Canadian Lawyer

w w w . C A N A D I A N L a w y e r m a g . c o m O C T O B E R 2 0 1 5 27 hideously critical of Palmer and many calling for his blood in the most vivid terms. As several journalists put it, "The hunter became the hunted." Palmer's home was vandalized. He was expelled from his dentistry practice. He went into hiding. He feared for his life. Gho- meshi and Palmer are by no means iso- lated examples of the crude persecution that social media makes possible. Anyone can be unjustly accused of anything. For starters, you can be accused of not being a nice person (e.g., "Hey, buddy, you're a racist!"). There are laws and codes of behaviour that offer some protection against this kind of accusation, although they're largely ineffectual, as anyone who has been the object of unfounded rumour or gossip knows. Much more seriously, like Ghomeshi and Palmer, you can be accused of criminal behaviour. There are traditional systems and rules to ensure, so far as possible, that, in the case of crimes, guilt is clearly estab- lished before punishment is imposed. There's that thing called "presumption of innocence." But the Ghomeshi and Palmer cases dramatically illustrate that these systems and rules don't apply to a social media mob, which will pronounce you guilty and impose punishment in the twinkle of an eye. In this way, social media sub- verts and undermines a critical part of the criminal justice system that many people, particularly lawyers, laboured mightily for years to put in place. How do you mesh the demands of the traditional criminal justice system, developed carefully over centuries, with the reality of the new world of social media, a chaotic behemoth barely a decade old? Part of the tension is between the right to free expression and other individual rights that can be threatened by freedom of expres- sion. How to resolve that tension is an enduring and delicate political and ethical conundrum. Most would agree on one thing: Free expression does not trump everything. But when should it give way? The legal profession has an ethical obligation to protect the criminal jus- tice system by pushing back vigorously against untrammelled public shaming, particularly when it involves accusa- tions of criminal behaviour. But how? For one thing, by going public when necessary. So, for example, in Ghome- shi's case, leaders of the profession and bar associations should have entered the social media debate and publicly cautioned about presuming guilt. They should have used the very same tools used by the lynch mob. They should have played on the same playing field. They should have tweeted their hearts out. In the new world, the old, ponder- ous, and slow ways of expressing an opinion are no longer good enough for anyone, including members of the legal profession. Philip Slayton is immediate past presi- dent of PEN Canada, an organization that promotes and protects freedom of expression. Be Certain. ™ CHARTERED BUSINESS V ALUATORS TM THE CASE INVOLVES QUANTIFYING DAMAGES. BOTH SIDES HAVE WITNESSES. WHO'S THE EXPERT? &DQDGD·V MXGLFLDO V\VWHP UHOLHV RQ WKH ÀQDQFLDO expertise and professional impartiality of Chartered Business Valuators as expert witnesses. It's no wonder — CBVs are the leading Canadian profession LQWKHÀHOGRIGDPDJHVTXDQWLÀFDWLRQ:KHWKHURQ the stand providing testimony or in the form of expert reports that are thorough and rich in clarity, trust is the outcome. That's the certainty of working with a CBV. Download the Legal Counsel Communications with Expert Witnesses White-Paper. Visit cicbv.ca/news Untitled-2 1 2015-09-15 1:10 PM

• Cover