Facebook – Page 2 – Social Media Legality

Is your data protected? By who? What rights do you have over your personal information once it has entered the world wide web?

– Who doesn’t protect your data?
– History of the “data” or personal information legislation
– A July 2021 update on the start of legislation regarding data protection on the internet
– What you can do to protect your data for now.

Ever since the 2018 publicized Facebook data breach, I have been curious about what data exactly can be stored, used and “understood” by computer algorithms and what the legal implications may be. At first, I was excited about this as a new tool. I tend to shop and look for things that are, at least branded as sustainably sourced and environmentally friendly. For me, the idea that I would only be advertised these types of items, no plastics that may off gas sounded great to me. It wasn’t until I heard some of my peers’ concerns before I seriously questioned the dangers of data collection and how this information could be used to harm.

Social media websites, commerce websites and mobile apps have become integral parts in many of our everyday lives. We use them to connect with friends online, find like-minded people through virtual groups from across the world. These sites are used to share private, work, and “public” information. The data collected from social media can be looked at as a tool or an invasion of privacy. User data collection could give us access to knowledge which allows us to learn more about our human nature. For example, this data can tell us about different demographics and how users use each platform. However, it also raises new issues on what should be private, and who owns the data created by user usage (the platform/company or individual using it).

What are our governments doing to protect our data – personal information- rights? Do individuals even have data rights over their personal information on the internet? If so, how will these rights be protected or regulated for? And how will legislation attempt to regulate businesses? These are all questions that I have wondered about and hope to start to answer here. After watching Mark Zuckerberg explain to congressmen how companies make money on the internet, while remaining fre, I had little faith that our legal system would catch up to how companies and computer programmers are using these new technologies. Many large social media companies remain free making money selling the data and virtual advertising space, which has its own legal issues. Would you rather pay for Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, Snapchat ect., or allow them to sell your data? If we demand regulation and privacy for our data we may need to make this choice.

Privacy on the Internet

Federally in the United States, this area of law is unregulated territory, leaving it up to the tech and social media companies for now. However, some states are starting to create their own laws. See the pictures below.

How has the government regulated these areas thus far?

There are no general consumer privacy and security laws in the federal government legislation. However, as you may remember the US government imposed a whopping $5 billion dollar penalty for Facebook’s data breach. The order also required “Facebook to restructure its approach to privacy… and establishes strong new mechanisms to ensure that Facebook executives are accountable for the decisions they make about privacy, and that those decisions are subject to meaningful oversight” (FTC). This was under the Federal Trade Commission Act (FTC).

This act, past in 1914, created a government agency and prohibited companies from engaging in “unfair or deceptive acts or practises” (section 5 FTC). It protected consumers from misleading or boldly false advertising by some of America’s largest leading consumer brands (Federal Trade Commission Overview).

Interesting here is why Facebook had to pay a settlement under the Federal Trade Commission act. Under the Federal Trade commission act only companies which, “boldly false advertise,” “mislead,” or “misrepresent.” Facebook told consumers that the site did not sell their data and that users could restrict access Facebook had to data if they set it up by clicking certain boxes. The opposite was true. Facebook did not violate any internet privacy laws (there weren’t any). In this case, a 20th century legislation created, in large, to protect consumers from companies selling fake merchandise. If Facebook had said nothing about data privacy on their website they wouldn’t have been liable for anything. Since this case, more legal regulations have been introduced.

US Privacy Act of 1974

In order to understand where the legal field will go it is important to understand the history of US Privacy Rights. This act restricted what data, of personal information, US government agencies could store on their (first) computer databases. This act also gave individual’s certain rights, such as the right to access any of the data that is held by government agencies, and the right to correct any errors. It also restricted what and how the information was shared between federal and non-federal agencies, allowing it only under specific circumstances.

HIPAA, GLBA, COPPA

These three acts further protect individuals personal information.

HIPAA, the Health Insurance portability and Accountability Act, was put in place to regulate health insurance and protect people’s personal health information. This act laid down certain ground rules for confidentiality requirements. (HIPAA for Professionals).

The Gramm-Leach- Bliley Act (GLBA), passed in 1999, protects nonpublic personal information, defined as “any information collected about an individual in connection with providing a financial product or service, unless that information is otherwise publicly available.”

The Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (CPPA), enacted in 1998,regulates the personal information that is collected from minors. The law “imposes certain requirements on operators of websites or online services directed to (or have actual knowledge of) children under 13 years of age.”

Worldwide Internet Data Privacy

Currently, the US does not have any federal level consumer data privacy or security law. According to the “United Nations Conference on Trade and Development, 107 countries have data privacy rules in place including 66 developing nations.”

The European Union passed the General Data Protection Regulation in 2018. This law went through a long legislative process, the data privacy and security rights law was officially approved in 2016 and went into effect May 2018. It put specific obligations on data processors and the cloud. The regulation also hopes to give individuals the ability to sue processors of data directly for damages, limit and minimize the retention of data that is kept by default and give consumers the right to correct incorrect information. The GDPR also requires explicit consent when consumers give their data. “Processing personal data is generally prohibited, unless it is expressly allowed by law, or the data subject has consented to the processing.”

THE U.S.’s strictest state so far:

So far only three states, California, Colorado and Virginia have actually enacted comprehensive consumer data privacy laws according to the National Conference of State Legislatures as of July 22, 2021. The closest US law to the EU’s GDPR, is California’s Consumer Privacy Act (currently U.S.’s strictest regulation on internet data privacy). In California this act requires businesses to clearly state what types of personal data will be collected from consumers and how this information will be used, managed, shared, and sold by companies or entities doing business with and compiling information about California Residents (CCPA AND GDPR Comparison chart.) This “landmark law” secures new privacy rights for California consumers, including:

The right to know about the personal information a business collects about them and how it is used and shared;
The right to delete personal information collected from them (with some exceptions);
The right to opt-out of the sale of their personal information; and
The right to non-discrimination for exercising their CCPA rights. (Office of Attorney General on the CCPA).

New York State Privacy Law Update June 2021

In the New York legislature there were a number of privacy bills that were pending, including the “It’s Your Data Act,” the “New York Privacy Act,” the “Digital Fairness Act,” and the “New York Data Accountability and Transparency Act.” Most of the bills never made it out of committee.

US LEGISLATION TRACKER

The “It’s Your Data Act” proposed to provide protections and transparency in the collection, use, retention, and sharing of personal information.

From the New York State Senate Summary:

“The ‘NY Privacy Act’ proposed to enact would require companies to disclose their methods of identifying personal information, to place special safeguards around data sharing, and to allow consumers to obtain the names of all entities with whom their information is shared”, creating a special account to fund a new Office of Privacy and Data Protection. It is currently on the floor calendar, and no action has yet been taken on it.

The definition of personal information here is – “any information related to an identified or identifiable person” – includes a very extensive list of identifiers: biometric, email addresses, network information and more.

What are Data Privacy Rights which have been identified thus far?

Provisions in Chart

CONSUMER RIGHTS

The right of access to personal information collected or shared – The right for a consumer to access from a business/data controller the information or categories of information collected about a consumer, the information or categories of information shared with third parties, or the specific third parties or categories of third parties to which the information was shared; or, some combination of similar information.
The right to rectification — The right for a consumer to request that incorrect or outdated personal information be corrected but not deleted.
The right to deletion — The right for a consumer to request deletion of personal information about the consumer under certain conditions.
The right to restriction of processing — The right for a consumer to restrict a business’s ability to process personal information about the consumer.
The right to data portability — The right for a consumer to request personal information about the consumer be disclosed in a common file format.
The right to opt out of the sale of personal information — The right for a consumer to opt out of the sale of personal information about the consumer to third parties.
The right against automated decision making — A prohibition against a business making decisions about a consumer based solely on an automated process without human input.
A consumer private right of action — The right for a consumer to seek civil damages from a business for violations of a statute.

