Social Media – Page 3 – Social Media Legality

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?

Is social media promoting or curbing Asian hate?

The COVID-19 pandemic has caused our lives to twist and turn in many unexpected ways. Of all the ethnicities in the world, the Asian population took the hardest hit since the virus originated from China. This ultimately caused a significant increase in hate crimes, particularly towards the Asian community, in the real world as well as the cyber world. Since the number of internet users is almost uncountable, the impact that it creates online, as well as offline, is massive. Social media can create bias and social media has the power to remedy bias. The question becomes which side of the scale is it currently tipping towards? Is the internet making social network platform users more vulnerable to manipulation? Are hatred and bias “contagious” through cyber means? On the contrary, is social media remedying the bias that people have created through the internet?

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act governs the cyber world. It essentially provides legal immunity to internet providers such as TikTok, Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat and etc. The Act states: “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.” With that being said, posts and comments that appear on these social media platforms do not have any legal ramifications for the tech companies. Hence, do these tech companies have incentives to regulate what is posted on their websites? With the Asian hate wave currently going on, will it evolve into a giant snowball of problems if social media platforms fail to step in? On the other hand, if these tech companies elect to step in, to what extent can they regulate or supervise?

The hatred and bias sparked by the pandemic have not been limited to the real world. Asian Americans have reported the biggest increase in serious incidents of online hate and harassment throughout such a crazy time. Many of them were verbally attacked or insulted by racist and xenophobic slurs merely because they have Asian last names or that they look Asian. According to a new survey shared exclusively with USA TODAY, comparing to last year, there was an 11% increase in sexual harassment, stalking, physical threats, and other incidents reported by Asian Americans, of which many were through online social media platforms. Pursuant to the findings by the Center for the Study of Hate and Extremism at California State University, hate crimes against Asian Americans rose 149% from 2019 to 2020. That is 149% in one year. In addition, an AI-based internet abuse detection organization named L1ght reported a 900% increase on Twitter since the start of this pandemic. This may just be the tip of an iceberg as many of the hate crime incidents may have gone unreported. As you may recall, former President Trump publicly referred the COVID-19 coronavirus as the “Chinese Virus” which led to a record-breaking level of brutal online harassment against Asian Americans. This also gave rise to other similar remarks such as “Kung Flu” or “Wuhan Virus.” Social media users began using hashtags of the like. Just the hashtag “#ChineseVirus” alone has been used over 68,000 times on Instagram.

We must not forget that the real world and the cyber world are interconnected. Ideas consumed online can have a significant impact on our offline actions which may lead to violence. Last week, I had the privilege to interview New York Police Department Lieutenant Mike Wang who is in charge of the NYPD’s Asian Hate Crimes Task Force in Brooklyn, he expressed his concerns about the Asian community being attacked, seniors in particular. Lieutenant Wang said during the interview: “It’s just emotionally difficult and heartbreaking. New York Police Department is definitely taking unprecedented measures to combat these crimes. These incidents cannot be overlooked.” Most of these incidents were unprovoked. Some examples include an elderly Thai immigrant who died after being shoved to the ground, a Filipino-American citizen being slashed in the face with a box cutter leaving a big permanent scar on his face, a Chinese lady being slapped and then set on fire, as well as six Asian-Americans being brutally shot to death in a spa one night. Wang indicated that crimes against Asian-Americans in general are nothing new, they have been in existence for quite some time; however, the rage and frustration of the COVID-19 pandemic fueled this fire to an uncontrollable level. Wang encourages citizens to report crimes in general, not just hate crimes, as we need to be more vocal. You can read more about hate crimes and bias on the city’s website.

