Darko on January 28th, 2008
When it first launched in 2004, Facebook swept across college campuses and became forever embedded in our popular culture.Just two short years later, anyone older than 13 could join, making the social networking site one of the most popular sites on the Internet with 60 million registered users. It became so popular, in fact, that a 2006 study found that college students named the site as the second most “in” thing, tied with beer and sex - losing only to the ubiquitous iPod.
So how could something that became as popular as two of the most common college traditions go so wrong in just a few years after its creation?Even though many of us enjoyed the welcomed distraction of friending, tagging and poking people for countless hours, it soon became apparent that Facebook was going to have to do more than connect us with our friends to hold our attention - and keep turning a profit. And it was downhill from there. Unfortunately, to accomplish its revenue goal, the creator of the billion-dollar Facebook decided it would have to sell our privacy to the highest bidder. And with the extremely profitable market that the site had captured so quickly, it wasn’t unexpected. Sure, students quickly caught on that maybe posting everything on Facebook wasn’t such a good idea. When public scandals involving inappropriate photo postings continued to make the news on campuses across the country, users became more selective about what they were posting on the site. After all, not everyone wanted the world to see documented proof of a typical weekend’s worth of their debauchery. However, the more clandestine, corporate violations of personal privacy that a Facebook account might allow were not so obvious to the millions of the site’s devotees. We can trace the beginning of the end of Facebook as we knew it to Nov. 7. The site introduced Facebook Beacon, a marketing scheme that includes a system to allow users to share information about their activities on other Web sites. When people realized that what they purchased or viewed on these “partner Web sites” was immediately published on Facebook without their permission, red flags went up across cyberspace. Realizing the potential for destructive blows to his company’s net worth, founder Mark Zuckerberg made yet another public apology for the way that a new application was launched. Beacon was later changed to require that any actions transmitted to the site would have to be approved by the user. But, by then, the damage was already done. So, when it was revealed last week that Facebook is now the target of an investigation from the United Kingdom’s Information Commissioner’s Office, it came as no surprise to us. The site is currently facing questions about how it protects users’ data after someone complained that the social network did not fully delete their information even after they had terminated their account. We won’t try to deny the potential benefits of having a Facebook account, which is why we were so infatuated with it in the first place - hell, you can even friend the Alligator if you want. But we continue to be disappointed with the way the site is transforming into another tool for corporate America’s quest to acquire more consumers at the expense of personal privacy. The once genius idea generated from a Harvard student’s dorm room has become a corporate pirate holding hostage something some people would be willing to pay any price to have access to - our information.
Published on The independent Florida Alligator By the Editorial Board
Darko on January 24th, 2008
On January 10, four young men from Université Saint-Joseph’s Zahle campus were held in Zahle prison for a week on charges of making crude and harassing remarks on a Facebook group dedicated to a female student at the university. Another underage female student was also named in the complaint but was released to the custody of her father. The plaintiff has accused the other students of defaming her, a criminal charge in Lebanon.
The bizarre case highlights the ease with which the average Lebanese citizen can find him or herself sharing cell space with dozens of serious criminals, as well as the legal confusion that the internet has introduced here just as it has in the West. With more and more Lebanese both publishing and socializing online, the ambiguous and at times arbitrary legal framework may have a profound chilling effect on the freedom of expression that the country is rightly so proud of.
Crime and punishment:
The individuals involved were careful about giving their own accounts while the case is still open, but what does seem clear is that the Facebook group began as a collection of juvenile jokes revolving around a fellow student. After complaining to university authorities and being told that the matter was not a university concern, the woman took her case to the Zahle attorney general, Abdullah Bitar. When Bitar advised her to come back with evidence of a crime, she and a friend monitored the site for a few weeks and returned to Bitar with printed transcripts of “wall” conversations. (“Walls” are the space on each Facebook member and group profile that allows friends to post public messages). After reviewing the transcripts, Bitar called the students in for questioning.
The students were interrogated from 11:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. on Thursday, January 10. At 2:00 p.m., the courts close, but Bitar ordered that they be held for further questioning. The next day, the attorney general declared that he had enough evidence for an arrest and transferred the four men to Zahle prison. With the court offices closed on Saturday and Sunday, the young men were kept in prison until Monday, at which point a hearing was set for later that week. On Thursday, January 17, the judge at that hearing released each of the four on LL 500,000 bonds and set a final hearing for February 28.