BUSINESS OBLIGATIONS

“A strict opt-in for the sale of personal information of a consumer less than a certain age” — A restriction placed on a business to treat consumers under a certain age with an opt-in default for the sale of their personal information.
Notice/transparency requirements — An obligation placed on a business to provide notice to consumers about certain data practices, privacy operations, and/or privacy programs.
Mandated risk assessment — An obligation placed on a business to conduct formal risk assessments of privacy and/or security projects or procedures.
A prohibition on discrimination against a consumer for exercising a right — A prohibition against a business treating a consumer who exercises a consumer right differently than a consumer who does not exercise a right.
A purpose/processing limitation — prohibits the collection/processing of personal information except for a specific purpose.
A strict opt-in for the sale of personal information of a consumer less than a certain age
Notice/transparency requirements
Mandated risk assessment
A prohibition on discrimination against a consumer for exercising a right
A purpose/processing limitation

While many rights and obligations are starting to be recognized, again, there is not yet legislation to protect them.

So, what can you do to protect yourself?

1. Update and Optimize Your Privacy Settings.

Review what apps have access to facebook data and what they can do with the access

Delete access for all apps you no longer use or need

Share with Care. Be aware that when you post a picture or message, you may be inadvertantly sharing personal details and sensitive data with strangers.
Block “supercookies” trails – Supercookies are bits of data that can be stored on your computer like advertising networks. They are a “ — a much more invasive type of behavior-tracking program than traditional cookies that is also harder to circumvent.” supercookies are harder to detect and get rid of because they hide in various places and can’t be automatically deleted. A supercookie owner can capture a ton of your unique personal data like your identity, behavior, preferences, how long you’re online, when you’re most active and more. Supercookies can communicate across different websites, stitching together your personal data into a highly detailed profile.
Set up Private email Identity
Update your softwares – many software companies release updates which patch bugs and vulnerabilities in the app when they are discovered
Use App lockers – App lockers provide an extra level of security for apps and work
Encrypt your data – There are free apps available to encrypt or scramble data so that it can not be read without a key.
“Create long and unique passwords for all counts and use multi-factor authentication whenever possible”. This additional layer of security makes it harder for hackers to get into your accounts. (Data Privacy Senate).

Can Social Media Be Regulated?

In 1996 Congress passed what is known as Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) which provides immunity to website publishers for third-party content posted on their websites. The CDA holds that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.” This Act passed in 1996, was created in a different time and era, one that could hardly envision how fast the internet would grow in the coming years. In 1996, social media for instance consisted of a little-known social media website called Bolt, the idea of a global world wide web, was still very much in its infancy. The internet was still largely based on dial-up technology, and the government was looking to expand the reach of the internet. This Act is what laid the foundation for the explosion of Social Media, E-commerce, and a society that has grown tethered to the internet.

The advent of Smart-Phones in the late 2000s, coupled with the CDA, set the stage for a society that is constantly tethered to the internet and has allowed companies like Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Amazon to carve out niches within our now globally integrated society. Facebook alone in the 2nd quarter of 2021 has averaged over 1.9 billion daily users.

Recent studs conducted by the Pew Research Center show that “[m]ore than eight in ten Americans get news from digital services”

While older members of society still rely on news media online, the younger generation, namely those 18-29 years of age, receive their news via social media.

The role Social Media plays in the lives of the younger generation needs to be recognized. Social Media has grown at a far greater rate than anyone could imagine. Currently, Social Media operates under its modus operandi, completely free of government interference due to its classification as a private entity, and its protection under Section 230.

Throughout the 20th century when Television News Media dominated the scenes, laws were put into effect to ensure that television and radio broadcasters would be monitored by both the courts and government regulatory commissions. For example, “[t]o maintain a license, stations are required to meet a number of criteria. The equal-time rule, for instance, states that registered candidates running for office must be given equal opportunities for airtime and advertisements at non-cable television and radio stations beginning forty-five days before a primary election and sixty days before a general election.”

What these laws and regulations were put in place for was to ensure that the public interest in broadcasting was protected. To give substance to the public interest standard, Congress has from time to time enacted requirements for what constitutes the public interest in broadcasting. But Congress also gave the FCC broad discretion to formulate and revise the meaning of broadcasters’ public interest obligations as circumstances changed.

The Federal Communications Commission (FCC) authority is constrained by the first amendment but acts as an intermediary that can intervene to correct perceived inadequacies in overall industry performance, but it cannot trample on the broad editorial discretion of licensees. The Supreme Court has continuously upheld the public trustee model of broadcast regulation as constitutional. The criticisms of regulating social media center on the notion that they are purely private entities that do not fall under the purviews of the government, and yet these same issues are what presented themselves in the precedent-setting case of Red Lion Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission (1969. In this case, the court held that “rights of the listeners to information should prevail over those of the broadcasters.” The Court’s holding centered on the public right to information over the rights of a broadcast company to choose what it will share, this is exactly what is at issue today when we look at companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and Snapchat censuring political figures who post views that they feel may be inciteful of anger or violence.

In essence, what these organizations are doing is keeping information and views from the attention of the present-day viewer. The vessel for the information has changed, it is no longer found in television or radio but primarily through social media. Currently, television and broadcast media are restricted by Section 315(a) of the Communications Act and Section 73.1941 of the Commission’s rules which “require that if a station allows a legally qualified candidate for any public office to use its facilities (i.e., make a positive identifiable appearance on the air for at least four seconds), it must give equal opportunities to all other candidates for that office to also use the station.” This is a restriction that is nowhere to be found for Social Media organizations.

This is not meant to argue for one side or the other but merely to point out that there is a political discourse being stifled by these social media entities, that have shrouded themselves in the veils of a private entity. However, what these companies fail to mention is just how political they truly are. For instance, Facebook proclaims itself to be an unbiased source for all parties, and yet what it fails to mention is that currently, Facebook employs one of the largest lobbyist groups in Washington D.C. Four Facebooks lobbyist have worked directly in the office of House Speaker Pelosi. Pelosi herself has a very direct connection to Facebook, she and her husband own between $550,000 to over $1,000,000 in Facebook stock. None of this is illegal, however, it raises the question of just how unbiased is Facebook.

If the largest source of news for the coming generation is not television, radio, or news publications themselves, but rather Social Media such as Facebook, then how much power should they be allowed to wield without there being some form of regulation? The question being presented here is not a new one, but rather the same question asked in 1969, simply phrased differently. How much information is a citizen entitled to, and at what point does access to that information outweigh the rights of the organization to exercise its editorial discretion? I believe that the answer to that question is the same now as it was in 1969 and that the government ought to take steps similar to those taken with radio and television. What this looks like is ensuring that through Social Media, that the public has access to a significant amount of information on public issues so that its members can make rational political decisions. At the end of that day that it was at stake, the public’s ability to make rational political decisions.

These large Social Media conglomerates such as Facebook and Twitter have long outgrown their place as a private entity, they have grown into a public medium that has tethered itself to the realities of billions of people. Certain aspects of it need to be regulated, mainly those that interfere with the Public Interest, there are ways to regulate this without interfering with the overall First Amendment right of Free Speech for all Americans. Where however Social Media blends being a private forum for all people to express their ideas under firmly stated “terms and conditions”, and being an entity that strays into the political field whether it be by censoring heads of state, or by hiring over $50,000,000 worth of lobbyist in Washington D.C, there need to be some regulations put into place that draw the line that ensures the public still maintains the ability to make rational political decisions. Rational decisions that are not influenced by anyone organization. The time to address this issue is now when there is still a middle ground on how people receive their news and formulate opinions.