From verbal harassment to physical assaults, there have been thousands of reported cases since the pandemic started. These are typically hate crimes as offenders believe that the Asian population should be blamed for the spread of the virus. Perhaps people’s daily interactions online play an important role here. Almost everyone uses some sort of social network in our country, the more hatred and bias they see online, the more likely they will exhibit violence in real life. Why? Because people would think such behaviors are acceptable since many others are doing it. Accountability does not seem to be an issue, especially through social channels. At the most, the user’s post would be removed or the account would get suspended. With that being said, it is questionable as to whether the tech companies are doing enough to address these issues? When encountering these hateful behaviors in the cyber world, what are the policies of the social media giants? For instance, Twitter has implemented a policy on hate speech that prohibits accounts whose primary purpose was to incite harm towards others. Twitter does reserve the discretion to remove inappropriate content or suspend users who violated their policy. You can read more about their Hateful Conduct Policy on their website. Other social media platforms such as Facebook, TikTok, and YouTube all have similar policies in place to address hateful behaviors, violent threats, and harassment; however, are they sufficient? According to the CEO of the Anti-Defamation League, online users continue to experience strong hateful comments despite that the social network companies alleged that they are taking things seriously. Facebook and YouTube are still allowing users to use the racially incentive term “Kung Flu” while TikTok has prohibited it. A comics artist Ethan Van Sciver joked about killing Chinese people in one of his videos but later claimed that it was “facetious sarcasm.” YouTube only removed the video stating that it was a violation of its hate speech policy. Like I previously mentioned, the accountability with these social networks is minimal.

Social networks have definitely helped spread the news keeping everyone in the country informed about the horrible incidents that are happening on a regular basis. Other than spreading the virus of hatred and bias online, social networks also raise awareness and promote positivity on the other hand. As Asian hate crimes spike, public figures, and celebrities are taking part to stand against this battle. Allure magazine’s editor-in-chief Michelle Lee and designer Phillip Lim are one of them. They have posted videos on Instagram sharing their very own experiences of racism in an effort to raise awareness. They also used the hashtag #StopAsianHate in their posts. On March 20, 2021, “Killing Eve” star Sandra Oh joined a “Stop Asian Hate” protest in Pittsburgh. She said she is “proud to be Asian” while giving a powerful speech urging people to fight against racism and hatred towards the Asian community. The video of her speech went viral online in just a day and there have been more than ninety-three thousand views on YouTube since. I have to say that our generation is not afraid to speak up about the hate and injustice we face in our society today. This generation is taking it upon ourselves to prove racism instead of relying on authorities to recognize the threats and implement policy changes. This is how #StopAAPIHate came about. The hashtag stands for “Stop Asian American and Pacific Islander Hate.” Stop AAPI Hate is a nonprofit organization that tracks incidents of hate and discrimination against Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders in the United States. It was recently created as a social media platform to bring awareness, education, and resources to the Asian community and its allies. Stop AAPI Hate also utilized social networks like Instagram to organize support groups, provide aid and pressure those in power to act. The following is a list of influential members of the AAPI community who are vocalizing their concerns and belief: Christine Chiu, “The Bling Empire” star who is also a producer and an entrepreneur; Chriselle Lim, who is a digital influencer, content creator and entrepreneur; Tina Craig, who is the founder and CEO of U Beauty; Daniel Martin, who is the makeup artist and global director of Artistry & Education at Tatcha; Yu Tsai, who is a celebrity and fashion photographer & host; Sarah Lee and Christine Chang, who are the co-founders and co-CEOs of Glow Recipe; Aimee Song, who is an entrepreneur and digital influencer; Samuel Hyun, who is the chairman of the Massachusetts Asian American Commission; Daniel Nguyen who is an actor; Mai Quynh, who is a celebrity makeup artist; Ann McFerran, who is the founder and CEO of Glamnetic; Nadya Okamoto, who is the founder of August; Sharon Pak who is the founder of INH; Sonja Rasula, who is the founder of Unique Markets; as well as Candice Kumai, who is a writer, journalist, director and best-selling author. The list can go on but the purpose of these influential speakers is that taking things to social media is not just about holding people or companies accountable, instead, it is about creating meaningful changes in our society.

