Canadian judge decides threats made on Facebook "just blowing off steam"

Photos

Free Culture by Lawrence Lessig

see larger image

uploaded by Nebraska Library Commission

An Ontario court has ruled that threats of suicide bombing and murder are not threats but just a case of an angry man “blowing off steam”. The threats were made by the father of a child taken by Ontario’s York Region Children’s Aid Society.

This is the interesting part. This decision was made because of testimony from Facebook “Expert” Jesse Hirsh:

Justice Richard Blouin permitted Hirsh to give expert testimony about Facebook, which is believed to be the first time anyone has been classified as an expert in this area in a Canadian court.    According to Hirsh, the postings by D.S. were like a diary by a “distraught” individual, but not a sign he intended to act on his comments. The statements were “sensational” and “attention grabbing,” intended to provoke responses or “wallposts” from his online “friends.”

Who is Hirsh? A consultant for Toronto Centre Liberal Candidate Bob Rae:

    Crown attorney Doug Kasko asked Hirsh if he were suggesting everything on Facebook is fiction.

    “The environment is fantasy, even when connected to reality,” Hirsh responded.

    There an estimated eight million Facebook users in Canada and Hirsh explained people exaggerate the importance of the “minutiae” of their lives in “status updates” to try to acquire more online friends.

    The court heard that Hirsh is a consultant to a Toronto hospital, to some media companies and a pollster. He is also providing Facebook consulting advice to former Ontario premier Bob Rae, for his upcoming byelection race in Toronto where he is running for the Liberals.

    Hirsh has his own Facebook site, which he uses to market his consulting services.

    “So nothing in your Facebook is true,” asked Kasko.

    “I would say embellished,” Hirsh replied. “In the context of Facebook, embellishment is expected.”

Embellished? 

The Bob Rae angle is a fun diversion, but getting back to the real issue, the judge has basically accepted this expert’s view that “What happens on Facebook stays on Facebook“. Does this mean that threats and intimidation are not actionable in this on-line “fantasy” land?  Read the rest here