Facebook vigilantes publish alleged arsonist's image

This is one of the more interesting days when it comes to privacy and Facebook, as it opens whole new areas - that of internet publishing, the law, the right to a fair trial, free speech and people taking the law into their own hands.

Australia has had its worst bushfires for some time - 200 people have been killed, countless homes destroyed. The country's citizens are angry, particularly because some of the fires were deliberately lit. Who on earth could be responsible for such a horrific act?

Well, Victorian Police have arrested and named one man who is alleged to have been involved in the arson, Brendan Sokaluk. Australian publications are not allowed to publish his photo, in conjunction with court suppression orders. If they do, they could be deemed in sub judice contempt. And an 'Australian' publication means anything that is published in Australia, so it therefore extends to foreign-hosted websites.

However, as soon as he was named, vigilantes trawled his MySpace and found his photograph - a photo of a bulky, nondescript man with a small keyring digital camera aimed at a mirror. They copied the image, mirrored the page, sent it around and began setting up groups on Facebook all showing his image and sporting names such as:

"Brendan Sokaluk, the Victoian [sic] Bushfires Arsonist, must burn in hell." (Arguably such a knee-jerk reaction that they couldn't even spell Victorian correctly.)
"TOURTURE [sic] AND KILL Brendan Sokaluk GIPSLAND ARSONIST!!!" (Again, another typo as the fuming vigilante sweats over the keyboard, with caps lock down.)
"make it know [sic] Brendan Sokaluk is the man who was arrested for arson."

Some of these groups are attracting 3,000 or more members, and the descriptions of what they want to do to the alleged arsonist are quite vile. What the 'vigilantes' fail to realise is that by venting their anger in this way they could actually stop Sokaluk from receiving a trial altogether, because it would arguably mean they could not find any objective jurors. In a worst-case scenario, Sokaluk may not even go to trial, if his defence lawyers apply for a trial to be stopped for this reason.

Individuals may also be in contempt of court; as the law does not necessarily apply just to publishing companies.

The other issue the existence of these groups raise is what Facebook should be doing in terms of the content it allows on its site. As it is important to encourage free speech and debate where does one draw the line when it comes to inciting violence? At the moment Facebook is keeping quiet and the groups remain online.