The internet is more powerful than we think it is. It is dangerous to allow individuals to attack or harass others, even through the screen. I understand that the social media platforms cannot blatantly censor contents or materials as they see inappropriate on their websites as it may be a violation of the user’s First Amendment rights; however, there has to be more that they can do. Perhaps creating more rigorous policies as an effort to combat hate speech. If we are able to track the user’s identity to his or her real-life credentials, it may curb the tendency of potential offenders or repeated offenders. The question is how do you draw the line between freedom of speech and social order?

The First Amendment Is Still Great For The United States…Or Is It?

In the traditional sense, of course it is. The idea of free speech should always be upheld, without question. However, when it comes to the 21^st century, this two and a half centuries old amendment poses extreme roadblocks. Here, I will be discussing how the First Amendment inhibits the ability to tackle extremism and hatred on social media platforms.

One of the things I will be highlighting is how other countries are able to enact legislation to try and deal with the ever-growing hate that festers on social media. They’re able to do so because they do not have a “First Amendment.” The idea of free speech is simply engrained into democracies; they do not need an archaic document in which they are forever bound to tell them that. Here in the U.S., as we all know, congress can be woefully slow and inefficient, with a particular emphasis on refusing to update outdated laws.

The First Amendment successfully blocks any government attempt to regulate social media platforms. Any attempt to do so is met by mostly conservatives, yelling about the government wanting to take away free speech, and the courts will/would not allow the legislation to stand. This in turn means Facebook, Snapchat, Instagram, Reddit, and all the other platform never have to worry about the white supremist and other extremist rhetoric that is prevalent on their platform. Even further than that, most, if not all their algorithms, push those vile posts to hundreds of thousands of people. We are “not allowed” to introduce laws that will come up with a baseline to regulate platforms, in order to crack down on the terrorism that flourishes there. Just as you are not allowed to scream fire in a move theatre, it should not be allowed to post and form groups to spread misinformation, white supremacy, racism, etc. Those topics do not serve the interests of greater society. Yes, it would make it a lot harder for people to be able to easily share their thoughts, no matter how appalling they may be. However, not allowing it to spread online where in 30 seconds millions of people can see it, is not taking away someone’s free speech right. Platforms don’t even necessarily have to delete the posts; just change their algorithms to stop promoting misinformation and hate, promote truth instead even if the truth is boring. They won’t do that though because promoting lies is what makes them money, and it’s always money over the good of the people. Another reason why this doesn’t limit people’s free speech is because they can still form in person groups, talk about it in private, start an email chain etc. The idea behind trying to regulate what can be posted on social media websites is to make the world a better place for all; to make it harder for racist ideas and terrorism to spread, especially to young, impressionable children/young adults. This shouldn’t be a political issue; shouldn’t we all want to limit the spread of hate?

It is hard for me to imagine the January 6th insurrection on our capital occurring had we had regulations on social media in place. A lot of the groups that planned the insurrection had “stop the steal” groups and other related election-fraud conspiracy pages on Facebook. Imagine if we had in place a law that said social media platforms had to take down posts and pages eliciting false information that could be inciteful or detrimental to the security of the United States? I realize that is broad discretion, the legislation would have to be worded very narrowly, and those decisions to remove posts should be made with the highest level of scrutiny. Had we had a regulation like that in place, these groups would not have been able to reach as wide of an audience. I think Ashley Babbitt and Officer Sicknick would still be alive had Facebook been obligated to take those pages and posts down.

Alas, we are unable to even consider legislation to help address this cause because the courts and a lot of congress people refuse to acknowledge that we must update our laws and redefine how we read the First Amendment. The founders could never have imagined the world we live in today. Congress and the Courts need to stop pretending that a piece of paper written over a hundred years ago is some untouchable work from god. The founders wrote the First Amendment to ensure no one would be thrown in jail for speaking their mind, so that people who hold different political views could not be persecuted, to give people the ability to express themselves. Enacting legislation to prevent blatant lies, terrorism, racism, and white supremacy from spreading as easily online does not go against the First Amendment. It is not telling people they can’t have those views; it is not throwing anyone in prison or handing out fines for those views, and white supremacist or other racist ideas are not “political discourse.” Part of the role of government is to protect the people, to do what is right for society as a whole, and I fail to see how telling social media platforms they need to take down these appalling posts is outweighed by this idea that “nearly everything is free speech, even if it poisons the minds of our youth and perpetuates violence because that’s what the First Amendment says.”

