Do you think that the news of a house of an innocent being burnt is funny? Mob justice is now a prevailing reality in the society but the reaction if Tomy Parsons indicate that he has actually forgotten about the rule that everyone is innocent unless proven guilt. Our misfortune is that he is not the only one who is negating this point of view.
Dane Williamson has been found not guilty after nine days of custody. But during this time, his house has been burnt along with other emotional and physical damages that have been given to him. All of this has brought Parsons a great delight.
Regarding the burning of his house, police believed that it was specially ignited, but this statement was changed later. But if it was actually lighted by someone, then sharing his address publically on the Twitter account should actually be investigated. These details should be part of public record. The tone used in the entire scenario and the way it has been portrayed showed the role of police in igniting the behavior of the individuals.
If people are getting sentences for Facebook comments and posts that they have made, it would be better that the police system should come under the same scrutiny.
This is not the first contradictory use of twitter but the police. The protests of 26 March are also an example where police accused the protestors of throwing light bulbs with ammonia on police. These details were picked by world’s media in the same manner. Although Reuters used the word “alleged” but in reality, it has been established as a fact in the minds of people. Secondly, it is very less likely that police would make a misstatement.
Police is an institution having authority and such misstatements and misuse of social media can actually make the entire judicial system prejudiced.
Accusations, which aren’t fully backed by facts, can ignite reactions that cannot be justified in any way. With such statements, there is no justification of the resources that we spend on the social media team of the police. Rather it would be more beneficial to ban the police department from using social media.
Police cannot define it under the domain of free speech. This is because free speech does not allow malicious or hate content. Restrictions are always there even when defining free speech. And technically this cannot be termed as restrictions; they are part of an evolutionary procedure going on from hundreds of years.
However, not all this can be exactly applied to Tony Parsons. He is a private individual who can have all the right to tweet about anyone. You might not like his point of view but you cannot actually restrict him to share it. We cannot suspend democracy or justice because we don’t like a particular individual or his/her pint of view.
When police makes a statement through Twitter they are being seen as a department not an individual. They don’t have a right to pass any statement. While doing so, there are overstepping their boundaries. It is important that such a use of Twitter is completely restricted but at the same time mob justice should also be banned.