Social media laws in the UK are set to be reviewed in the wake of a recent number of prosecutions that have had a “chilling effect” on free speech. Speaking to the BBC, Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer QC said that the right to be offensive “has to be protected”.

On Monday, Matthew Wood was jailed for posting comments about April Jones, the missing five-year-old girl from Wales, while Azhar Ahmed was given 240 hours community service after he wrote an offensive post about dead British soldiers. Both prosecutions were made under the UK’s Communications Act 2003.

The CPS will invite academics, lawyers and representatives from social media companies such as Facebook and Twitter to be a part of the discussions that will shape the new guidelines for policing social media. Police forces are concerned that their resources are being wasted on too many petty online rows. Mr Starmer explained that the existing law is difficult for prosecutors to work within.

He also added:

“The emerging thinking is that it might be sensible to divide and separate cases where there’s a campaign of harassment, [or] cases where there’s a credible and general threat, and prosecute in those sorts of cases… And put in another category communications which are, as it were, merely offensive or grossly offensive… [It] doesn’t mean the second category are ring-fenced from prosecution, but it does I think enable us to think of that group in a slightly different way.”

Regardless of how the talks pan out and what guidelines are drawn up, it is clear that anything said online is currently perceived as ‘public’. The line between private and public when it comes to online communications is getting blurrier by the day, but does there come a point where prosecuting people for saying something is an affront to their basic right to free speech?

Tell us what you think by leaving a comment below.

The issue of prosecutions based on postings to social networks has been getting bigger and bigger over recent months, with several high-profile cases being reported and discussed in the mainstream media. Spontaneous remarks intended to be humorous and only viewed be a select group of individuals have in fact been found to breach certain parts of The Communications Act 2003 in the UK, and in some cases have seen the individuals behind those remarks convicted of a criminal offence.

However, Keir Starmer QC, Director of Public Prosecutions, has issued a lengthy statement detailing the problems faced by all parties: those who use social networks to voice an opinion, those who might be offended by such an opinion, and those responsible for enforcing the laws pertaining to the expression of such opinions and the effect they have on others. If you have the time, I’d highly recommend reading his statement, which can be found online at The Telegraph. He acknowledges the right to freedom of speech, referencing an observation by the ECHR in 1976, that says the right to freedom of expression includes the right to say things or express opinions “…that offend, shock or disturb the state or any sector of the population”.

But he also addresses the fact that, in his own words:

“the CPS has the task of balancing the fundamental right of free speech and the need to prosecute serious wrongdoing on a case by case basis. That often involves very difficult judgment calls… In some cases it is clear that a criminal prosecution is the appropriate response to conduct which is complained about, for example where there is a sustained campaign of harassment of an individual… or where grossly offensive or threatening remarks are made and maintained.”

There will also be a set of guidelines drawn up following wide public consultation, as well as input from campaigners, media lawyers, academics, social media experts and law enforcement bodies. However, there was one point he made in his statement that I’d like to  reiterate:

“Communications intended for a few may reach millions.”

I’m no longer discussing potentially offensive messages or something that might breach The Communications Act, but communication at large. Think for a moment about what would happen if confidential information that could jeopardise your business prior to a merger or a big deal were to accidentally be exposed to competitors or others who you’d prefer weren’t privy to such knowledge. It could be a very problematic situation indeed.

Even for the overwhelming majority of us who use social media in a respectful, legal manner, the issues addressed by Keir Starmer QC’s statement should still apply to us. Perhaps it is time to re-evaluate the way we communicate in an increasingly digital world, and think about the potential implications that arise from the manner in which we choose to share information online.

Twitter has been legally forced to hand over messages sent by the Occupy Wall Street protester Malcolm Harris. The messages had to be given to the Manhattan District Attorney’s Office by September 14th, otherwise Twitter would have been in contempt of court and be facing substantial fines.

The DA’s Office believe that the messages posted by Mr Harris undermine his claim that New York police led protesters on to the Brooklyn Bridge, so that they could be arrested for obstructing traffic. It claims that the information and tweets handed over by Twitter will prove that Mr Harris was aware of police orders that he then disregarded.