Improvisiong Online:
Speaking to NOW Lebanon, friends and family of the four were dumbfounded. “We want to know, ‘How would Facebook get you in jail?’” exclaimed one. Lebanon has no laws governing internet usage as such, so any legal disputes involving online activities require judges to improvise new interpretations of existing laws. According to sources familiar with the proceedings, when the students’ families protested their incarceration, “the court director referred to the law governing print media.”
Viktor Harmoush, a lawyer for Anthony Jleylati, one of the students, said, “[Bitar] referred to four articles: 531 and 533 of the penal law, and 582 and 584. With 531 and 533, the judge can issue a sentence of one year in prison, or a fine. For 582 and 584, it’s six months, or a fine.” The articles in question deal with slander and libel in print media. They also deal with defamation and, in this regard, they do not specify a medium of expression.
Legal expert Ziad Baroud told NOW Lebanon, “Journalists can be sued on the basis of defamation, but they are never arrested. Journalists have this privilege in the law itself, not to be arrested before the final judgment. But this is not the case for everyone else.”
In many countries, slander and libel suits are civil matters, involving one party suing the other for damages. In Lebanon, “defamation” is a penal matter. The application of the law, however, varies depending on the circumstances and the discretion of the judge. Baroud said, “In Lebanon, the internet and emails are considered ‘publishing.’ I believe they were prosecuted on this basis. It was weird to see it handled this way, but strictly speaking, it was legal.”
Politics and intimidation:
Harmoush challenged the legality of his client’s imprisonment, however, saying, “Mr. Bitar made an illegal decision. It is not legal to hold the boys.” Indeed, while Lebanese law allows for imprisonment if convicted of defamation, it does not allow for “cautionary arrest,” or holding the accused pending trial.
Convalescing at his family’s home in Zahle, Anthony Jleylati was visibly traumatized from his weeklong stay in Zahle prison, which a lack of heating and overcrowding has made one of the worst prisons in Lebanon. “We had to stay together for protection. There were drug dealers and murders, and they offered us cocaine and other things. What’s more, we missed all of our exams, and now we’ve lost our whole last year of university,” lamented Jleylati.
Facebook’s “terms of use” specifically forbid users to “upload, post, transmit, share, store or otherwise make available any content that we deem to be harmful, threatening, unlawful, defamatory, infringing, abusive, inflammatory, harassing, vulgar, obscene, fraudulent, invasive of privacy or publicity rights, hateful, or racially, ethnically or otherwise objectionable.” To get rid of the objectionable content, the plaintiff could easily have complained to Facebook and, very likely, had everything promptly removed. Indeed, once the group participants learned of the legal action being brought against them, they deleted everything themselves, but the plaintiff pressed her case anyway.
Friends of the students noted that the plaintiff’s father is a general in the army, and they believe that the court let his position influence its decision. “The judge himself didn’t understand the charges. And when they confronted him, he asked, ‘Are you going to teach me law now?’” said a friend of the family, who requested anonymity because of the sensitivity of the situation.
“It’s an obvious case of intimidation. Because they cannot pin anything on them, they will impose this kind of hardship,” said Wa’il Kheir, managing director of the Foundation for Human and Humanitarian Rights in Lebanon.
He added, “These kinds of things happen quite often; it’s very unfortunate. In many cases, I know very ethical judges who will not accept to be part of this. But others, because of pressure or I don’t know what, they might be.”
Baroud added, “Unfortunately, this is what the law allows. This is what the prosecutor can do, for a brief period of time.” The tactic is almost impossible to challenge, and it is generally very difficult to prove that this sort of imprisonment was done intentionally.
New Rules:
The case now awaits a final hearing on February 28, and Harmoush maintains that his client, at least, will be declared innocent. Yet the questions raised will not be so easily resolved. While there is a relatively straightforward translation of legal rights and privileges between traditional print media and online media such as NOW Lebanon, there are 200,000 profiles in the “Lebanon” Facebook network today, and many more Lebanese that have not even registered with the country’s network. As they socialize with each other, exchanging the same kind of news and gossip and bawdy jokes that they would in person in cafes or bars, what are their rights? What of those who exist somewhere in between journalism and online communities, such as bloggers or website commenters?
These are questions that countries all over the world continue to wrestle with, as technology outpaces policy and legislation. The issues are complex, and there are few points of reference for judges or legislators in need of guidance. Naturally, recourse is necessary for anyone unfairly attacked or maligned, whether online or off. In Lebanon’s more traditional society, women are especially vulnerable to the damage that innuendo and rumors can do to reputations. But some balance will have to be found, and fast. If even allegations of ribald commentary insults could conceivably land one in jail, the effect on free speech in general can only be devastating.
