15
votes
Case before Norway's Supreme Court claims that depriving sex offender of a Snapchat account is unlawful under the European Convention on Human Rights
Link information
This data is scraped automatically and may be incorrect.
- Title
- Sex offender asks Norwegian court to declare social media a right
- Published
- May 2 2024
- Word count
- 296 words
Odds are the he will lose, but they want to hear the case as the case law is behind the real world when it comes to social media. I think it should be easy to argue that snapchat isn't that important, but where should we draw the line? The police is still using Twitter to give out official information, can the courts ban you from Twitter without infringing on your rights? What about the whole internet? Without it you would be cut of from pretty much all discussion, isn't that infringing on your right of speech?
Having the higher courts draw up some clear lines makes a lot of sense.
Public agencies should be banned from using private platforms that require creating an account and sharing private contact details in order to read their announcements. I refuse to use Facebook, X, etc, and am frequently frustrated when official communications aren’t available to me.
I think they should have to use multiple forms of communication, rather than restricting forms. The more communication the better.
Agreed. Part of the convenience of Facebook and X/Twitter is a lot of people are checking those sites anyway. They're not as likely to check a specific agency's site for any breaking news.
Yeah, I should have been more specific. They should be banned from making that the SOLE SOURCE of notifications and updates given to the public.
I'd somewhat agree, but in my experience, particularly with Twitter, agencies do officially use multiple means of communication, but in practice, put more updates, more frequently and reliably, on Twitter.
This is especially the case with many rail and transport services. Officially, they'll have service updates and statuses on their website, and live data of expected departure times. In practice, they'll note planned outages and some major disruptions through those means, and sometimes delays will be reflected in live data, but specific announcements of lesser but still important updates, eg, '14:00 train from X to Y is cancelled because 13:00 was delayed', or 'Services on X route are not running because of Y; we expect them to be running again at Z' will only be on Twitter.
This, right here. Every major govt around the world has, effectively, outsourced the task of informing the public, to private corporations that censor and manipulate how they provide and share data.
I just hope the courts draw up some sensible lines.
There are instances of people making thousands of fake facebook-profiles to scam people selling items they don't own. These accounts get banned within hours, according to court rulings.
At what point do you stop a sexual abuser from accessing Snapchat if that's where they're performing the crime, or stop them from being allowed to access Facebook if they scam scores of people there?
Norwegian police stopped using Twitter to exclusively share information some time back.
Your point holds true for various police accounts on Snapchat, Facebook etc, but after Musk's twitter shenanigans, Norwegian police actually made their own platform for police related announcements: politiloggen
In the US (just where I live, but we also are very reluctant to remove individual access to social media), it can be part of one's probation if the crime is related to a given medium. I would assume a sex offender here would need to have used social media as a part of their crime currently. However a rule for the specific sort of sexuql crime one was convicted of, similar to some but not all sex offenders not being allowed to live near schools, could also be a thing.
It's honestly hard for me to imagine how any court could rule in his favor, given that the ban is only for two years as part of his sentence — a sentence that also included 13 months in prison, which is a much greater violation of human rights than being disallowed from Snapchat.