Let’s now look at the United Kingdom and what they are able to do because they do not have any law comparable to the First Amendment. In May of 2021, the British Parliament introduced the Online Safety Bill. If passed into law, the bill will place a duty of care on social media firms and websites to ensure they take swift action to remove illegal content, such as hate crimes, harassment and threats directed at individuals, including abuse which falls below the criminal threshold. As currently written, the bill would also require the social media companies to limit the spread of and remove terroristic material, suicidal content, and child sexual abuse. The companies would be mandated to report postings of those kind to the authorities. Lastly, the Online Safety Bill would require companies to safeguard freedom of expression, and reinstate material unfairly removed. This includes forbidding tech firms from discriminating against particular political viewpoints. The bill reserves the right for Ofcom (the UK’s communications regulator) to hold them accountable for the arbitrary removal of journalistic content.

The penalties for not complying with the proposed law would be significant. Social Media companies that do not comply could be fined up to 10% of their net profits or $25 million. Further, the bill would allow Ofcom to bring criminal actions against named senior managers whose company does not comply with Ofcom’s request for information.

It will be interesting to see how the implementation of this bill will go if it is passed. I believe it is a good steppingstone to reign in the willful ignorance displayed by these companies. Again, it is important these bills be carefully scrutinized, otherwise you may end up with a bill like the one proposed in India. While I will not be discussing their bill at length in this post, you can read more about it here. In short, India’s bill is widely seen as autocratic in nature; giving the government the ability to fine and or criminally prosecute social media companies and their employees if they fail to remove content that the government does not like (for instance, people who are criticizing their new agriculture regulations).

Bringing this ship back home, can you imagine a bill like Britain’s ever passing in the US, let alone even being introduced? I certainly can’t because we still insist on worshiping an amendment that is 230 years old. The founders wrote the bill based on the circumstances of their time, they could never have imagined what today would look like. Ultimately, the decision to allow us to move forward and adopt our own laws to start regulating social media companies is up to the Supreme Court. Until the Supreme Court wakes up and decides to allow a modern reading/interpretation of the First Amendment, any law to hold companies accountable is doomed to fail. It is illogical to put a piece of paper over the safety and well being of Americans, yet we consistently do just that. We will keep seeing reports of how red flags were missed and as a result people were murdered or how Facebook pages helped spread another “Big Lie” which results in another capital sieged. All because we cannot move away from our past to brighten our futures.

What would you do to help curtail this social dilemma?

Has Social Media Become the Most Addictive Drug We Have Ever Seen?

Before we get started, I want you to take a few minutes and answer the following questions to yourself:

Do you spend a lot of time thinking about social media or planning to use social media?
Do you feel urges to use social media more and more?
Do you use social media to forget about personal problems?
Do you often try to reduce the use of social media without success?
Do you become restless or troubled if unable to use social media?
Do you use social media so much that it has had a negative impact on your job or studies?

How did you answer these questions? If you answered yes to more than three of these questions then according to the Addiction Center you may have or be developing a Social Media Addiction. Research has shown that there is an undeniable link between social media use, negative mental health, and low self-esteem. Negative emotional reactions are not only produced due to the social pressure of sharing things with others but also the comparison of material things and lifestyles that these sites promote.
On Instagram and Facebook, users see curated content – advertisements and posts that are specifically designed to appeal to you based on your interests. Individuals today unlike any other time in history are seeing how other people live, and how their lifestyles differ significantly from their own. This sense of self-worth is what is being used to curate information, children at a young age are being taught that if you are not a millionaire then you are not successful, and they are creating barometers of success based on invisible benchmarks, this is leading to an increase in suicide and depression among young adults.