If we put the opinions and political motivations behind both sides of this case to one side for a moment, we are left with legal precedent that whatever you say on a social network is tied to you, and you can be held accountable for those posts. Once you say something on a social network, even if it was a fleeting comment posted in the heat of the moment, it is then in the public domain, and you are accountable for that comment.

Another example of this can be found in last week’s news, when Azhar Ahmed was found guilty of posting an offensive message on Facebook. Again, irrespective of what was said and whether or not he should have said it (or even thought it), the case further underlines the point that you can be held legally accountable for whatever you say online.

In the case of Malcolm Harris, the court won’t be inspecting any of the data supplied by Twitter until an appeal from his lawyers is heard. As we have also seen, even tongue in cheek remarks can cause legal problems – just ask Paul Chambers who was found guilty of sending a menacing tweet. Even though he was eventually successful in overturning his conviction, he still had to endure a legal battle that lasted almost two years.

People are apparently no longer safe behind their keyboards, so maybe it’s worth thinking twice before saying something, and also thinking about where you are saying it.

A public defence lawyer in Florida has lost her job after posting a picture of her client’s exotic underwear on Facebook. A Miami-Dade judge also declared mistrial in the associated murder case. Fermin Recalde is accused of stabbing his girlfriend to death in 2010.

Recalde’s family had brought him a bag of fresh clothes to wear during the trial, and while Miami-Dade corrections officers were searching the items as part of a routine inspection, Recalde’s public defender Anya Cintron Stern took a photo of his leopard-print briefs with her phone. Later on during a break, the 31-year-old lawyer posted the picture to her personal Facebook page, complete with a caption suggesting that the defendant’s family believed the underwear was “proper attire for a trial”.

Despite the fact that her profile was set to private and only viewable by her friends, someone who saw the post notified Miami-Dade Judge Leon Firtel, who declared a mistrial. Cintron Stern was immediately fired because of the Facebook picture, and it later transpired that an earlier post on her Facebook profile appeared to question her client’s innocence.

Miami-Dade Public Defender Carlos Martinez said: “When a lawyer broadcasts disparaging and humiliating words and pictures, it undermines the basic client relationship and it gives the appearance that he is not receiving a fair trial.”

Sharing sensitive information online can land you in a lot of trouble, and as this episode shows, can even cost you your job. Privacy settings on social networks can be very confusing at times, but you should still always thing before you post.

The legal issues surrounding intercepting data sent over unencrypted WiFi networks have just become more ambiguous after a federal judge in Illinois has ruled that the practice is not tantamount to wiretapping. Anyone familiar with a particular privacy case brought against Google will know that this latest ruling goes against the 2011 decision that the search giant violated the law when its Street View cars harvested fragments of data from open WiFi networks around the USA and in other countries.

The letter of the law is key here: while federal law makes it illegal to intercept electronic communications, there is an important exception. It is not illegal to intercept communications “made through an electronic communication system that is configured so that such electronic communication is readily accessible to the general public.”

The particular case in question involves a company called Innovatio IP Ventures, who wanted to use packet sniffing gear to gather WiFi traffic for use against various “hotels, coffee shops, restaurants” and other businesses that it accuses of infringing patents. Judge James Holderman ruled that this falls within the exception:

“A basic packet capture adapter is available for only $198.00. The software necessary to analyze the data that the packet capture adapters collect is available for download for free. With a packet capture adapter and the software, along with a basic laptop computer, any member of the general public within range of an unencrypted WiFi network can begin intercepting communications sent on that network… the court concludes that the communications sent on an unencrypted WiFi networks are readily available to the general public.”

Putting this particular case and the legality of the practice to one side for a moment, this ruling should hopefully serve as a warning to most that it is very important to secure your own networks. As well as this, when using public networks such as the WiFi at a coffee shop, make sure that you are careful what information you share and how you go about sharing it.