# Court & Screen

> Analysis of social media and the law: deepfakes, online safety regulation, defamation, workplace investigations and preserving social media evidence.

The brief 14 November 2026 Court & Screen covers law, evidence and life online, in plain English. We bring together analysis from legal scholars and researchers writing in The Conversation with our own reporting on how courts, regulators and practitioners deal with what happens on social media. New filings are dated in the record of changes and in our RSS feed, and every source we cite is linked so readers can check it. Identity under attack Nicola Henry's new research shows deepfakes are hurting ordinary people , not just celebrities, and that many victims felt no one helped. At the other end of the fame scale, Graeme Austin explains how stars are using the civil courts against deepfakes, and Rachel Maguire sets out your rights when someone catfishes with your photos . Platforms and the law Australia's digital duty of care bill is now before parliament, and Kimberlee Weatherall explains what it asks of platforms. Daniel Angus explains why the government won't ban sock puppet accounts , and Cassandra Mudgway's work on the abuse of female MPs makes the case for reform. Speech, power and silence Francesca Farrington examines how SLAPPs and NDAs are used to silence victims of sexual offending, and Luke Beck argues that a plan to stop criticism of senior officials online may be unconstitutional . Cavell Ord-Shrimpton's piece on message drift explains why posts so often end up meaning something their authors never intended. Work and consequences Brady Robards studied hundreds of cases to find out who really gets fired over social media posts . His findings matter to employers running investigations as much as to employees. Most of the cases he studied turned on posts that someone had saved, which is a reminder that in workplace disputes the record often matters as much as the conduct itself. Keeping the record Every one of these stories turns on evidence: a post, a video, a comment thread. Our feature looks at how legal teams preserve social media evidence before it disappears, the authentication rules in the US and Australia, and how platforms such as Social Media Evidence record a hash and a server timestamp for every file they capture. Explainer: authentication in plain English Before a court relies on a post, someone has to show that it is what they say it is. In US federal courts, Rule 901 sets that threshold, and Rule 902 lets certain electronic records be authenticated through a certification, including data verified by a process of digital identification such as a hash. In Australia, section 146 of the Evidence Act allows a court to presume that a reliable process or device produced its usual outcome. In practice, that means three things matter most: where the content came from, when it was collected and whether it has changed since. A hash value answers the third question, a server timestamp answers the second, and a full-account capture with URLs and comments answers the first. The Sedona Conference Primer on Social Media is a useful guide for practitioners who want the detail. Reader questions Is a screenshot enough? Sometimes it is accepted, but it is easy to challenge. A capture that records the source URL, the account, the collection time and a hash gives the court far more to check. Our evidence feature explains the difference. What is a hash? A short fingerprint calculated from a file. If the file changes, even slightly, the hash changes, so a matching hash shows a file is the same as when it was collected. What about private accounts? Capture tools work on public content. Private messages and locked accounts are usually obtained through the legal process, such as discovery, subpoenas or court orders. When should I preserve a post? As early as possible. Content is often deleted or hidden as soon as a dispute begins, and a platform's own retention may not help you in time. Do I need my own social media account to capture one? Not with services such as Social Media Evidence , which capture public accounts directly and record the integrity data for each file. What to watch Duty of care in practice. If Australia's bill passes, expect platform obligations to shape what records exist and how quickly harmful content comes down. Deepfakes in evidence. As synthetic media spreads, courts will ask harder questions about where a file came from and whether it has been altered. Platform retention. Platforms change what they keep and for how long, and law enforcement requests can take months. Parties who preserve content themselves at the start of a matter are less exposed to those changes. Workplace policies. Employers are writing social media rules into codes of conduct, and investigations increasingly depend on preserved posts. Sources we rely on The US Federal Rules of Evidence , via Cornell's Legal Information Institute, for authentication in US federal courts. The Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) , via AustLII, for Australian evidence law. The Sedona Conference , whose primer on social media is a standard reference for preservation and discovery. NIST , for technical definitions such as hash values. Peer-reviewed research and legal scholarship, much of it republished here from The Conversation with full credit. Republished articles appear unedited with their authors and institutions and link to the original. Read our editorial standards . Write to editors@courtandscreen.site .