Alarming Side of Youtube

Social media has now become an integrated part of an individual’s life. From Facebook to twitter, Instagram, snapchat to the latest edition, that is TikTok, social media has made its way into a person’s life and occupies the same value as that of eating, sleeping, exercising etc. There is no denying the dopamine hit you get from posting on Instagram or scrolling endlessly, liking, sharing, commenting and re-sharing etc. From checking your notifications and convincing yourself, “Right, just five minutes, I am going to check my notifications” to spending hours on social media, it is a mixed bag. While I find that being in social media is to an extent a way to relax and alleviate stress, I also believe social media and its influence on peoples’ lives should not cross a certain threshold.

We all like a good laugh. We get a good laugh from people doing funny things on purpose or people pranking other people to get a laugh. Most individuals nowadays use some sort of social medial platforms to watch content or make content. YouTube is once such platform. After Google, YouTube is the most visited website on the internet. Everyday about a billion hours of videos are watched by people all over the world. I myself, contribute to those billion hours.

Now imagine you are on YouTube, you start watching a famous youtuber’s videos, you then realize this video is not only disturbing but is also very offensive. You stop watching the video. That’s it. You think that is a horrible video and think no more of it. On the contrary, there have been videos on YouTube which have caused mass controversy all over the internet since the platforms birth in 2005. Let us now explore the dark side of YouTube.

There is an industry that centers around pranks done to members of the public which is less about humor and more about shock value. There is nothing wrong with a harmless prank, but when doing a prank, one must be considerate how their actions are perceived by others, one wrong move and you could end facing charges or a conviction.

Across the social media platform there are many creators of such prank videos. Not all of them have been well received by the public or by the fands of the creators. One such incident is where YouTube content creators, Alan and Alex Stokes who are known for their gag videos plead guilty to charges centering around fake bank robberies staged by them.

The twins wore black clothes and ski masks, carried cash filled duffle bags for a video where they pretended to have robbed a bank. They then ordered an uber who, unaware of the prank had refused to drive them. An onlooker called the police believing that the twins had robbed a bank and were attempting to carjack the vehicle. Police arrived at the scene and held the driver at gunpoint until it was revealed and determined that it was a prank. The brothers were not charged and let off with a warning. They however, pulled the same stunt at a university some four hours later and were arrested.

They were charged with one felony count of false imprisonment by violence, menace or fraud, or deceit and one misdemeanor count of falsely reporting an emergency. The charges carry a maximum penalty of five years in prison. “These were not pranks. These are crimes that could have resulted in someone getting seriously injured or even killed.” said Todd Spitzer, Orange County district attorney.

The brothers accepted a bargain from the judge. In return for a guilty plea, the felony count would be reduced a misdemeanor resulting in one year probation and 160 hours of community service and compensation. The plea was entered despite the prosecution stating that tougher charges were necessary. The judge also warned the brothers, who have over 5 million YouTube subscribers not to make such videos.

Analyzing the scenario above, I would agree with the district attorney. Making prank videos and racking up videos should not come at the cost of inciting fear and panic in the community. The situation with the police could have escalated severely which might have led to a more gruesome outcome. The twins were very lucky, however, in the next incident, the man doing a prank video in Tennessee was not.

In filming a YouTube prank video, 20 year old Timothy Wilks was shot dead in a parking lot of an Urban Air indoor trampoline park. David Starnes Jr, admitted to shooting Wilks when he and an unnamed individual approached him and a group wielding butcher knives and lunged at them. David told the police that he shot one of them in defense of himself and others.

Wilks’s friend said they were filming a video of a robbery prank for their YouTube channel. This was a supposed to be a recorded YouTube video meant to capture the terrified reactions of their prank victims. David was unaware of this prank and pulled out his gun to protect himself and others. No one has been charged yet in regard to the incident.

The above incident is an example of how pranks can go horribly wrong and result in irreparable damage. This poses the question, who do you blame, the 20 years old man staging a very dangerous prank video, or the 23-year-old who fired his gun in response to that?

Monalisa Perez, a youtuber from Minnesota fatally shot and killed her boyfriend in an attempt to film a stunt of firing a gun 30 cm away from her boyfriend, Predo Ruiz, who only had a thick book of 1.5inch to protect him. Perez pleaded guilty to second degree manslaughter and was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment.

Perez and her boyfriend Ruiz would document their everyday lives in Minnesota by posting pranks videos on YouTube to gain views. Before the fatal stunt, Perez tweeted, “Me and Pedro are probably going to shoot one of the most dangerous videos ever. His idea, not mine.”

Perez had previously experimented before and thought that the hardback Encyclopedia would be enough to stop the bullet. Perez fired a .50-calibre Desert Eagle, which is known to be an extremely powerful handgun which pierced the encyclopedia and fatally wounded Ruiz.

Perez will serve a 180-day jail term, serve 10 years of supervised probation, be banned for life from owning firearms and make no financial gain from the case. The sentence is below the minimum guidelines, but it was allowed on the ground that the stunt was mostly Ruiz’s idea.

Dangerous pranks such as the one above has left a man dead and a mother of two grieving for fatally killing her partner.

In response to the growing concerns of filming various trends and videos, YouTube have updated their policies regarding “harmful and dangerous” content and explicitly banned pranks and challenges that may cause immediate or lasting physical or emotional harm. The policies page showcases three types of videos that are now prohibited. They are: 1) Challenges that encourage acts that have an inherent risk of sever harm; 2) Pranks that make victims they are physical danger and 3) Pranks that cause emotional distress to children.

Prank videos may depict the dark side of how content crating can go wrong but they are not the only ones. In 2017, youtuber, Logan Paul became the source of controversy after posting a video of him in a Japanese forest called Aokigahara near the base of Mount Fuji. Aokigahara is a dense forest with lush trees and greenery. The forest is, however, infamous for being known as the suicide forest. It is a frequent site for suicides and is also considered haunted.

Upon entering the forest, the youtuber came across a dead body hung from a tree. The actions and depictions of Logan Paul around the body are what caused controversy and outrage. The video has since been taken down from YouTube. An apology video was posted by Logan Paul trying to defend his actions. This did nothing to quell the anger on the internet. He then came out with a second video where he could be seen tearing up on camera. In addressing the video, YouTube expressed condolences and stated that they prohibit such content which are shocking or disrespectful. Paul lost the ability to make money on his videos through advertisement which is known as demonetization. He was also removed from the Google Preferred program, where brands can sell advertisement to content creators on YouTube.

That consequences of Logan Paul’s actions did not end there. A production company is suing the youtuber on the claims that the video of him in the Aokigahara resulted in the company losing a multimillion-dollar licencing agreement with Google. The video caused Google to end its relationship with Planeless Pictures, the production company and not pay the $3.5 million. Planeless Pictures are now suing Paul claiming that he pay the amount as well as additional damage and legal fees.

That is not all. Youtube has been filled with controversies which have resulted in lawsuits.

A youtuber by the name of Kanghua Ren was fined $22300 and was also sentenced to 15 months imprisonment for filming himself giving a homeless man an oreo filled with toothpaste. He gave 20 euros and oreo cookies to a homeless which were laced with toothpaste instead of cream. The video depicts the homeless man vomiting after eating the cookie. In the video Ren stated that although he had gone a bit far, the action would help clean the homeless person’s teeth. The court, however, did not take this lightly and sentenced him. The judge stated that this was not an isolated act and that Ren had shown cruel behaviour towards vulnerable victims.

These are some of the pranks and videos that have gained online notoriety. There are many other videos which have portrayed child abuse, following a trend by eating tidepods as well as making sharing anti-Semitic videos and using racist remarks. The most disturbing thing about these videos is that they are not only viewed by adults but also children. In my opinion these videos could be construed as having some influence on young individuals.

