Social media users could be charged for sharing Wikileaks story
Date
July 30, 2014 - 12:55PM
Julian Assange, Wikileaks publisher, described the Victorian Supreme Court suppression order as 'unprecedented'.
Social media users could land themselves in legal hot water if they share Wikileaks' reporting of a secret suppression order made by the Victorian Supreme Court.
The wide-ranging suppression order was published on the group's website on Wednesday and was quickly shared on websites including Twitter and Google+.
Fairfax Media's report of Wikileaks' action created a strong response on social media, and was shared thousands of times within minutes of the exclusive report's publication.
It is against the law for Australian media organisations to publish the contents of the suppression order.
Media lawyer Peter Bartlett, from Minter Ellison, said anyone who tweets a link to the Wikileaks report, posts it on Facebook, or shares it in any way online could also face charges.
Using a hashtag such as "Wikileaks" is not in breach of the order but any mention on social media of the information detailed in it, such as people's names, is banned.
Mr Bartlett said it would be difficult to prosecute Wikileaks and its publisher, Julian Assange, given they are outside Victoria. Mr Assange remains at the Ecuador embassy in London where he has been given political asylum to avoid being extradited to the United States in relation to the leaking of secret US documents.
However, any Victorian social media users, or the person who gave the documents to Wikileaks, may be easier to find and prosecute.
"Unless someone within Australia somehow authorised or was deemed to have published that suppression order on Wikileaks it would be difficult to find someone to prosecute," Mr Bartlett said.
"The person within the state of Victoria who has sent the suppression order to Wikileaks themselves has breached the suppression order so if police could find that person they could prosecute them."
Mr Bartlett said he did not know of any person being prosecuted for sharing a court order on social media.
A case involving former Manchester United player Ryan Giggs sparked debate in England about the effectiveness of court orders given the prevalence of social media.
Giggs went to court to try to stop The Sun newspaper from publishing details of his extra-marital affair. The court initially banned the publication of his identity but the court's order was then widely disseminated through social media and tweeted by about 500,000 people.
Giggs' case against the newspaper was eventually thrown out of court and no one was charged in relation to the tweets.
The Victorian Supreme Court has been contacted for comment.
SOURCE - BRISBANE TIMES - HERE.
|
First of all, the government uses 'national security' grounds to obtain a court 'super-injunction' suppression order to gag media coverage on some kind of international corruption scandal involving the Australian government, and THEN the press is gagged AND every Australian is threatened with imprisonment -- for the sake of this government cover up -- according to WikiLeaks.
Bloody, hell. It would help knowing in advance which information can get you in strife. Not clear to some (namely blogger) ... Doh!
Will let you know how gaol was, if I've breached anything. LOL.
Anyway, this is democracy, freedom of press and freedom of speech at work in Australia.
----------------------------------------------------
P.S.
What is the point of these gag orders when overseas press is reporting pretty much on the contents, the issue and on prior arrests of overseas people?
