I am always suspicious of countries where the streets are spotless and everyone is in bed by 10pm. In Switzerland, merely indicating that you “like” something can now land you in serious trouble with the authorities. Last week an unnamed man from Zurich was found guilty of defamation for pressing the “like” button on several Facebook posts about the president of an animal rights group. The posts were certainly on the robust side, suggesting the president was a fascist and his group were neo-Nazis. It is generally not a good idea to make such allegations about someone unless you have a photo of them sitting in a Panzer tank approvingly browsing their copy of Mein Kampf, and it would have been no surprise if the author of the posts had been held to account. However, the defendant was sued on the basis that “liking” the posts spread their content, by making them visible to a larger number of people. The judge ruled that because the word “like” denotes a positive judgment, it suggested the defendant supported the views expressed in the posts.
Even by the standards of a country that gave the world the cuckoo clock, this seems a little barmy. Surely the mere fact that you agree with something cannot make you liable for its legal consequences. For a start, the whole concept of “liking” something on Facebook is ambiguous. If I put up a post stating that a friend has suffered an unfortunate and painful accident the fact that you “like” the post does not necessarily mean you are glad the person was hurt.
Once we get beyond happy and sad faces, things become even more complicated. What if I respond to a post with a penguin emoticon? Does that mean I agree with the post or disagree with it, or just that I happen to be fond of penguins and think about them a lot? So far as I am concerned the question “what does it mean to like something?” is one best left to Plato rather than a court of law. Indeed Facebook’s own instructions become philosophical in places, such as where they explain you can only “unlike” something that you previously liked. Try explaining that to a toddler tasting broccoli for the first time.
“Protect yourself from the Swiss thought police by using an emoticon
The best way to protect yourself from the Swiss thought police may be to use something different to “like” when reacting to online statements. For example, sending an emoticon wearing a horsehair wig could be used to suggest you are not accepting any legal liability merely by indicating you have read the post. Sending an emoticon of Eamon Dunphy’s face would convey that this was a good post but not necessarily a great post; thereby leaving yourself some wriggle room when a Swiss lawyer comes knocking on the door of your chalet.
The judgment also has implications for that minuscule part of our everyday lives that still remains offline. For example, if I read a novel in my favourite coffee shop and laugh out loud, does that mean I am potentially liable if it later transpires the book was libellous? From now on commuters reading newspapers on the bus should keep a straight face lest they attract the attention of any government lawyers on board. The population of North Korea provide a good example of how to do this on a nationwide basis.
Advertisement
And what if I applaud a bad tackle the next time Kerry are launching their annual assault on the football title in Croke Park? By “liking” the foul do I become an accessory of the player who caused the injury?
For all of these reasons I am inclined to “unlike” the judgment of the court in Zurich, albeit that I will not be advertising that fact the next time I am hiking past the Reichenbach Falls looking for a good chocolate shop.
In As You Like It, Shakespeare declared that “All the world’s a stage”. If he lived now in Zurich he would say “all the world’s a courtroom”.