Youtube is a diverse platform home to millions of content creators. Since its inception it has served as a mode of entertainment and means of income to many individuals. From posting cat videos online to making intricate, detailed, and well directed short films, YouTube has revolutionized the video and content creation spectrum. Being an avid viewer of many channels on YouTube, I find that incidents like these, give YouTube a bad name. Proper policies and guidelines should be enacted and imposed and if necessary government supervision may also be exercised.

Don’t Throw Out the Digital Baby with the Cyber Bathwater: The Rest of the Story

This article is in response to “Is Cyberbullying the Newest Form of Police Brutality?” which discussed law enforcement’s use of social media to apprehend people. The article provided a provocative topic, as seen by the number of comments.

I believe that discussion is healthy for society; people are entitled to their feelings and to express their beliefs. Each person has their own unique life experiences that provide a basis for their beliefs and perspectives on issues. I enjoy discussing a topic with someone because I learn about their experiences and new facts that broaden my knowledge. Developing new relationships and connections is so important. Relationships and new knowledge may change perspectives or at least add to understanding each other better. So, I ask readers to join the discussion.

My perspectives were shaped in many ways. I grew up hearing Paul Harvey’s radio broadcast “The Rest of the Story.” His radio segment provided more information on a topic than the brief news headline may have provided. He did not imply that the original story was inaccurate, just that other aspects were not covered. In his memory, I will attempt to do the same by providing you with more information on law enforcement’s use of social media.

“Is Cyberbullying the Newest Form of Police Brutality?”

The article title served its purpose by grabbing our attention. Neither cyberbullying or police brutality are acceptable. Cyberbullying is typically envisioned as teenage bullying taking place over the internet. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that “Cyberbullying includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else. It can include sharing personal or private information about someone else causing embarrassment or humiliation”. Similarly, police brutality occurs when law enforcement (“LE”) officers use illegal and excessive force in a situation that is unreasonable, potentially resulting in a civil rights violation or a criminal prosecution.

While the article is accurate that 76% of the surveyed police departments use social media for crime-solving tips, the rest of the story is that more departments use social media for other purposes. 91% notified the public regarding safety concerns. 89% use the technology for community outreach and citizen engagement, 86% use it for public relations and reputation management. Broad restrictions should not be implemented, which would negate all the positive community interactions increasing transparency.

Transparency

In an era where the public is demanding more transparency from LE agencies across the country, how is the disclosure of the public’s information held by the government considered “Cyberbullying” or “Police Brutality”? Local, state, and federal governments are subject to Freedom of Information Act laws requiring agencies to provide information to the public on their websites or release documents within days of requests or face civil liability.

New Jersey Open Public Records

While the New Jersey Supreme Court has not decided if arrest photographs are public, the New Jersey Government Records Council (“GRC”) has decided in Melton v. City of Camden, GRC 2011-233 (2013) that arrest photographs are not public records under NJ Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) because of Governor Whitmer’s Executive Order 69 which exempts fingerprint cards, plates and photographs and similar criminal investigation records from public disclosure. It should be noted that GRC decisions are not precedential and therefore not binding on any court.

However, under OPRA, specifically 47:1A-3 Access to Records of Investigation in Progress, specific arrest information is public information and must be disclosed to the public within 24 hours of a request to include the:

Date, time, location, type of crime, and type of weapon,
Defendant’s name, age, residence, occupation, marital status, and similar background information.
Identity of the complaining party,
Text of any charges or indictment unless sealed,
Identity of the investigating and arresting officer and agency and the length of the investigation,
Time, location, and the arrest circumstances (resistance, pursuit, use of weapons),
Bail information.

For years, even before Melton, I believed that an arrestee’s photograph should not be released to the public. As a police chief, I refused numerous media requests for arrestee photographs protecting their rights and believing in innocence until proven guilty. Even though they have been arrested, the arrestee has not received due process in court.

New York’s Open Public Records

In New York under the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), Public Officers Law, Article 6, §89(2)(b)(viii) (General provisions relating to access to records; certain cases) The disclosure of LE arrest photographs would constitute an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s personal privacy unless the public release would serve a specific LE purpose and the disclosure is not prohibited by law.

California’s Open Public Records

Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) a person has the statutory right to be provided or inspect public records, unless a record is exempt from disclosure. Arrest photographs are inclusive in arrest records along with other personal information, including the suspect’s full name, date of birth, sex, physical characteristics, occupation, time of arrest, charges, bail information, any outstanding warrants, and parole or probation holds.

Therefore under New York and California law, the blanket posting of arrest photographs is already prohibited.

Safety and Public Information

Recently in Ams. for Prosperity Found. V. Bonta, the compelled donor disclosure case, while invalidating the law on First Amendment grounds, Justice Alito’s concurring opinion briefly addressed the parties personal safety concerns that supporters were subjected to bomb threats, protests, stalking, and physical violence. He cited Doe v Reed which upheld disclosures containing home addresses under Washington’s Public Records Act despite the growing risks by anyone accessing the information with a computer.

Satisfied Warrant

I am not condoning Manhattan Beach Police Department’s error of posting information on a satisfied warrant along with a photograph on their “Wanted Wednesday” in 2020. However, the disclosed information may have been public information under CPRA then and even now. On July 23, 2021, Governor Newsom signed a law amending Section 13665 of the CPRA prohibiting LE agencies from posting photographs of an arrestee accused of a non-violent crime on social media unless:

The suspect is a fugitive or an imminent threat, and disseminating the arrestee’s image will assist in the apprehension.
There is an exigent circumstance and an urgent LE interest.
A judge orders the release or dissemination of the suspect’s image based on a finding that the release or dissemination is in furtherance of a legitimate LE interest.

The critical error was that the posting stated the warrant was active when it was not. A civil remedy exists and was used by the party to reach a settlement for damages. Additionally, it could be argued that the agency’s actions were not the proximate cause when vigilantes caused harm.

Scope of Influence

LE’s reliance on the public’s help did not start with social media or internet websites. The article pointed out that “Wanted Wednesday” had a mostly local following of 13,600. This raised the question if there is much of a difference between the famous “Wanted Posters” from the wild west or the “Top 10 Most Wanted” posters the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) used to distribute to Post Offices, police stations and businesses to locate fugitives. It can be argued that this exposure was strictly localized. However, the weekly TV show America’s Most Wanted, made famous by John Walsh, aired from 1988 to 2013, highlighting fugitive cases nationally. The show claims it helped capture over 1000 criminals through their tip-line. However, national media publicity can be counter-productive by generating so many false leads that obscure credible leads.

The FBI website contains pages for Wanted People, Missing People, and Seeking Information on crimes. “CAPTURED” labels are added to photographs showing the results of the agency’s efforts. Local LE agencies should follow FBI practices. I would agree with the article that social media and websites should be updated; however, I don’t agree that the information must be removed because it is available elsewhere on the internet.

Time

Vernon Gebeth, the leading police homicide investigation instructor, believes time is an investigator’s worst enemy. Eighty-five percent of abducted children are killed within the first five hours. Almost all are killed within the first twenty-four hours. Time is also critical because, for each hour that passed, the distance a suspect’s vehicle can travel expands by seventy-five miles in either direction. In five hours, the area can become larger than 17,000 square miles. Like Amber Alerts, social media can be used to quickly transmit information to people across the country in time-sensitive cases.

Live-Streaming Drunk Driving Leads to an Arrest

When Whitney Beall, a Florida woman, used a live streaming app to show her drinking at a bar then getting into her vehicle. The public dialed 911, and a tech-savvy officer opened the app, determined her location, and pulled her over. She was arrested after failing a DWI sobriety test. After pleading guilty to driving under the influence, she was sentenced to 10 days of weekend work release, 150 hours of community service, probation, and a license suspension. In 2019 10,142 lives were lost to alcohol impaired driving crashes.