Social Media has become a stimulant whose effects mimic that of someone addicted to gambling, and recreational drugs. It has been shown that retweets, likes, and shares from these sites affect the dopamine part of the brain that becomes associated with reward. “[I]t’s estimated that people talk about themselves around 30 to 40% of the time; however, social media is all about showing off one’s life and accomplishments, so people talk about themselves a staggering 80% of the time. When a person posts a picture and gets positive social feedback, it stimulates the brain to release dopamine, which again rewards that behavior and perpetuates the social media habit.” “Chasing the high”, is a common theme among individuals with addictive personalities, and when you see people on Social Media posting every aspect of their lives, from the meal they ate to their weekend getaway, and everything in between, that is what your chasing, but the high is the satisfaction of other people liking your post. We have all been there you post a picture or a moment of great importance in your life, and the likes and reactions start pouring in, the reaction you garner from that love, differs significantly from the reaction you get when there is no reaction. A recent Harvard study showed that “the act of disclosing information about oneself activates the same part of the brain that is associated with the sensation of pleasure, the same pleasure that we get from eating food, getting money or having even had sex.” Our brains have become to associate self-disclosure with being a rewarding experience. Ask yourself when was the last time you posted something about a family or friend who died, why was this moment of sadness worth sharing with the world? Researchers in this Harvard Study found that “when people got to share their thoughts with a friend or family member, there was a larger amount of activity in the reward region of their brain, and less of a reward sensation when they were told their thoughts would be kept private.”

“The social nature of our brains is biologically based,” said lead researcher Matthew Lieberman, Ph.D., a UCLA professor of psychology and psychiatry and biobehavioral sciences. This in itself helps you to understand where Social Media has gone to, it has evolved into a system that takes advantage of our biological makeup, “although Facebook might not have been designed with the dorsomedial prefrontal cortex in mind, the social network is very much in sync with how our brains are wired.” There is a reason when your mind is idling the first thing it wants to do is to check Social Media, Liberman one of the founders of the study of social cognitive neuroscience explains that “When I want to take a break from work, the brain network that comes on is the same network we use when we’re looking through our Facebook timeline and seeing what our friends are up to. . . That’s what our brain wants to do, especially when we take a break from work that requires other brain networks.”

This is a very real issue, that has very real consequences. The suicide rate for children and teens is rising. According to a September 2020 report by the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, the suicide rate for pediatric patients rose 57.4% from 2007 to 2018. It is the second-largest cause of death in children, falling short only of accidents. Teens in the U.S. who spend more than 3 hours a day on social media may be at a heightened risk for mental health issues, according to a 2019 study in JAMA Psychiatry. The study, which was adjusted for previous mental health diagnoses, concludes that while adolescents using social media more intensively have an increased risk of internalizing problems or reporting mental health concerns, more research is needed on “whether setting limits on daily social media use, increasing media literacy, and redesigning social media platforms are effective means of reducing the burden of mental health problems in this population.” Social Media has become a coping mechanism for some to deal with their stress, loneliness, or depression. We have all come into contact with someone who posts their entire life on social media, and more often than not we might brush it off, even make a crude joke, but in fact, this is someone who is hurting and looking for help in a place that does not offer any solitude.

I write about this to emphasize a very real, and dangerous issue that is growing worse every single day. For far too long Social Media have hidden behind a shield of immunity.

Section 230, a provision of the 1996 Communications Decency Act that shields social media companies from liability for content posted by their users and allows them to remove lawful but objectionable posts. Section 230 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)

