privacy ruling in the Viacom and Google litigation, "Who is watching YouTube? The US courts want to know".  Read it here.

It's time to go Big Brother ... for now

The last episode of Big Brother ended tonight with the words "It's time to go Big Brother ... for now".  So hope remains that Big Brother will one day return in some form.  But for now it is worth reflecting on the past eight seasons.

I've always blogged a bit about Big Brother and have refused to apologise for it, so I thought it was appropriate to share some of my thoughts and reflections and once again explain I think it was good TV.  So you understand where I'm coming from here is my 2007 declaration where I told readers of this blog that they must watch Big Brother!:

Ok.  I'll admit it.  I watch Big Brother (well, at least the evictions) and follow the going-ons in the house on the Big Brother website and Behind Big Brother. I've even gone to a couple of live evictions.  I've been following the show since year one, day one.  And I enjoy it.  I find the relationships, the characters, the politics, the games Big Brother plays and even Gretel Killeen entertaining - and occasionally even insightful.  Most of my so-called "intellectual" friends and colleagues consider that there must be something wrong with me (even though most are also able to follow a conversation about the show quite easily). However, I refuse to apologise for it.  Big Brother isn't meant to change the world, but it is good TV.

And last night's episode of Big Brother was great TV - we got to select two new housemates, a relationship in the house were revealed, the reason for the mysterious White Room was disclosed, and Mr X was introduced to Australia and the unsuspecting housemates.  If you have no idea what I'm talking about or think that this all sounds silly, then you are missing out.  This season has been set up as possibly the best Big Brother ever.  The housemates are older and more diverse (although still ridiculously good looking), the house has adopted a positive environmental stance, and most importantly, the first two episodes have shown that this season's Big Brother has a wonderfully wicked sense of humour.  The housemates - and us - have absolutely no idea what Big Brother will throw at them next.  Now, that is good TV.

As many of you reading this post will just dismiss it as a rant from a tragically deranged fan, may I suggest that if you are a reality TV sceptic you should read an excellent piece in one of your so-called "intellectual" magazines, The Atlantic Monthly by Michael Hirschorn, "The Case for Reality TV: What the snobs don't understand".  Read it here.

So if you want to know what all the fuss is about, then you should watch this season of Big Brother.  And enjoy it for what it is - good TV.  Don't be embarrassed and don't apologise for it.  After all, you don't have to tell people that you watch it ...

Read it here.

Let me begin by admitting that Big Brother was far from perfect TV - they had to fill so much air time, especially in the seasons with UpLate, that it was inevitable that at times it was far from compelling.  In fact, at times it was downright dull.  Other times, it was incredibly silly, which you could either embrace for what it was or dismiss it as juvenile.  Some housemates, tasks, twists, sets and even hosts were better than others (for the record, I thought Gretel Kileen was far superior to Kyle and Jackie O).  So given its inconsistency, what was its appeal?

For me the show worked for two reasons.  First, it was entertaining.  This was largely due to the housemates and the relationships they formed with one another.  They willingly shared their emotions with each other and with the public.  When at the end of the finale this evening we had a montage of the past eight seasons, I couldn't help but recall so many fascinating relationships and wonderfully real, honest moments.  I'm thinking of Christina and Peter; good guy Ben; Marty and Jess; Peter when his young brother runs into the house after he has been announced as the winner of season 2; Reggie and her heartbreaking self-realisation that she wanted to change her life after Big Brother; Chrissie screaming at Ben; the twins in season 5; Tim Brunero trying so earnestly to lift the tone of political discussion in the house; Vesna's rawness; David, the 'token' gay farmer; the mother-daughter twist; Jamie and Katie; Aleisha and Billy; the White Room; Bodie and TJ's fighting; and then there was the 52 year old grandmother Terri winning this, the final season.  Love them or hate them, Big Brother resulted in Australia seeing some different personalities on TV.

Second, right from the beginning the show became part of the national conversation and it was able to use its unique profile to raise issues that otherwise do not get discussed  on TV: homosexuality, racism, refugee policy, issues of body image, sexual harassment and assault, censorship and sexuality.  And up until this year all this was done thanks to Gretel's deft touch.  Big Brother was able to deal with all these issues in a way other shows could not.  Because it was real.  Or at least a lot more real than Neighbours, Home and Away or A Current Affair could ever even aspire to be.  Whether or not you liked the show you cannot dispute the profound influence it had on Australia's culture, probably more so than any other Australian TV show in the past decade.

So as far as I'm concerned Big Brother will be missed.  To the show's producers, housemates, Gretel and everyone who worked on the show for the past eight years, I say thank you.  For all its occasional banality and triviality, your Big Brother was more than just fun to watch, it changed TV and had a positive impact on Australia's national conversation.

Blogging resumes

Six weeks ago I put this blog on hiatus, not knowing when if ever I would return to blogging.  It had become too time consuming and no fun.  I felt as though I had to post every day.  It consisted little more than me embedding videos and cutting and pasting from interesting material that other people had written, which was never what I intended this blog to become.  it had morphed into something I didn't really want it to be.  So I stopped.

But I have decided to resurrect it.  Over the last six weeks I'd come to miss it; not the daily grind of constantly having to find something to post to, but the forum that it gave me to share what interested me and to express my ideas and opinions.  So my return to blogging is governed by two simple rules.  First, I won't feel compelled to blog every day.  Second, I will only blog when I have something to say (even if at times it is as simple as saying I agree with someone else).  As a consequence, there will be less updates, but hopefully they will be more interesting and meaningful than what I was churning out before.

My return to blogging also marks the launch of a new niche blog, Black ConLaw, which will look at developments in Australian constitutional law.  If that topic interests you, you can find out more about that blog here.

So that blogging remains fun, I also intend to play around with some new technology and experiment with some new ways of expressing myself online.  You can see my first crude attempt at this with the Seesmic video embedded below.

Basically, I hope that what all of this means is less but better blogging.  And please let me know how you think I'm going in achieving that goal.  There has never been much of a culture of conversation on this blog, which I would like to change.  So please comment if you agree or disagree with anything I say.

Finally, in addition to this blog and Black ConLaw, there are many other ways you can connect with me online.  My tumbelog Freedom to Dither is where most of the videos and lighter stuff that used to be on this blog will now be posted to.  You can check that out here.  Plus, there is always Twitter, delicious and Facebook.  Or if you want to stalk all of my online activity, FriendFeed.

Plus there is now Seesmic:

The hiatus ... is over

After a six week break, blogging will resume tomorrow.  Details to follow in the morning.