In our continuing, sporadic monitoring of Web 2.0, we note a news story with Eugene Volokh’s comments on an arrest for failure to Tweet.
“We asked for his help in getting the crowd to go away by sending out a Twitter message,” [Det. Lt.] Smith said. “By not cooperating with us we feel he put lives in danger and the public at risk.”
I must confess that I too, having no Twitter account, did nothing to stop the problem. I apologize to anyone who has been damaged by my lack of 140-character updates. Ethic, however, is Tweeting.
: Zubon
Some European countries (France, I believe, is one) do have criminal offences linked to failure to assist at an accident. There’s been much talk in the U.K. about instituting some form of statutory compulsion to fulfil this kind of social responsibility, but as yet it remains voluntary.
I’d imagine most jurisdictions have legislation relating to not obstructing designated authorities in carrying out their legal duties, but that’s a way away from requiring active co-operation.
The issue here seems to be that the celebrity in question was deemed to have the means to affect a situation (the coming into existence of which he had, albeit unintentionally, contributed to), but refused to use those means to ameliorate the situation. I’ve seen this situation several times at gigs, where the “authorities” (usually only the theatre security, but on occasion at Festivals the police) have asked the performer to make announcements to the crowd, usually to stop pushing forwards and crushing people at the front. The performers always co-operate. I imagine there might be some legal implications, certainly in civil suits if not criminal prosecutions, if they refused and then someone was seriously injured or killed.
This particular incident is notable only because of the apparent belief of the authorities that Twitter would be an effective tool to use to control the situation. Clearly the celebrity could (probably did) make the usual requests for calm over the PA system. It’s not all that likely, I would have thought, that the 3000 fans there in the hall would have been reading his Tweets in real time (although maybe I’m being a bit naive on that), but the police may well have thought that, by Tweeting, the celebrity might prevent other fans still on their way to the event from arriving and adding to the problem.
I don’t think there could be any implication that an individual would be required to have a Twitter account so as to be in a position to aid police if required. CLearly, for this method of promulgating information to be effective, the Tweeter would have to have followers in sufficient quantity to create a meaningful impact. I don’t even have a mobile phone, much less a Twitter account.
Germany has a law that requires you to assist wounded people or people in dire need as long as your life is not immediately threatened, too.
But I am not sure if this law would actually be applicable in this situation. Still, I *think* (not 100% sure) that there must be a law that I am obliged to help the police if they ask me for assistance.
The problem here is that it is unclear if the tweet would have done anything. You are not obliged to do every BS the police tells you either, after all. I guess this is an interesting question for lawyers and courts… and I wonder how different the answers in different countries could be.