By now, thousands of people know the names Toronto’s first murder victim of 2008 and the two young people accused of committing this heinous crime. But we’re not supposed to.
As young people in this city increasingly move their social lives to the internet, it’s apparent that their online interaction isn’t limited to idle chatter and amusing blog posts. Even a formerly private rituals like mourning the passing of a loved one, have become public events.
A day after her murder a memorial page was set up on Facebook for Stefanie Rengel, so that her friends and family could share their memories and sadness. In setting up the webpage however, Rengel’s friends actually committed another crime. The Youth Criminal Justice Act stipulates that it’s illegal to release the identities of under-aged victims or accused criminals. Many visitors to the page posted comments declaring that the accused are guilty, and some even reportedly express their desire to avenge Rengel’s murder. Rengel’s step mother posted a message describing the two accused teens as “bastards.” Now the police are declaring that this information has jeopardized the accused’s rights to a fair trial.
With the fairness and the credibility of the legal process now potentially damaged in this high-profile case, the question must be asked why Facebook, which polices the site stringently for obscenity and other offensive material, did not remove Stefanie’s memorial pages. You could claim that the site moderators simply weren’t aware of the specifics of Ontario’s youth criminal justice laws, plain and simple.
I personally believe that Facebook hadn’t removed the comments because Facebook was intended as a social networking site first and foremost, not a media source. Those who released Rengel’s accused killers’ identities believed that they were simply showing their collective grief at losing Stefanie so suddenly, and discussing the people responsible for the loss of a dear friend. It was akin to a bunch of friends getting together in a coffee shop and discussing their grief and anger over Stefanie’s murder, except their conversation was posted online. Obviously Facebook’s administrators felt it would be wrong to deny Rengel’s friends this important interaction.
But due to its impact on day to day life and its pervasive presence in the public consciousness, it seems Facebook can no longer be seen as just a social networking site. This case may force the community at large, as well as our legal institutions, to recognize Facebook as a bona-fide media source, a medium capable of reaching a wide audience and conveying vital information. In fact, in some situations, sites like Facebook are actually more effective in spreading breaking news, the “insider’s story” or the most up to date news.
To avoid similar gaffes, lawmakers need to update the Youth Criminal Justice Act for the techno-savvy 21st century to explicitly include a publication ban on social-networking sites (and just throw in MSN Messenger and Myspace in there too for good measure), against releasing the names of under-aged criminals and their underage victims.
