New media helps us be social,

The social media has taken over the lives of so many of us. We like, we tweet, we retweet, we friend, we follow, and we upload photos, video and audio. But do we know the legal limitations, and where we may be breaking the law on libel, invasion of privacy, copyright, music piracy and slander?

It's reasonable to assume that people who make their living from the media will have an understanding of these issues. Meanwhile, simple common sense, good judgment and taste will ensure that many people won't use social media in an illegal manner. But do the general public, and young people in particular, for whom communicating via these means is an ongoing daily occurrence, know where the limits lie?

If the results of a recent study by Nominet, which runs Britain’s web infrastructure, are to be believed, the dangers presented by the ease of use of social media are many and widespread. The survey found that just 44 percent of regular Internet users were able to identify a series of potential legal problems, and just 30 percent of those surveyed understood what could be regarded as a libelous message.

Extraordinary as it may sound, half of users did not see any danger in hacking Facebook accounts to make postings or read private messages. Meanwhile, up to 75 percent would risk breaking copyright laws by uploading pictures or songs, and almost 50 percent would have no problem uploading a video filmed illegally at a concert onto YouTube. And in the sphere of online trading, around half did not consider that selling fake designer labels on eBay was a problem.

Of even more concern, the study found that just one-third of respondents believed that calls to violence, such as those encouraging the riots that broke out in London and other cities last summer, would be illegal. That awareness fell to as low as 8 percent among those surveyed in the 16-24 age group. Despite the many news reports illustrating how social media were used to spread awareness and encouragement of the violence in Britain and the widespread looting that took place as a result, approximately 30 percent did not realize that sending out such messages was illegal.

Social media are also being used to bypass the inability of the media to report on certain issues. Indeed, they point to the irrelevance of news organizations in some situations, such as showing the brutality of security forces in putting down demonstrations, as happened in several Middle East countries throughout 2011.

But what happens when social media users provide information that media outlets are banned from publishing due to court orders. In Britain, there was an explicit example this year when the media were unable to report the details of a so-called celebrity “superinjunction" where a soccer player tried to prevent details of an affair being published. However, the name of the sportsman and the woman with whom he had the affair were so widely tweeted that the court's gag order on the media was rendered irrelevant.

And the results of the Nominet survey showed why this was the case: two-thirds of respondents said they would consider posting a message on Twitter openly defying a court injunction. And just one-third understood that it would be illegal to “retweet” such a message.

To say that social media have changed many peoples' lives would be a statement of the obvious. But is it right that a teenager with a cellphone hearing a rumor can be a news source, while a trained journalist must stay quiet knowing that a jail term could await? Free speech activists would almost certainly justify this anomaly, but consider the damage caused if the rumor is without foundation. It’s not for nothing that the verb “untweet” does not exist.

Social media have opened up a huge world of opportunities and communication to companies and individuals alike. But is it time to emphasize the dangers inherent and the need to be cautious in the messages being sent out?