Infinite Path

One of the major problems with the Internet is that many people seem to think that the levels of responsibility, specific morals, and acceptable ways to behave that apply to everyday life, do not apply equally when online.

There are several potential reasons that could explain why people believe that accountability in online spaces should differ from accountability in the “real world” of face-to-face interaction. Perhaps people feel like they can hide behind their computer screen or perhaps the ease with which interaction and conversations can be deleted from view by users with the touch of a button renders communication online less important and permanent in some people’s eyes.

The danger of such a philosophy was highlighted this week, however, when a high court ordered an injunction to be served via Twitter for the first time. A judge in London ruled that an anonymous Twitter user should be forced to cease their activities on the service and reveal their true identity to the court. With no other way of making the individual aware of this decision, the judge allowed the injunction to be served via a Twitter message.

The individual in question has been impersonating a solicitor and right-wing blogger, Donal Blaney, for several weeks. It may seem extreme to take action of this kind in order to stop one person from impersonating another individual on a social media service but Matthew Richardson, the barrister who obtained the injunction, remains adamant that people need to be made aware that morals, ethics, and accountability all apply in online spaces as they do in other situations. Richardson stated: “People have to learn that they can no longer hide behind the cloak of anonymity the Internet provides and break the law with impunity”.