Mangan, D.

City Research Online

              City, University of London Institutional RepositoryCitation: Mangan, D. (2018). 'Neighbours in a networked society'. Regulating for Globalization: Trade, Labor and EU Law Perspectives, This is the accepted version of the paper. This version of the publication may differ from the final published version. Permanent repository link:  http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/20709/Link to published version: Copyright and reuse: City Research Online aims to make research outputs of City, University of London available to a wider audience. Copyright and Moral Rights remain with the author(s) and/or copyright holders. URLs from City Research Online may be freely distributed and linked to.City Research Online:            http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/            publications@city.ac.ukCity Research OnlineNeighbours in a networked societyRegulating for Globalization08/10/2018David Mangan (City, University of London)Please refer to this post as: David Mangan, ‘Neighbours in a networkedsociety’, Regulating for Globalization, 08/10/2018,http://regulatingforglobalization.com/2018/10/08/neighbours-in-a-networked-society/The networked society as a new landscape for obligationsThe neighbour principleOn 26 May 1932, the UK’s House of Lords, released its decision in Donoghue vStevenson. This decision has been influential for tort law in the common lawworld. Often referred to in less austere terms such as the ‘snail in thebottle case’ or the ‘ginger beer case’, Donoghue may be the genesis ofanother common phrase today, the duty of care. In defining the duty of care,Lord Atkin wrote of the neighbour principle; a concept he derived from theBible. In asking ‘who is my neighbour?’ Lord Atkin bridged the gap betweenthe emphasis in law (at that time) on liability through contract to thecircumstances facing Mrs. Donoghue where she had no direct contractualrelationship with the manufacturer, Mr. Stevenson. Lord Aktin establishedthat contract was not the sole means of a relationship between two parties.In discussing the legal question of neighbourhood, Lord Atkin wrote: ‘Theanswer seems to be — persons who are so closely and directly affected by myact that I ought reasonably to have them in contemplation as being soaffected when I am directing my mind to the acts or omissions which arecalled in question.’In a networked environment, who is my neighbour?The neighbour in a networked society: the labour perspectiveThere is a new platform for neighbourhood in a networked society; and it maybe that the workplace most clearly illustrates. Employers have already beenconfronted with its challenges. The Canadian labour arbitration decision ofAmalgamated Transit Union, Local 113 v. Toronto Transit Commission (Use ofSocial Media Grievance) illustrated the obligations businesses (as employers)have to their workers when developing a social media presence. The guidancecoming from this decision was that a business’ social media presence whichinteracts with the public would need to also be a space free of ‘languagethat is vulgar, offensive, abusive, racist, homophobic, sexist, and/orthreatening’. Prior to information technology, the toxic workplace existed asa characterisation of a physical space. With business promotion via socialmedia platforms, toxicity can arise in a virtual environment withimplications for the physical workplace.The neighbour in a networked society: the tort perspectiveWith social media, the comments of one individual may also affect aneighbour. Moreover, information technology had added to the concept of theneighbour found in Donoghue to include an intermediary who facilitates aclose and direct connection between two parties. Those familiar with theEuropean Court of Human Rights may see echoes of the 2015 decision in Delphiv Estonia.This post began with tort law and moved into labour law to illustrate howquickly a new realm of obligations has developed. It may be that tort andlabour law are viewed as distinct areas without intersection. This does notdiminish the fact that employers and employees are a classic example ofneighbours who are so closely and directly connected that their acts canaffect each other.When considering the legal implications of the embedded nature of informationtechnology, tort law has been looked to as a tool. Defamation, privacy: tortis looked to as the discipline providing the legal means for redress. We nowadditionally have further regulation. Obligations have been imposed onparties due to data protection regulations and these create another layer ofrisk management.Do I have a neighbour in data protection regulation?With the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR), we are left to wonderabout the contemporary relationship between parties that started with LordAtkin’s neighbour principle. Does the GDPR provide us with the means toconfront the new queries of who is my neighbour in a networked society? Witha networked society, are we compelled to consider the wider linkages amongstus and between legal disciplines?It may be that the clearest obligation is the one being foisted upon us: thedeep contemplation of the orthodoxy of our current tools and whether theyprovide us with the conceptual capacity to properly engage with thechallenges posed to the law by innovations in information technology. Notuntil we look at neighbours as members of a society (and not only a workplaceor a smaller geographical community) do we begin to tackle some of theconsiderations of these obligations.

'Neighbours in a networked society'

http://openaccess.city.ac.uk/20709/1/Neighbours%20in%20a%20networked%20society.pdf

'Neighbours in a networked society'

Abstract

Similar works

Full text

Available Versions

City Research Online