In 1996 when this Law was introduced and passed, the internet was still in its infancy, and no one at that time could have ever envisioned how big it would become. At this point, Social Media Corporations operate in an almost Omnipotent capacity. Creating their governing boards, and moderators to filter out negative information. However, while the focus is often on the information being put out by the users what gets ignored is how that same information gets directed to the consumer. You see Facebook, Snap Chat, Twitter, even YouTube, rely on the consumer commonly known as “influencers” to direct posts, and information to the consumer also known as the “User”, to direct advertisement and product placement. To accomplish their goals which at the end of the day is the same as anyone Corporation to create a profit, information is directed at a person that will keep their attention. At this point, there are little to no regulations, on how information is directed at an individual. For instance, the FCC has rules in place that “limits the number of time broadcasters, cable operators, and satellite providers can devote to advertisements during children’s programs.” however, there are no such rules when dealing with children, there is only one such case in which the FTC has levied any fines for directed content at Children. Yet this suit was based more on the notion that Google through their subsidiary YouTube “illegally collected personal information from children without their parents’ consent.” When dealing with an advertisement for children Google itself sets the parameters.

Social Media has grown too large for itself and has far outgrown its place as a private entity that cannot be regulated. The FCC was created in 1934 to replace the outdated Federal Radio Commission an outdated entity. Therefore, just as it was recognized in 1934 that technology calls for change, today we need to call on Congress to regulate Social Media, it is not too farfetched to say that our Children and our Children’s futures depend on this.

In my next blog, I will post how regulation on Social Media could look and explain in more detail how Social Media has grown too big for itself.

Why it Matters: Lawyers, the Spread of Misinformation and Social Media

It is important to remember the role lawyers play in and how the public views public figures, attorneys and the judicial system. This is especially true when posts are made on social media platforms or when statements are made available to the public in any manner. Many recent occurrences bring this important situation to light, most notably Rudy Giuliani’s unproven campaign regarding the “Big Lie” a/k/a the stolen election. Attorneys and important public figures may need to be held to a higher standard of care and accountability due to the public’s heavy reliance on the truth of their statements. Because of this reliance, social media companies, and the Courts, are forced into action to curb the spread of false information.

Facts on the spread of information on the internet. So many people now rely on social media as a way of communication and as a news source, which can sometimes be their only source. Information online can now spread faster than any other news source in history. The science behind the spread of information online, is quite astounding (and there is actual science behind it!).

A Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) study found that “It took the truth about six times as long as falsehood to reach 1500 people and 20 times as long as falsehood to reach a cascade depth of 10. As the truth never diffused beyond a depth of 10, we saw that falsehood reached a depth of 19 nearly 10 times faster than the truth reached a depth of 10.” These numbers show that false information spreads faster, farther and deeper than the truth. All users of social media are exposed and susceptible to false information, including attorneys, and our ability to discern true versus false information has become distorted leaving many users vulnerable.

What causes of the spread of misinformation and who is susceptible? The American Psychological Association has published information on the causes of misinformation spreading and who is most susceptible. Researchers looked at individual differences and identified that “[b]roadly, political conservativism and lower levels of educational attainment are correlated with an increase in susceptibility to fake news.” Further, “[s]ix ‘degrees of manipulation’—impersonation, conspiracy, emotion, polarization, discrediting, and trolling—are used to spread misinformation and disinformation.” A false news story may quote a fake expert, use emotional language, or propose a conspiracy theory in order to manipulate readers.

People use the following five criteria to decide whether information is true: 1) compatibility with other known information, 2) credibility of the source, 3) whether others believe it, 4) whether the information is internally consistent, and 5) whether there is supporting evidence. The study also shows that people are more likely to accept misinformation as fact if it’s easy to hear or read. “We want people to understand that disinformation is fundamentally exploitative—that it tries to use our religion, our patriotism, and our desire for justice to outrage us and to dupe us into faulty reasoning,” says Peter Adams, News Literacy Project’s senior vice president of education. “Much of that is a psychological phenomenon.”This information may be helpful in understanding how a once highly respected lawyer and politician, is now the focus of discipline-committee-attention.

Rudy Giuliani. Social media is important to the legal profession because the court systems and attorneys use it to reach the public and potential clients. Consequently, it is of utmost importance to respect social media and to know how it functions to make it work for the intended purpose. Rudy Giuliani, attorney, former Mayor of New York City and personal counsel to President Trump, is the most prominent and current example of an attorney who used social media to spread misinformation. Giuliani is currently involved in numerous lawsuits for spewing a theory of election fraud that was ultimately disproved. Intriguingly, even though the claims lacked evidence to support them and were ultimately dispelled by the Judicial System, members of society believed these claims as truth while a large number of people still believe them.

