Australian Agency Rules Facebook Pages Responsible For Comments

jibjibjib writes "The Australian reports that brands in Australia could be forced to abandon their social media campaigns, after the Advertising Standards Bureau ruled that they were responsible for comments posted on their pages. According to the article, the ASB is poised to release a report attacking Carlton & United Breweries for derogatory comments posted on one of their official Facebook pages, despite CUB monitoring and removing those comments twice daily. Legal expert John Swinson commented on the decision, saying 'You simply can no longer have two-way conversations with your customers.'"

Comments

Good.

[Anonymous Coward]

I am an advocate of organisations having a degree of responsibility for anything they intend to profit from - so I think Facebook should be party responsible for everything posted on Facebook, and organisations with Facebook pages should be partly responsible for anything posted on their pages.

It is not as if they're going to spread the gains they receive to "the people" when commeting/behaviour goes in their favour.

The laws of Western countries are very much set up to capitalise profit and socialise losses.

Re:Good.

[Eyeball97]

I am an advocate of organisations having a degree of responsibility for anything they intend to profit from - so I think Facebook should be party responsible for everything posted on Facebook, and organisations with Facebook pages should be partly responsible for anything posted on their pages.

What kind of twisted reasoning could possibly lead you to that conclusion?

I disagree wholeheartedly but I'm open minded enough to argue WHY you think anyone should be responsible for someone else's comments.

By your logic, Slashdot is (partly?) responsible for THIS comment? And yours? Where do you draw the line? Why should the fact that Slashdot (presumably) makes one off running the site make a difference, why the distinction whether it's for-profit or non-profit?

Re:Good.

[ThunderBird89]

Why should anyone share responsibility for what you say?

Why should anyone profit from what you say?

I fail to see how the company profited from derogatory slurs...

In the same vein, should the local government, the builder company and the maker of a cardboard box be responsible for anything I shout while standing on said box on a street corner?

Yes, to the extent each party knowingly continues to benefit from it.

The whole point in government, being a body representing the people, is that it holds a degree of responsibility for what the people do. Bad government implies bad citizenry, and vice versa.

It doesn't, not in the slightest. The government holds responsibility for its actions towards its electors, but not for all the actions of its people. Otherwise, I could sue your state for any given thing, like trying to slander me. Bad government implies bad politicians, but it has nothing to do with the populace in general.

Is London responsible for whatever anyone says on Speakers' Corner?

Of course. Try spending a minute calling everyone around you to "kill dirty niggers and kikes, especially that Jamal Rosenberg guy at number 27" and see what happens.

Most political speech is necessary, though - which is why the government is responsible for protecting rather than prohibiting it.

That's simple hate speech, prosecutable under law. Connecting this to the article, someone targeted by the "hate speech" on the page could file a complaint and have the court investigate it, but certainly not Facebook or the company itself (who was not a target).

Then again...

[Anonymous Coward]

This is the same country that holds the owner of a shopping centre liable if someone slips on a chip, and the area isn't cleaned every 20mins.

http://www.manningrivertimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/the-case-against-woolworths/2482031.aspx