Family Advocating

Social media is not limited to LE. It also provides a platform for victim’s families to keep attention on their cases. The father of a seventeen-year-old created a series of Facebook Live videos about a 2011 murder resulting in the arrest of Charles Garron. He was to a fifty-year prison term.

Instagram Selfies with Drugs, Money and Stolen Guns

Police in Palm Beach County charged a nineteen-year-old man with 142 felony charges, including possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, while investigating burglaries and jewel thefts in senior citizen communities. An officer found his Instagram account with incriminating photographs. A search warrant was executed, seizing stolen firearms and $250,000 in stolen property from over forty burglaries.

Bank Robbery Selfies

Police received a tip and located a social media posting by John E. Mogan II of himself with wads of cash in 2015. He was charged with robbing an Ashville, Ohio bank. He pled guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison. According to news reports, Morgan previously served prison time for another bank robbery.

Food Post Becomes the Smoking Gun

LE used Instagram to identify an ID thief who posted photographs of his dinner at a high-end steakhouse with a confidential informant (“CI”). The man who claimed he had 700,000 stolen identities and provided the CI a flash drive of stolen identities. The agents linked the flash drive to a “Troy Maye,” who the CI identified from Maye’s profile photograph. Authorities executed a search warrant on his residence and located flash drives containing the personal identifying information of thousands of ID theft victims. Nathaniel Troy Maye, a 44-year-old New York resident, was sentenced to sixty-six months in federal prison after pleading guilty to aggravated identity theft.

Wanted Man Turns Himself in After Facebook Challenge With Donuts

A person started trolling Redford Township Police during a Facebook Live community update. It was determined that he was a 21-year-old wanted for a probation violation for leaving the scene of a DWI collision. When asked to turn himself in, he challenged the PD to get 1000 shares and he would bring in donuts. The PD took the challenge. It went viral and within an hour reached that mark acquiring over 4000 shares. He kept his word and appeared with a dozen donuts. He faced 39 days in jail and had other outstanding warrants.

The examples in this article were readily available on the internet and on multiple news websites, along with photographs.

Under state Freedom of Information Laws, the public has a statutory right to know what enforcement actions LE is taking. Likewise, the media exercises their First Amendment rights to information daily across the country when publishing news. Cyber journalists are entitled to the same information when publishing news on the internet and social media. Traditional news organizations have adapted to online news to keep a share of the news market. LE agencies now live stream agency press conferences to communicating directly with the communities they serve.

Therefore the positive use of social media by LE should not be thrown out like bathwater when legal remedies exist when damages are caused.

“And now you know…the rest of the story.”

Free speech, should it be so free?

In the United States everybody is entitled to free speech; however, we must not forget that the First Amendment of the Constitution only protects individuals from federal and state actions. With that being said, free speech is not protected from censorship by private entities, like social media platforms. In addition, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) provides technology companies like Twitter, YouTube, Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram as well as other social media giants, immunity from liabilities arising from the content posted on their websites. The question becomes whether it is fair for an individual who desires to freely express himself or herself to be banned from certain social media websites by doing so? What is the public policy behind this? What are the standards employed by these social media companies when determining who should or should not be banned? On the other hand, are social media platforms being used as tools or weapons when it comes to politics? Do they play a role in how the public vote? Are the users truly seeing what they think they have chosen to see or are the contents being displayed targeted to the users and may ultimately create biases?

As we have seen earlier this year, former President Trump was banned from several social media platforms as a result of the January 6, 2021 assault at the U.S. Capitol by Trump supporters. It is no secret that our former president is not shy about his comments on a variety of topics. Some audiences view him as outspoken, direct, or perhaps provocative. When Twitter announced its permanent suspension of former President Trump’s account, its rationale was to prevent further incitement of violence. By falsely claiming that the 2020 election had been stolen from him, thousands of Trump supporters gathered in Washington, D.C. on January 5 and January 6 which ultimately led to violence and chaos. As a public figure and a politician, our former president should have known that his actions or viewpoints on social media are likely to trigger a significant impact on the public. Public figures and politicians should be held to a higher standard as they represent citizens who voted for them. As such, they are influential. Technology companies like Twitter saw the former president’s tweets as potential threats to the public as well as a violation of their company policies; hence, it was justified to ban his account. The ban was an instance of private action as opposed to government action. In other words, former President Trump’s First Amendment rights were not violated.

First, let us discuss the fairness aspect of censorship. Yes, individuals possess rights to free speech; however, if the public’s safety is at stake, actions are required to avoid chaos. For example, you cannot scream “fire” out of nowhere in a dark movie theater as it would cause panic and unnecessary disorder. There are rules you must comply with in order to use the facility and these rules are in place to protect the general welfare. As a user, if you don’t like the rules set forth by that facility, you can simply avoid using it. It does not necessarily mean that your idea or speech is strictly prohibited, just not on that particular facility. Similar to social media platforms, if users fail to follow their company policies, the companies reserve the right to ban them. Public policy probably outweighs individual freedom. As for the standards employed by these technology companies, there is no bright line. As I previously mentioned, Section 230 grants them immunity from liabilities. That being said, the contents are unregulated and therefore, these social media giants are free to implement and execute policies as they seem appropriate.

In terms of politics, I believe social media platforms do play a role in shaping their users’ perspectives in some way. This is because the contents that are being displayed are targeted, if not tailored, as they collect data based on the user’s preferences and past habits. The activities each user engages in are being monitored, measured, and analyzed. In a sense, these platforms are being used as a weapon as they may manipulate users without the users even knowing. A lot of times we are not even aware that the videos or pictures that we see online are being presented to us because of past contents we had seen or selected. In other words, these social media companies may be censoring what they don’t want you to see or what they may think you don’t want to see. For example, some technology companies are pro-vaccination. They are more likely to post information about facts about COVID-19 vaccines or perhaps publish posts that encourage their users to get vaccinated. We think we have control over what we see or watch, but do we really?

There are advantages and disadvantages to censorship. Censorship can reduce the negative impact of hate speech, especially on the internet. By limiting certain speeches, we create more opportunities for equality. In addition, censorship prevents the spread of racism. For example, posts and videos of racial comments could be blocked by social media companies if deemed necessary. Censorship can also protect minors from seeing harmful content. Because children can be manipulated easily, it helps promote safety. Moreover, censorship can be a vehicle to stop false information. During unprecedented times like this pandemic, misinformation can be fatal. On the other hand, censorship may not be good for the public as it creates a specific narrative in society. This can potentially cause biases. For example, many blamed Facebook for the outcome of an election as it’s detrimental to our democracy.

Overall, I believe that some sort of social media censorship is necessary. The cyber-world is interrelated to the real world. We can’t let people do or say whatever they want as it may have dramatic detrimental effects. The issue is how do you keep the best of both worlds?

Private or not private, that is the question.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), protects private online companies from liability for content posted by others. This immunity also grants internet service providers the freedom to regulate what is posted onto their sites. What has faced much criticism of late however, is social media’s immense power to silence any voices the platform CEOs disagree with.

Section 230(c)(2), known as the Good Samaritan clause, states that no provider shall be held liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

When considered in the context of a ‘1996’ understanding of internet influence (the year the CDA was created) this law might seem perfectly reasonable. Fast forward 25 years though, with how massively influential social media has become on society and the spread of political information, there has developed a strong demand for a repeal, or at the very least, a review of Section 230.

The Good Samaritan clause is what shields Big Tech from legal complaint. The law does not define obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, harassing or excessively violent. And “otherwise objectionable” leaves the internet service providers’ room for discretion all the more open-ended. The issue at the heart of many critics of Big Tech, is that the censorship companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (owned by Google) impose on particular users is not fairly exercised, and many conservatives feel they do not receive equal treatment of their policies.

