Justice and democracy at risk - Dangers in a world that has moved online

THAT the internet age has disrupted, to put it politely, traditional economic activities such as retail, clerical work, and publishing is well known, as are the adverse consequences for employment and prosperity. We are seeing now how the unmediated and unregulated online world can also threaten other parts of our lives that as a society we value and have worked to protect: Justice and democracy.

A juror in the Belfast rape trial has posted online comments about the case, and the name of the defendant has been published online — both of which are criminal offences in Ireland and the UK. Following the controversy in the UK about the extent to which Facebook data might or might not have been used to sway the Brexit vote this way or that, we learn that in Ireland neither the Referendum Commission nor the Standards in Public Office Commission have the power to police social media campaigns in the Eighth Amendment poll. Neither of these are trivial matters; they touch on the cornerstones, too often taken for granted and increasingly ignored in Twitterdom, of our civilisation.

Legal restrictions on court reporting are there in the main to protect the fundamental principles of the judicial system in a common law country. One of them is that an accused person, however grave the alleged offence, is deemed innocent until a jury finds otherwise. Another is that a verdict of innocence or guilt is reached not by a crowd on the street brandishing posters and baying for blood, or by online ranters driven by anger or sentiment, but by a jury that has heard and then considered the evidence given in court. Conventional publishers and broadcasters comply with legal requirements around court and crime reporting, partly because they can be punished by fines and jail terms if they don’t, but also because they help to ensure that a trial is as fair as it can be in an imperfect world.

Online rage about a criminal trial can have a discernible outcome; how, and to what extent, the use of data held by social media platforms to swing elections and referendums are questions around which much mist swirls. However, they must be asked. Information about us can be utilised to send users targeted advertisements for cars, clothes, subscription deals, and the rest. If cars can be flogged, why not political parties or the right answers in a plebiscite? Very few voters take traditional political party television broadcasts and advertisements seriously; why should more notice be taken of marketing messages online? It’s more than probable that the people who voted for Mr Trump or Brexit were minded to do so well before the campaigns and the online ads began. Yet if it’s doable, someone will do it, and we need to know what impact, if any, it is having.

Politicians and legal authorities are at last waking up to the threats posed by networks that operate unrestrained by the considerations of fairness, if not decorum, that underpin the values of civil society. Workable proposals for meeting them are needed, sooner rather than later.