Last updated: 2026-11-14

## Main pages
- [Court & Screen: analysis of social media, digital evidence and the law](https://courtandscreen.site/): Analysis of social media and the law: deepfakes, online safety regulation, defamation, workplace investigations and preserving social media evidence.
- [‘Nobody cared’: new research shows deepfakes are hurting regular people, not just celebrities](https://courtandscreen.site/deepfakes-hurting-ordinary-people-research/): New research from Nicola Henry (RMIT University) shows deepfake abuse is harming ordinary people, and that many victims say nobody helped them.
- [Australia’s ‘digital duty of care’ was just introduced to parliament. So what’s in the bill?](https://courtandscreen.site/australia-digital-duty-of-care-bill-explained/): Australia's digital duty of care bill is before parliament. Kimberlee Weatherall (University of Sydney) explains what it requires of platforms.
- [It’s true, Australia won’t ban ‘sock puppet’ accounts on social media. Here’s why](https://courtandscreen.site/australia-wont-ban-sock-puppet-accounts/): Australia won't ban sock puppet accounts on social media. Daniel Angus (QUT Digital Media Research Centre) explains the reasons and the trade-offs.
- [Slapps, NDAs and gendered ‘lawfare’: how the rich and powerful silence victims of sexual offences](https://courtandscreen.site/slapps-ndas-gendered-lawfare-silence-victims/): Francesca Farrington (University of Liverpool) on how SLAPPs, NDAs and gendered lawfare are used by the rich and powerful to silence victims.
- [Who really gets fired over social media posts? We studied hundreds of cases to find out](https://courtandscreen.site/who-gets-fired-over-social-media-posts/): Brady Robards (Monash University) studied hundreds of cases of people fired over social media posts. Here is who it happens to, and why.
- [Message drift: why things get taken out of context online and why it matters](https://courtandscreen.site/message-drift-taken-out-of-context-online/): Cavell Ord-Shrimpton (Anglia Ruskin University) on message drift: why things get taken out of context online, and why it matters for meaning.
- [Top bureaucrats don’t want to be criticised on social media, but their fix may be unconstitutional](https://courtandscreen.site/bureaucrats-criticism-social-media-constitution/): Senior officials don't want to be criticized on social media. Luke Beck (Monash University) on why the proposed fix may be unconstitutional.
- [From Taylor Swift to Bollywood, stars turn to the civil courts to fight deepfakes](https://courtandscreen.site/stars-civil-courts-fight-deepfakes/): Stars are turning to the civil courts to fight deepfakes. Graeme Austin (University of Melbourne) on the legal tools they use and where they go.
- [Is someone using your pictures to catfish? Your rights when it comes to fake profiles and social media stalking](https://courtandscreen.site/catfish-using-your-pictures-rights/): Rachel Maguire (Royal Holloway, University of London) on your rights when someone uses your photos for fake profiles and catfishing online.
- [A damning study of online abuse of female MPs shows urgent legal reform is needed](https://courtandscreen.site/online-abuse-female-mps-legal-reform/): Cassandra Mudgway (University of Canterbury) on a damning study of online abuse aimed at female MPs and why it shows urgent reform is needed.
- [Before the post disappears: how lawyers and investigators preserve social media evidence](https://courtandscreen.site/preserving-social-media-evidence-before-deleted/): How lawyers and investigators preserve TikTok, Instagram and X posts as evidence: authentication rules, hash values, timestamps and a checklist.

## Sources
- [Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 901 (Cornell LII)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_901)
- [Federal Rules of Evidence, Rule 902 (Cornell LII)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rule_902)
- [Evidence Act 1995 (Cth) s 146 (AustLII)](https://classic.austlii.edu.au/au/legis/cth/consol_act/ea199580/s146.html)
- [The Sedona Conference Primer on Social Media, Second Edition (2019)](https://www.thesedonaconference.org/publication/Primer_on_Social_Media)
- [NIST glossary: hash value](https://csrc.nist.gov/glossary/term/hash_value)

## Optional
- [Full text of this site as Markdown](https://courtandscreen.site/llms-full.txt)
- [About](https://courtandscreen.site/about-this-journal/)
- [Contact](https://courtandscreen.site/write-to-us/)