Ultimately, there is little argument around the fact that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are private companies, therefore curbing any claims of First Amendment violations under the law. The First Amendment of the US Constitution only prevents the government from interfering with an individual’s right to free speech. There is no constitutional provision that dictates any private business owes the same.

Former President Trump’s recent class action lawsuits however, against Facebook, Twitter, Google, and each of their CEOs, challenges the characterization of these entities as being private.

In response to the January 6th Capitol takeover by Trump supporters, Facebook and Twitter suspended the accounts of the then sitting president of the United States – President Trump.

The justification was that President Trump violated their rules by inciting violence and encouraged an insurrection following the disputed election results of 2020. In the midst of the unrest, Twitter, Facebook and Google also removed a video posted by Trump, in which he called for peace and urged protestors to go home. The explanation given was that “on balance we believe it contributes to, rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence” because the video also doubled down on the belief that the election was stolen.

Following long-standing contentions with Big Tech throughout his presidency, the main argument in the lawsuit is that the tech giants Facebook, Twitter and Google, should no longer be considered private companies because their respective CEOs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Sundar Pichai, actively coordinate with the government to censor politically oppositional posts.

For those who support Trump, probably all wish to believe this case has a legal standing.

For anyone else who share concerns about the almost omnipotent power of Silicon Valley, many may admit that Trump makes a valid point. But legally, deep down, it might feel like a stretch. Could it be? Should it be? Maybe. But will Trump see the outcome he is looking for? The initial honest answer was “probably not.”

However, on July 15th 2021, White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, informed the public that the Biden administration is in regular contact with Facebook to flag “problematic posts” regarding the “disinformation” of Covid-19 vaccinations.

Wait….what?!? The White House is in communication with social media platforms to determine what the public is and isn’t allowed to hear regarding vaccine information? Or “disinformation” as Psaki called it.

Conservative legal heads went into a spin. Is this allowed? Or does this strengthen Trump’s claim that social media platforms are working as third-party state actors?

If it is determined that social media is in fact acting as a strong-arm agent for the government, regarding what information the public is allowed to access, then they too should be subject to the First Amendment. And if social media is subject to the First Amendment, then all information, including information that questions, or even completely disagrees with the left-lean policies of the current White House administration, is protected by the US Constitution.

Referring back to the language of the law, Section 230(c)(2) requires actions to restrict access to information be made in good faith. Taking an objective look at some of the posts that are removed from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, along with many of the posts that are not removed, it begs the question of how much “good faith” is truly exercised. When a former president of the United States is still blocked from social media, but the Iranian leader Ali Khamenei is allowed to post what appears nothing short of a threat to that same president’s life, it can certainly make you wonder. Or when illogical insistence for unquestioned mass emergency vaccinations, now with continued mask wearing is rammed down our throats, but a video showing one of the creators of the mRNA vaccine expressing his doubts regarding the safety of the vaccine for the young is removed from YouTube, it ought to have everyone question whose side is Big Tech really on? Are they really in the business of allowing populations to make informed decisions of their own, gaining information from a public forum of ideas? Or are they working on behalf of government actors to push an agenda?

One way or another, the courts will decide, but Trump’s class action lawsuit could be a pivotal moment in the future of Big Tech world power.

Getting Away with Murder

It’s probably not best to “joke” around with someone seeking legal advice about how to get away with murder. Even less so doing it on social media where tone infamously, is not always easily construed. Alas, that is what happened recently in January 2021, in the case In re Sitton out of Tennessee.

Let’s lay out the facts of the case first. Mr. Sitton is an attorney who has been practicing for almost 25 years. He has a Facebook page in which he labels himself as an attorney. A Facebook “friend” of his, named Lauren Houston had posted a publicly viewable question, asking about the legality of carrying a gun in her car in the state of Tennessee. The reason for the inquiry was because she had been involved in a toxic relationship with her ex-boyfriend, who was also the father of her child. As Mr. Sitton had become aware of her allegations of abuse, harassment, violations of child custody arrangement, and requests for orders of protection against the ex, he decided to comment on the post and offer some advice to Ms. Houston. The following was Mr. Sitton’s response to her question:

“I have a carry permit Lauren. The problem is that if you pull your gun, you must use it. I am afraid that, with your volatile relationship with your baby’s daddy, you will kill your ex your son’s father. Better to get a taser or a canister of tear gas. Effective but not deadly. If you get a shot gun, fill the first couple rounds with rock salt, the second couple with bird shot, then load for bear.

If you want to kill him, then lure him into your house and claim he broke in with intent to do you bodily harm and that you feared for your life. Even with the new stand your ground law, the castle doctrine is a far safer basis for use of deadly force.”

Ms. Houston then replied to Mr. Sitton, “I wish he would try.” Mr. Sitton then replied again, “As a lawyer, I advise you to keep mum about this if you are remotely serious. Delete this thread and keep quiet. Your defense is that you are afraid for your life revenge or premeditation of any sort will be used against you at trial.” Ms. Houston then subsequently deleted the post, following the advice of Mr. Sitton.

Ms. Houston’s ex-boyfriend eventually found out about the post, including Mr. Sitton’s comments and passed screenshots of it to the Attorney General of Shelby County who then sent them to the Tennessee’s Board of Professional Responsibility (“Board”). In August 2018, the Board filed a petition for discipline against him. The petition alleged Mr. Sitton violated Rule of Professional Conduct by “counseling Ms. Houston about how to engage in criminal conduct in a manner that would minimize the likelihood of arrest or conviction.”

Mr. Sitton admitted most of the basic facts but attempted to claim his comments were taken out of context. One of the things Mr. Sitton has admitted to during the Board’s hearing on this matter was that he identified himself as a lawyer in his Facebook posts and intended to give Ms. Houston legal advice and information. He noted Ms. Houston engaged with him on Facebook about his legal advice, and he felt she “appreciated that he was helping her understand the laws of the State of Tennessee.” Mr. Sitton went on to claim his only intent in posting the Facebook comments was to convince Ms. Houston not to carry a gun in her car. He maintained that his Facebook posts about using the protection of the “castle doctrine” to lure Mr. Henderson into Ms. Houston’s home to kill him were “sarcasm” or “dark humor.”

The hearing panel found Mr. Sitton’s claim that his “castle doctrine” comments were “sarcasm” or “dark humor” to be unpersuasive, noting that this depiction was challenged by his own testimony and Ms. Houston’s posts. The panel instead came to the determination that Mr. Sitton intended to give Ms. Houston legal advice about a legally “safer basis for use of deadly force.” Pointing out that the Facebook comments were made in a “publicly posted conversation,” the hearing panel found that “a reasonable person reading these comments certainly would not and could not perceive them to be ‘sarcasm’ or ‘dark humor. They also noted Mr. Sitton lacked any remorse for his actions. It acknowledged that he conceded his Facebook posts were “intemperate” and “foolish,” but it also pointed out that he maintained, “I don’t think what I told her was wrong.”

The Board decided to only suspend Mr. Sitton for 60 days. However, the Supreme Court of Tennessee reviews all punishments once the Board submits a proposed order of enforcement against an attorney to ensure the punishment is fair and uniform to similar circumstances/punishments throughout the state. The Supreme Court found the 60-day suspension to be insufficient and increased Mr. Sitton’s suspension to 1-year active suspension and 3 years on probation.

Really? While I’m certainly glad the Tennessee Supreme Court increased his suspension, I still think one year is dramatically too short. How do you allow an attorney who has been practicing for nearly 30 years to only serve a 1-year suspension for instructing someone on how to get away with murder? Especially when both the court and hearing panel found no mitigating factors, that a reasonable person would not interpret his comments to have been dark humor and that it was to be interpreted as real legal advice? What’s even more mind boggling is that the court found Mr. Sitton violated ABA Standards 5.1 (Failure to Maintain Personal Integrity) and 6.1 (False Statements, Fraud, and Misrepresentation), but then twisted their opinion and essentially said there was no real area in which Mr. Sitton’s actions neatly fall into within those two rules and therefore that is why they are only giving a 1-year suspension. The thing is, that is simply inaccurate for the sentencing guidelines (which the court included in their opinion) for violations of 5.1 and 6.1, it is abundantly obvious that Mr. Sitton’s actions do fall into them clearly, so it is a mystery as to how the court found otherwise.

