About | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline Law Journal Library | HeinOnline
LOG IN
LOG IN

35 Alternative L.J. 192 (2010)
Law, Advocacy and the Brave New World

handle is hein.journals/alterlj35 and id is 200 raw text is: OPNION LAW, ADVOCACY AND THE BRAVE NEW WORLD It's a little late to observe that communication has really changed from 'the good old days'. When the Prime Minister critiques the 'new media' cycle (and some of the old media powers) we all know she is somewhat disingenuously complaining that the communication cycle is spinning too fast, and the politicians are struggling to keep up. Cue teeny tiny violins! In our field, matters progress more slowly; laws generally do not get rushed through parliament, cases percolate through the justice system in agonising increments, and judges take their time writing considered decisions on complex issues. So what then is the role of new media, and the Brave New World of Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, blogs and other forms of 'social' networking for lawyers, law students, and those who work within the legal system? Clearly, new technologies have made an enormous amount of information (and many more independent sources of information) available to us. One potential downside is information overload, surely leading to shorter attention spans, and less tolerance for the nuances and counterpoints of any difficult issue. Do we still have the same capacity to spend a deliberate amount of time reading long, sophisticated, well- reasoned articles (as you will find in this journal)? Or have we accepted the minimalist approach to information, absorbing headlines, tweets and posts, but not much more. It would be a shame if that is the case. Before we look at what we can do with new media, let's start with what you cannot do. First, consider the issue of your practical privacy - do any of us still have the privacy we had even five years ago? We generally have accepted that almost all information we have uploaded ourselves is susceptible to being hacked, spammed, phished and more. So don't overshare personal information and photos, or leave yourself open to identity theft. It goes without saying that if you behave on the net in a manner your mum would be embarrassed by, she is likely to find out, and be very embarrassed by that behaviour. Your unprofessional actions, photos, posts and updates will come back to haunt you, especially if you are a high profile person or one day become one. Stephanie Rice, Joel Monaghan and Catherine Deveny have learnt this lesson of unintended consequences. And readers of this journal hardly need to be reminded that the relevant rules of professional conduct (in all professions, but particularly the law) apply equally to activities on social media. The Victorian Bar Ethics Committee recently reminded their barristers that it would be a breach of the rules 'to post a flippant or sarcastic comment on Facebook or Twitter about a fellow member of the Bar, the judiciary, one's client or a matter in which counsel is briefed.' Mind you, flippant or sarcastic comment about politicians and politics is constitutionally protected, as are insults, irony, humour and acerbic criticism (thank you Justice McHugh). One other legal problem is that you can be liable for defamatory statements made on social network sites. Such statements can be read all over the world, so it can be hard to know where an act of defamation took place. The defamation rules of any other jurisdiction could be brought to bear regarding your cute 'off the cuff' statement made in St Kilda or North Adelaide. While new technologies open up new opportunities to be sued, they also offer new opportunities to hide. Wikileaks has made the issue of jurisdiction a 'cat and mouse' game. Where is it located? And what jurisdiction is it actually subject to? It has no offices, and is said to be set up in a way that cannot be shut down (and one can assume that the US and others have tried!), reliant upon a series of fail-safe servers. Where would a legal notice be served, and who would accept service? Is it plausible that a notice of suit could be served on them via Twitter? The Facebook precedent could apply. In 2008 the ACT Supreme Court allowed service of foreclosure documents on some homeowners via the 'inbox' of their Facebook pages, after they proved to be uncontactable by conventional means. And Victoria Police also recently served an Intervention Order via Facebook. Social networks have the great advantage of offering those in law and legal advocacy access to new audiences, and offering new resources to those audiences. It is a forum, unprecedented in its efficiency and immediacy, for the sharing of ideas, calls for action, campaigns, judgments, as well as international, national and regional developments and events. And there is the potential for mobilising movements to keep governments accountable as well. The skeptics are wrong to cast these networks as trivial and frivolous. It is not just a matter of announcing what one has had for lunch, or when the train is departing. Technologies such as Twitter, Facebook, blogs and YouTube (and whatever comes next) are great for creating new networks of interested and interesting people you would otherwise never hear from. 192 - AltLJ Vol 35:4 2010

What Is HeinOnline?

HeinOnline is a subscription-based resource containing thousands of academic and legal journals from inception; complete coverage of government documents such as U.S. Statutes at Large, U.S. Code, Federal Register, Code of Federal Regulations, U.S. Reports, and much more. Documents are image-based, fully searchable PDFs with the authority of print combined with the accessibility of a user-friendly and powerful database. For more information, request a quote or trial for your organization below.



Short-term subscription options include 24 hours, 48 hours, or 1 week to HeinOnline.

Purchase Access

Contact us for annual subscription options:

Contact Us

Already a HeinOnline Subscriber?

Log In

profiles profiles most