Facebook used to serve papers

It's one of those things that sounds like a joke, I know, but Facebook was used in Australia to serve a couple with legal papers to foreclose on their house.

This isn't that strange in many ways, because the courts often have rules for service of documens where service in person is impractical or impossible. However, this is definitely the first time Facebook has been used.

This is yet another reason to make your page "private", so that only your friends can see it. Not just anyone else who wants to.

What was interesting is that the lawyer used details (date of birth, hometown etc) to establish to the court that this page belonged to the woman they were looking for. As well, her husband, the other defendant, was listed as one of her facebook friends.

It appears that Australia is a bit more lenient than most places, allowing the use of email and text messages to serve someone. Canada seems a bit more strict, but I have a distinct feeling that this is a growing trend. The increasingly digital world is going to require more and more unique methods for administering justice.

Australian Court's child pornography ruling opens a new set of liability

The BBC is reporting that an Australian Court has dramatically broadened existing child pornography law in a landmark case in Australia. The case in question is over an internet cartoon a man made that depicted characters from the television show "The Simpsons" engaging in sexual acts.

Just a cartoon, right? Wrong, according to Justice Adams. Despite the fact that all the individuals involved are fictional characters and don't even resemble real people (a fairly strong defence in my opinion, considering they are four-fingered, neon-yellow-skinned never-aging cartoons), the court ruled that wasn't enough. BBC News says:

Justice Michael Adams said the purpose of anti-child pornography legislation was to stop sexual exploitation and child abuse where images of "real" children were depicted.

But in a landmark ruling he decided that the mere fact that they were not realistic representations of human beings did not mean that they could not be considered people.

In his opinion, the purpose of the law was stop the victimization of children (a correct assertion), and that this cartoon managed to "fuel demand for material that does involve the abuse of children".

In my opinion, this is a bit of a stretch. Obviously, I haven't seen the cartoon in question, and it is entirely possible that it's so offensive it deserves some punishment. But regardless, there's some concern that reading such a broad meaning into this law will allow more and more "artistic" creations to come into question. Now, whether or not this is a good thing is a different question, because obviously the protection of children is paramount.

Now the judge showed some restraint and merely fined the accused instead of assigning jail time. Still, a conviction for child pornography is not something to be taken lightly.

[Source: BBC News]