The Voller Verdict and being human on the internet

The internet is a wondrous place, it’s an information super highway holding infinite amounts of data, mostly cat videos and Star Wars movie fan theories, but once you allow people to comment on content it usually becomes pretty awful pretty quickly.

Imagine a world where you were held accountable for the things you say or do?

Dylan Voller gained international recognition when images of him hooded and restrained in a Saudi Arabian internme…Oh wait no, in an Australian Juvenile Detention Centre appeared on television following a 4 Corners investigation in 2016. Since his release, Dylan who is clearly a troubled young man has had every single aspect of his past, present and future deconstructed, debated and commented on by a public more than happy to express their views without any restrictions or fear of repercussions. Thanks mostly to social media platforms and online comment sections.

Now imagine justice actually exists? I know this is an opinion piece not a fantasy novel titled “Harry Potter and the prisoners of Don Dale.” But indulge me. On a platform that is barely moderated and if it is? Is usually by an intern being paid peanut husks drawing on 21 years of life experience to help define objectivity when regulating the comments of posts for their employer. But following a series of comments and posts deemed defamatory Dylan Voller sued …and he bloody-well won! Where does that leave us?

Dylan Voller’s lawsuit against the Sydney Morning Herald, the Australian, the Centralian Advocate, Sky News Australia and The Bolt Report could have massive ramifications as far as Internet use and liability is concerned. This will be the first time a media organisation will be held responsible for the comments left on their social media pages in this country. The Dylan Voller defamation case has the potential to be a landmark in the freedom of speech debate, something that as a Comedian I watch intently. The Art of Stand Up comedy is seeing what you can say while getting a laugh, there are definitely consequences but the attempt is free.

The internet is a wonderous place, it’s an information super highway holding infinite amounts of data, mostly cat videos and Star Wars movie fan theories, but once you allow people to comment on content it usually becomes pretty awful pretty quickly. The closest real-world interaction that resembles the internet is when a plane lands and previously civil people become wildebeests leaping over one another to get to the exit.

Similarly, members of society lose all sense of decency and fear of consequence once they enter a Social Media comment section. A simple question of “What do you think of these shoes?” can degenerate into an argument over Gun Control two comments later. It doesn’t take much to “Trigger” people as they say. By “They” I mean the Gun lobby (Boom Boom). Without the Internet we probably wouldn’t have Godwin’s Law, which states that “As a discussion on the Internet grows longer, the likelihood of a comparison of a person’s being compared to Hitler or another Nazi reference, increases.”

That Law was made before social media platforms, and various governments, were filled with loud and proud white supremacists, so much so that Mike Godwin himself now often weighs in on Twitter to let people know it’s fine to make Hitler and Nazi comparisons to such people.

It would never occur to me to strike down anyone for decrying these concentration camps.

— Mike Godwin (@sfmnemonic) 3 July 2019

Freedom of speech is defined as… well it depends who you ask. The first thing I noticed while researching this article was the number of different definitions used for “Freedom of Speech” from legal bodies to urban dictionaries, let alone what the Australian Christian Lobby or the Institute of Public Affairs think. I feel much more comfortable using the phrase “Freedom of expression” I feel like that encompasses all actions, including speech. Ultimately my attitude towards this debate is: the freedom to express yourself and your views is the exact same as the freedom for others to challenge you, you can’t have one without the other. It’s a balance that free societies have maintained with varying results for eons. Freedom of expression doesn’t, or shouldn’t, mean that you can do and say whatever you want without consequences.

It’s also hard to say “Just ignore the comments” when our entire existence in the modern, western world revolves around funnelling us towards social media platforms to make us feel more connected. Clearly the impact of innumerable comments across multiple pages had an effect on the reputation and emotional state of Dylan Voller, otherwise a court wouldn’t have declared it defamation. 30 seconds of scrolling through any controversial social media post will show a plethora of defamatory material by individuals from all over the world. But should companies be held accountable for the comments on their page?  Ideally, no? But if the post was knowingly created in an incendiary manner, then probably? It’s a common tactic we see on various pages, where a writer baits their followers into slamming the target of the article, sometimes with disastrous outcomes.

The Voller case result now means those who provide the platform for defamatory comments can be held accountable and if the only reason the post exists is to incite, I don’t really have a problem with that liability. Comedians are held more accountable than Presidents on the internet. That may sound like an exaggeration, but I know at least one comedian who has been sued over a joke and Trump is basically a lock for a second term (just saying). I’m comfortable to be held accountable for that statement I just made.

Imagine if you actually had to behave on the internet as you would in real life, face to face with other humans? Now for many of us that wouldn’t be that stressful, but with the anonymity of the internet a detachment from empathy grew so did a lack of fearing the consequences after saying vicious, nasty things to complete strangers. Now in 2019 there are almost two generations who see this interaction as normal.  I’m not saying people should be punched in the face for what they say but there is a distinct difference to now from the days when people genuinely feared being punched in the face. But are the major media organisations responsible for the comments on their pages? Kinda. You can’t exactly say “Sure, it’s my basement but I had no idea they were having dog fights down there!”

The only question I would pose is, if you could react, tag and share content from Social media posts from massive media organisations what will you be missing out on if you couldn’t comment on them anymore? Was there ever a Facebook comment that changed the world? While your ability to express yourself still exists you just won’t be able to do it to a captive audience you didn’t earn. You know, like those guys who preach their religious beliefs to people on crowded trains in between stops.

This is nowhere near as cut and dry as I am making it out to be, I am well aware of that but ultimately there is a place for satire, there is a place for criticism and critique. But the most basic idea I would hope comes from this is to have the courage of your convictions and at least be as decent or despicable on the internet as you would be in person. This story has a long way to go but at the very least anything that forces people to engage with other humans as humans and not just an entity on a screen can only be an improvement. And failing that, holding publishers responsible for creating spaces for the worst people imaginable to say the worst things imaginable about real people in the media will at least help ensure that the rest of us don’t see these sort of comments every time we try to read a story.

Let us know what you think, leave your comments down below!

Editor’s note: Please don’t.