If you were the judge ruling on this disciplinary case, what sentencing would you have handed down?

Advertising in the Cloud

Thanks to social media, advertising to a broad range of people across physical and man-made borders has never been easier. Social media has transformed how people and businesses can interact throughout the world. In just a few moments a marketer can create a post advertising their product halfway across the world and almost everywhere in between. Not only that, but Susan, a charming cat lady in west London, can send her friend Linda, who’s visiting her son in Costa Rica an advertisement she saw for sunglasses she thinks Linda might like. The data collected by social media sites allows marketers to target specific groups of people with their advertisements. For example, if Susan was part of a few Facebook cat groups, she would undoubtedly receive more cat tower or toy related advertisements than the average person.

Advertising on social media also allows local stores or venues to advertise to the local communities, targeting groups of people in the local area. New jobs in this area are being created, young entrepreneurs are selling their social media skills to help small business owners create an online presence. Social media has also transformed the way stores advertise to people as well, no longer must stores rely on solely a posterboard, or scripted advertisement. Individuals with a large enough following on social media are sought out by companies to “review” or test their products for free.

Social media has transformed and expanded the marketplace exponentially. Who we can reach in the world, who we can market to and sell to has expanded beyond physical barriers. With these changes, and newfound capabilities through technology, comes a new legal frontier.

Today, most major brands and companies have their own social media account. Building a store’s “online presence” and promoting brand awareness has now become a priority for many marketing departments. According to Internet Advertising Revenue Report: Full Year 2019 Results & Q1 2020 Revenues, “The Interactive Advertising bureau, an industry trade association, and the research firm eMarketer estimate that U.S. social media advertising revenue was roughly $36 billion in 2019, making up approximately 30% of all digital advertising revenue,” they expect that it will increase to $43 billion in 2020.

The Pew Research Center estimated, “that in 2019, 72% of U.S. adults, or about 184 million U.S. adults, used at least one social media site, based on the results of a series of surveys.”

Companies and people are increasingly utilizing these tools, what are the legal implications?

This area of law is quickly growing. Advertisers can now directly reach their consumers in an instant, marketing their products at comparable prices. The FTC, Federal Trade Commission has expanded its enforcement actions in this area. Some examples of this are:

The Securities and Exchange Commission Regulation Fair Disclosure addresses, “ the selective disclosure of information by publicly traded companies and other issuers, and the SEC has clarified that disseminating information through social media outlets like Facebook and Twitter is allowed so long as investors have been alerted about which social media will be used to disseminate such information,”
The National Labor Relations Act, “While crafting an effective social media policy regarding who can post for a company or what is acceptable content to post relating to the company is important, companies need to ensure that the policy is not overly broad or can be interpreted as limiting employees’ rights related to protected concerted activity”
FDA, “ Even on social media platforms, businesses running promotions or advertising online have to be careful not to run afoul of FDA disclosure requirements”

According to the ABA there are two basic principles in advertising law which apply to any media:

Advertisements may be subject to more specific regulations regarding Children under the Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA). This act gives parents control over protections and approvable ways to get verifiable parental consent.

The Future legality of our Data

Data brokers are companies that collect information about you and sell that data to other companies or individuals. This information can include everything from family birthdays, addresses, contacts, jobs, education, hobbies, interests, life events and health conditions. Currently, Data brokers are legal in most states. California and Vermont have enacted laws that require data brokers to register their operation in the state. Who owns your data? Should you? Should the sites you are creating the data on? Should it be free for companies to sell? Will states take this issue in different directions? If so, what would these implications be for companies and sites to keep up with?

Facebook’s market capitalization stands at $450 billion.

While there is uncertainty regarding this area of law, it is certain that it is new, expanding and will require much debate.

According to Custodians of the Internet: Platforms, Content Moderation, and the Hidden Decisions That Shape Social Media, “Collecting user data allows operators to offer different advertisements based on its potential relevance to different users.” The data collected by social media companies enables them to build complex strategies and sell advertising “space” targeting specific user groups to companies, organizations, and political campaigns (How Does Facebook Make Money). The capabilities here seem endless, “Social media operators place ad spaces in a marketplaces that runs an instantaneous auction with advertisers that can place automated bids.” With the ever expanding possibilities of social media comes a growing legal frontier.

Removing Content

Section 230, a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act, states that “No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider” (47 U.S.C. § 230). This act shields social media companies from liability for content posted by their users and allows them to remove lawful but objectionable posts.

One legal issue that has been arising here is, advertisements are being taken down by the content monitoring algorithms. According to a Congressional Research Services report, during the COVID-19 pandemic social media companies relied more heavily on automated systems to monitor content. These systems could review large volumes of the content at a time however they mistakenly removed some content. “Facebook’s automated systems have reportedly removed ads from small businesses, mistakenly identifying them as content that violates its policies and causing the business to lose money during the appeals process” (Facebook’s AI Mistakenly Bans Ads for Struggling Businesses). This has affected a wide range of small businesses according to Facebook’s community standards transparency enforcement report. According to this same report, “In 2019, Facebook restored 23% of the 76 million appeals it received, and restored an additional 284 million pieces of content without an appeal—about 2% of the content that it took action on for violating its policies.”

Can tweets legally bind you?

Twitter is a massive social media platform home to about 322 million people worldwide. It can be described as a blogging platform where you can send out a ‘tweet’ up to 140 characters long and also include links to other websites.

Just like Facebook and Instagram, you can follow a person or organization on twitter. If you do, you can see their timeline and their tweets. Twitter’s population consists of the average person scrolling randomly to celebrities, business tycoons, you name it!

Now imagine yourself watching your favorite game, you’re pretty confident that your team will win, you go on twitter and post, “I will buy everyone in my office lunch if my team wins today’s match”. Your team wins and now you see your colleagues retweeting your tweet and commenting that lunch is on you. You think, “lol, I can’t believe they fell for such a joke”. Well, watch out, you might actually be legally bound to hold up to your end of that promise. Just ask Kanye West or Damarious Randall from the Cleveland Browns.

Damarious once tweeted that if the Cleveland Cavaliers won the NBA finals, he would buy everyone who retweets him a jersey. His post got retweeted by more than 900,000 people. Now if he were to buy jerseys for the all the people who retweeted, then he would have to spend about $80 million. His earnings so far from his career will not be enough.[1]

If we look at contractual agreements, they rely on three factors: offer, acceptance, and consideration. If we analyze Randall’s tweet, it can be said that his tweet is an open standing offer to all his twitter followers. The followers have can accept his offer to retweet and when a follower retweets, he/she has provided the necessary consideration.[2] The deciding factor is whether a retweet is a valid consideration under a court of law? The American courts have no such precedent to date.

A retweet generally reiterates the original tweet and brings it to the attention of the followers of the person who retweets. This can amount to some sort of publicity or acceptance of the person who made the original tweet. As a retweet can amount to a valid consideration, this promise made by Randall can be considered a legally binding contract.[3]

He later confirmed that his tweet was a joke. He stated, “I definitely didn’t think it would go as viral as it did. I definitely didn’t think the Cleveland fan base would go this crazy about it. Obviously, it was a joke”.[4] Randall has started this was a joke and that he would do something nice for the fans who retweeted.

