Hold that thought: what started as reality TV drama is now a legal reality, reminding us all that what you post online can have serious offline consequences. Photo: Michelle Kroll.
From primetime to the courtroom, the drama of Married at First Sight (MAFS) has officially broken the fourth wall.
Following a tumultuous on-screen relationship, Jacqui Burfoot was granted an interim restraining order against her on-screen husband Ryan Donnelly, preventing him from talking about her on social media. Ryan has taken out an aggravated violence order (AVO) of his own.
While it may seem on-brand for a reality TV drama, accredited family law specialist and Nicholls Anzani partner Tim Nicholls says it highlights a reality few people grasp.
“You can absolutely be held legally responsible for your social media activity,” he says. “If your activity is seen as degrading, threatening, damaging, belittling or causes someone to fear for their safety or wellbeing, that conduct could fall within the definition of family violence or personal violence.”
Any social media or online activity, from pictures and videos to words, can be subject to scrutiny.
And the behaviour doesn’t even need to be public.
“In the context of MAFS, when Jacqui went to the court she applied for her order based on a comment made in the public space. But a person can apply for an order for comments behind closed doors – for instance, via Messenger instead of Facebook,” Tim says.
“It all comes down to how it makes a person feel, the way the conduct is interpreted, and whether the conduct falls under the definition of family – or any other kind – of violence.”
Tim says the spirit of social media is to engage and create social constructs where people can enjoy their friendships and relationships in a manner that’s “accessible and free from violence”.
With such a broad-ranging goal, it begs the question – what is ok, and what isn’t, to post about other people on social media?
“There’s no clear-cut set of rules,” Tim says. “A commonsense approach applies.”
Tim Nicholls says in a world where your DMs might land you in court, and online bullying can have serious outcomes, kindness must prevail. Photo: Nicholls Anzani.
It’s worth noting that in the ACT, Family Violence Orders (FVO) and personal protection orders (PPO) fall within the civil jurisdiction of the ACT Magistrates Court. Similar but much broader powers also exist in the family court when it is asserted that family violence behaviours took place.
“If it’s a domestic or family relationship – for example between intimate partners or relatives – your online activity could fall within the definition of family violence, and therefore provisions of the Family Violence Act may apply,” Tim says.
“In that context, if your online activity falls in the category of threatening behaviour or emotional or psychological abuse, it could result in the receiving party – or the ‘protected person’ – making an application for an FVO to preclude you from further engaging in that behaviour. Anything that causes a person to be fearful for their safety or wellbeing could give rise to an application for an interim FVO.
“If the relationship is not familial or intimate, the receiving party can still apply for protection, but it’s a PPO. It goes to show, however, that any relationship can be held to account – even within friendship groups.”
While this is a key distinction, breaching either type of order is typically treated as a criminal offence, carrying penalties including fines, community service and even imprisonment.
Tim says people are often surprised to discover the minefield that is their social media and online activity.
Anecdotally speaking, however, it is an issue increasingly in the spotlight.
“The law is playing a bit of catch-up with online issues, and there’s so much work to do. In my space – family law – we’re seeing a real influx of social media posts/messages being used in proceedings to demonstrate, for example, a parent’s attitude towards another parent, and evidence of family violence asserted to have taken place during the relationship (or marriage) and post separation,” he says.
“When you’re sending messages, you might not necessarily be thinking of how that could reflect on you in another context. But in family violence matters it’s often the case that social media is used to demonstrate how people engage when they’re not under the microscope of the courts.”
Ambiguous and complicated as it may seem at a fundamental level, Tim says the expectations are actually quite simple.
“We’re living in a world where the internet is used as a tool for bullying and the consequences are very real. So in everything you say and do, let kindness prevail.
“Remember – offence is taken, not given. If you feel your post might offend someone or cause them upset or anxiety, don’t post it. Think – ‘If someone were to make a similar comment to my child, family member or person I care about, how would I feel?’.”
For more information, visit Nicholls Anzani.
