Facebook mourners broke the law  |  January 7, 2008  

Police have just made public the name of a teen killed on New Year's Day in Toronto. The release of her name was delayed until her parents gave permission for the publication. In keeping with the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act, the identity of the two teens arrested in connection with her death have not been released.

Not released officially. However, anyone with a Facebook account learned almost immediately not only the name of the victim but also the identities of the two accused. Those close to the victim wanted to mourn her passing, and teens today do that online, on Facebook.

But as the Department of Justice made clear this week, posting prohibited information on the Internet is the same as printing it in a newspaper or magazine--publishing is publishing--and therefore these young mourners have broken the law and could face charges.

What happens to them will be worked out in the next few weeks, but the larger questions will be with us for a while: in the Internet age, how can we manage publication bans such as those in the Youth Criminal Justice Act? Should we even bother to try?

The easy answer is to simply forget about information-based bans. In the current case, the police know who set up the Facebook account and could charge him fairly easily, but that will just ensure people in the future will hide posts behind Web aliases and obscure e-mail addresses. In that environment, enforcing a ban would tie up a great deal of police time, and is chasing teen mourners really a good use of resources?

But while ditching publication bans is the expedient answer, it's not a good one. These provisions were created for a good reason: keeping identities secret gives youth the best shot at rehabilitation and a normal life, and it also protects those charged but later found innocent.

The Internet makes enforcing publication bans impossible, but it does not remove the reason those provisions were created.

The right answer is a public awareness campaign along the same lines as those around seat belts and second-hand smoke. There has been very little public discussion or education on why the provisions of the Youth Criminal Justice Act are good for society. Like seat belts, once you explain that it is in our best interests to follow the law, most people will do so.

Publication bans are a good idea in certain specific situations, but enforcing them is all-but impossible. The answer is public awareness and education. However, like with seat belts, social change is a slow process and, in the meantime, many young offenders are going to be outed by teens eager to share their thoughts online.

Peter Wolchak