The efficiency and speed of social media is a godsend to its unprecedented connection and seemingly universal engagement.
Subscribe now for unlimited access.
$0/
(min cost $0)
or signup to continue reading
But as this scope grows, the time between people consuming its content and reacting, most often through comments or further posts, seems to have shrunk to a micro-second that allows no room for thought.
This goes well beyond those who don’t even bother reading the initial material.
Rather than fostering informed and constructive debate, reaction too often becomes a shrieking match of emotive response that might serve as a from of group catharsis but barely passes for conversation.
Nowhere is this knee-jerk response more detrimental than in the tirades focusing on court and crime where readers appear to have zero understanding of the sub-judice rules and the imperatives of ensuring a fair trial.
This week one of Australia’s best journalists, Joanne McCarthy made an impassioned plea for social media pundits to think before naming the accused or commenting on court stories which are still unresolved.
If anybody has traced the impact of these terrible crimes on young people, Ms McCarthy, whose work on sexual abuse is often considered one of the catalysts for the Royal Commission, deserves to be respected.
She was making the observation after a horrific incident in Newcastle last week where an 11-year-old girl was abducted on her way to school and sexually assaulted.
A comprehensive community response allowed the police to arrest and charge a man whose identity was shortly placed under a non-publication order.
Despite the order (later lifted) on social media sites the accused man was named, photos of him were posted, and he was declared guilty by some people, many who made extreme suggestions about what should happen to him.
In short the usual angry response, which however understandable, cannot justify their potential damage.
Many tried to justify their emotional blurtings on “naming and shaming” grounds, without realising they were contributing to the best possible excuse for defence lawyers to request and be granted suppression orders.
Violation of these in any high profile case also has the risk of a mistrial.
The selfish expectorations of the ignorant or unthinking can potentially help an abuser escape scrutiny or even justice.
Could this possibly help the victims or their families?
Or is it more about the unbridled emotion of an individual?
Restraint worth thinking about.