Tweeting Twits and Dissidents

(Preface: I am still not on Twitter. Fight the power!)

It’s interesting how changing times, habits, and -- in this case -- technology force new wrinkles into the legal and cultural fabric of our society. Obviously, Twitter and Facebook have had enormous impacts on our way of life, but those impacts reach far beyond self-expression (or narcissism?), social interaction, and entertainment.

During the Iranian presidential election this past June, who would’ve guessed that much of the outcry from citizens of Iran would come from social networking sites? The Iranian government attempted to block access to Facebook to its citizens, about a third of which had internet access, but to no avail. Iranian Twitterers tweeted their protest of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad’s re-election in droves, circumventing the country’s edict to ban demonstrations and journalists. The U.S. State Department even asked Twitter to postpone scheduled maintenance of the site so that the dissent would not be quelled.


Twitter to the rescue, as a vehicle of freedom of speech to the oppressed? Who’da thunk it?

But, for every rose, a thorn. Or many thorns. Social networking, you could argue, has its abusers. You can look at the countless Tweeters' tweets and ask, “Who gives a damn?”

But it goes beyond mild irritation. Example: then-Milwaukee Bucks forward Charlie Villanueva was busted last season for Twittering during halftime of a game against the Celtics, and was told to cease and desist. (By the way, they won in a sizable upset...so maybe the strategy works.) This sparked some debate amongst the athletic world, but I think the reaction has largely been on the side of banning Twitter/Facebook use during games.

And then -- at the risk of baring my political alignment -- former GOP VP candidate Sarah Palin had a handful of questionable posts on her Facebook page, the most prominent being her declaration that the Democratic health reform bills would institute “death panel[s]”.

Even if it is utterly false, she can at least say that, right? I mean, everyone has the right to free speech, and false facts and strong opinions don't have a limit in a social environment like Facebook. Everyone has that crazy friend with an opinion or two that likes hearing his/her own voice, and uses "facts" to bolster their position. (By the way, I readily admit as a blogger that I enjoy hearing/typing my own words. I’m probably the only one, but...) Even if I do disagree with some of the assertions made on Facebook, I'm glad those people can express them freely.

But, in contrast, you clearly can’t just do the same in journalism, lest you find yourself in a courtroom real quick-like. So where do you draw the line? What can you say, and when/where can you say it?

This is what the legal system has to decide, I suppose. Last month, Courtney Love was sued for libel by a fashion designer whom she (allegedly) falsely accused via Twitter had a “history of dealing cocaine.”

The first of many, no doubt; the courtroom has a lot to figure out. But before they do, the Next Big Thing will probably already be emerging. Thus, the cycle continues.

I do know that after such serious discussion, it’s always nice to let Mr. Tonight Show lighten the mood by poking a little fun at Twitter’s expense...



Wow, that was pretty stupid.