In February 2016, Rapper Kanye West tweeted that his then upcoming album ‘Life of Pablo’ would only be available on Tidal, a music streaming platform. Tidal’s subscriber base went from 1 million to 3 million within six weeks following Kanye’s tweet. Within a month and a half of the album’s initial release on Tidal, the album was made available to Tidal’s biggest competitor, Apple music and Spotify.[5]

One of Kanye’s fan Mr Justin Baker-Rhett along with Edelson PC, a Chicago law firm, filed a class action lawsuit against Kanye West and Tidal (Which is owned by famous musician Jay Z) in regard to the exclusivity of Kanye’s Album ‘The life of Pablo’. It was alleged that Mr. West and Tidal misled consumers by making them believe that the album would only be available on Tidal as per the tweet. The promise was short lived as the album made its way to other streaming services after six weeks. Kany and Tidal had lured consumers with the bait of one-month free trial and the exclusivity of the album to boost membership of Tidal. The streaming platform got access to private data and credit card information of the consumers. Kanye West and Tidal fraudulently induced millions of consumers to pay for the dying music platform Tidal. The class action lawsuit gained traction and eventually Kanye West and Tidal managed to settle the $84 million class action lawsuit.[6]

On July 11, 2017, a lawsuit was filed against the 45^th President of the United States, Donald J Trump and his aides for blocking seven people from the former president’s twitter account because of their criticism of the presidency and the policies.[7]

The United States Court rejected the President’s argument that the account was private as the account was used for official purposes. It distinguished between how the account was used then, while the president was in office and how it will be used when he is a private citizen again. The former president himself stated that he used the platform to announce, describe and defend policies. The national archives also concluded that the president’s tweets are now official records. It further determined that the block restricted the expressive conduct which allowed individuals to communicate with the President. The court also held that the former president’s account constituted a public forum as it was used for the government’s outreach and that twitter’s features made it accessible to the public. The block was unconstitutional.[8]

The First Amendment states that the government may not exclude speech of speakers on the basis of viewpoint. Citing Hartman v Moore[9], the court affirmed that the First amendment prohibited the government from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions. Since it was established that President Trump blocked the claimants due to their critical comments, the court held that the president has violated the First Amendment.[10]

The three instanced above are just some of the examples of why everyone should be careful about what they say in twitter. The kind of precedent, the cases mentioned, and future cases will set will slowly determine how much of what a person can say on twitter can become binding.

As social media is increasingly integrating itself into our daily lives and is becoming a part of us, the social platform known as twitter and all other social platforms like Facebook, Instagram and Tiktok will surely give rise more issues like the cases above. The kettle may be boiling but it has not started to whistle just yet.

[1] https://www.sportskeeda.com/gridiron/is-damarious-randall-legally-bound-by-his-promise-to-buy-jerseys-to-the-retweeters

[2] https://www.sportskeeda.com/gridiron/is-damarious-randall-legally-bound-by-his-promise-to-buy-jerseys-to-the-retweeters

[3] https://www.sportskeeda.com/gridiron/is-damarious-randall-legally-bound-by-his-promise-to-buy-jerseys-to-the-retweeters

[4] https://ftw.usatoday.com/2018/05/damarious-randall-browns-cavs-warriors-tweet-jerseys-joke-promise-million-nba-finals

[5] https://www.rollingstone.com/music/music-news/tidal-kanye-west-face-class-action-lawsuit-over-the-life-of-pablo-45213/

[6] https://www.thefashionlaw.com/kanye-west-tidal-settle-84-million-class-action-lawsuit-over-deceptive-marketing-of-life-of-pablo-album/

[7] https://knightcolumbia.org/cases/knight-institute-v-trump

[8] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/knight-first-amendment-institute-v-donald-j-trump-2/

[9] Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250 (2006).

[10] https://globalfreedomofexpression.columbia.edu/cases/knight-first-amendment-institute-v-donald-j-trump-2/

Is Cyberbullying the Newest Form of Police Brutality?

Police departments across the country are calling keyboard warriors into action to help them solve crimes…but at what cost?

In a survey of 539 police departments in the U.S., 76% of departments said that they used their social media accounts to solicit tips on crimes. Departments post “arrested” photos to celebrate arrests, surveillance footage for suspect identification, and some even post themed wanted posters, like the Harford County Sheriff’s Office.

The process for using social media as an investigative tool is dangerously simple and the consequences can be brutal. A detective thinks posting on social media might help an investigation, so the department posts a video or picture asking for information. The community, armed with full names, addresses, and other personal information, responds with some tips and a lot of judgmental, threatening, and bigoted comments. Most police departments have no policy for removing posts after information has been gathered or cases are closed, even if the highlighted person is found to be innocent. A majority of people who are arrested are not even convicted of a crime.

Law enforcement’s use of social media in this way threatens the presumption of innocence, creates a culture of public humiliation, and often results in a comment section of bigoted and threatening comments.

On February 26, 2020, the Manhattan Beach Police Department posted a mugshot of Matthew Jacques on their Facebook and Instagram pages for their “Wanted Wednesday” social media series. The pages have 4,500 and 13,600, mostly local, followers, respectively. The post equated Matthew to a fugitive and commenters responded publicly with information about where he worked. Matthew tried to call off work out of fear of a citizen’s arrest. The fear turned out to be warranted when two strangers came to find him at his workplace. Matthew eventually lost his job because he was too afraid to return to work.

You may be thinking this is not a big deal. This guy was probably wanted for something really bad and the police needed help. After all, the post said the police had a warrant. Think again.

There was no active warrant for Matthew at the time, his only (already resolved) warrant came from taking too long to schedule remedial classes for a 2017 DUI. Matthew was publicly humiliated by the local police department. The department even refused to remove the social media posts after being notified of the truth. The result?

Matthew filed a complaint against the department for defamation (as well as libel per se and false light invasion of privacy). Typically, defamation requires the plaintiff to show:

1) a false statement purporting to be fact; 2) publication or communication of that statement to a third person; 3) fault amounting to at least negligence; and 4) damages, or some harm caused to the person or entity who is the subject of the statement.

Here, the department made a false statement – that there was a warrant. They published it on their social media, satisfying the second element. They did not check readily available public records that showed Matthew did not have a warrant. Finally, Matthew lived in fear and lost his job. Clearly, he was harmed.

The police department claimed their postings were protected by the California Constitution, governmental immunity, and the 1st Amendment. Fortunately, the court denied the department’s anti-SLAPP motion. Over a year after postings, the department took down the posting and settled the lawsuit with Matthew.

Some may think that Matthew’s case is an anomaly and that, usually, the negative attention is warranted and perhaps even socially beneficial because it further de-incentivizes criminal activity via humiliation and social stigma. However, most arrests don’t result in convictions, many of the police’s cyberbullying victims are likely innocent. Even if they are guilty, leaving these posts up can increase the barrier to societal re-entry, which can increase recidivism rates. A negative digital record can make finding jobs and housing more difficult. Many commenters assume the highlighted individual’s guilt and take to their keyboards to shame them.

Here’s one example of a post and comment section from the Toledo Police Department Facebook page:

Unless departments change their social media use policies, they will continue to face defamation lawsuits and continue to further the degradation of the presumption of innocence.

Police departments should discontinue the use of social media in the humiliating ways described above. At the very least, they should consider using this tactic only for violent, felonious crimes. Some departments have already changed their policies.

The San Francisco Police Department has stopped posting mugshots for criminal suspects on social media. According to Criminal Defense Attorney Mark Reichel, “The decision was made in consultation with the San Francisco Public Defender’s Office who argued that the practice of posting mugshots online had the potential to taint criminal trials and follow accused individuals long after any debt to society is paid.” For a discussion of some of the issues social media presents to maintaining a fair trial, see Social Media, Venue and the Right to a Fair Trial.

Do you think police departments should reconsider their social media policies?

Tag: Facebook

Getting Away with Murder

Subscribe By Email