Everyone should be provided with the "innocent until proven guilty" privilege.

The Examiner treads very carefully when it comes to publishing information once an accused is charged with a crime.

There are strict laws we must follow and from that point, we publish only what has been said in court.

However, there are constant social media posts from individuals or pages sharing details of active court cases, which mainstream media organisations are prohibited from publishing to protect one's right to a fair trial.

The pendulum has certainly swung, but how do you stop it and create greater fairness for the accused?

Opened for comment on Wednesday, Tasmania Law Reform Institute researcher and author Jemma Holt's Social Media, Jurors and the Right of an Accused to a Fair Trial Issues Paper is extremely topical and worthy of extensive community discussion.

The paper looks into jurors' use of social media and other internet activity during criminal trials with limited research undertaken into the prevalence of juror misconduct internationally. It will also look into jurors publishing material online which may disclose bias or prejudice on their part, or otherwise elicit impermissible information by way of a response.

"The detection of juror misconduct of this kind may be rare, but this does not necessarily mean that such misconduct is, in fact, rare. Preserving an accused person's right to a fair trial at a time when social media and other internet platforms are omnipresent in our everyday lives is a significant concern," Ms Holt says.

Democracy is founded on the presumption of innocence and social media use perhaps preventing that from happening should be taken seriously.

However, like everything to do with social media, there are plenty of grey areas and any guidelines will be difficult to build into law. But evidence-based reform must take place. This is a good place to start.