Giuliani made these claims on mainstream media, his YouTube channel and seemingly anyone that would listen including Fox News. An anonymous source at Fox News stated, “We turned so far right we went crazy.” Giuliani reportedly earned monies making plugs to sell items during interviews and on his YouTube channel while making the statements at issue. Smartmatic filed suit against Rudy Giuliani and Fox News amongst others which is separate from the Dominion suit filed against Giuliani. These two suits encompass the same general claims, that Giuliani made false statements that the 2020 US Presidential election was stolen resulting in irreputable harm to companies.

Both the NYC Bar Association and the New York State Bar Association filed complaints against Mr. Giuliani requesting an investigation into his conduct.

The Appellate Division’s First Judicial Department of the New York Supreme Court suspended Giuliani’s law license on an interim basis in a June 24, 2021 decision concluding that his conduct threatened public interest. Not only did his behavior threaten public interest but it also tarnished the reputation of lawyers and the judicial system as a whole. The opinion further states, “When false statements are made by an attorney, it also erodes public confidence in the legal profession and its role as a crucial source of reliable information.”

Other examples of attorney epic-fails. An Illinois attorney wrote in her blog post referring to a judge as being “a total asshole,” and in another blog entry referred to a judge as “Judge Clueless.” The attorney also wrote about client specific cases and identified her clients by jail number or first name. That attorney received a 60 days suspension and was terminated from her employment as an Assistant Public Defender. Here, the attorney’s opinion, while it is hers and she has a right to it, could influence other court system employees, attorneys, judges or lay people entering the judicial system for whatever reason resulting in an influenced preconceived notion of the judge and the judge’s ability to render decisions in a case.

A Tennessee lawyer was suspended for 60 days for giving Facebook advise on how to kill and ex-boyfriend and make it look like self-defense while providing information on the new stand your ground law and the castle doctrine. Because a Florida lawyer made disparaging statements and accusations of judicial witchcraft, that attorney was disbarred and arrested!

Lawyers are held to a higher standard. Period. While Giuliani’s attorneys are arguing his right to make those statements are protected under his First Amendment right to free speech, “lawyers, as professionals, are subjected to speech restrictions that would not ordinarily apply to lay persons.” Especially, when it comes to judiciary review committees.

The legal system of attorneys is primarily a self-governing entity due to the professional legal standards inherent in the job. Attorneys swear an oath to support the Constitution of the United States before admission to practice. Attorneys are expected to uphold certain legal standards, enforce other attorneys to uphold those legal standards and, if necessary, report another attorney’s actions. A grievance committee is used to deter and investigate unethical conduct which can result in sanctions or commencement of a formal disciplinary proceeding at the Appellate Court level, as in the case of Mr. Giuliani’s interim suspension.

Rules to keep in mind as a practicing attorney. These rules come from the NY Rules of professional conduct.

Rule 4.1 governs Truthfulness in Statements to Others and reads, in part, “In the course of representing a client, a lawyer shall not knowingly make a false statement of fact or law to a third person.”
Rule 8.3 governs Reporting Professional Misconduct and reads in part, “(a) A lawyer who knows that another lawyer has committed a violation of the Rules of Professional Conduct that raises a substantial question as to that lawyer’s honesty, trustworthiness or fitness as a lawyer shall report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.”
Rule 8.4 governs Misconduct and reads, in part, “A lawyer or law firm shall not: … (c) engage in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit or misrepresentation” and “(h) engage in any other conduct that adversely reflects on the lawyer’s fitness as a lawyer.”

What can be done to curb the spread of misinformation going forward? It seems inevitable that something has to give when it comes to social media and the downward spiral that may or may not hit rock bottom but only time will tell. Social media plays an important role in how our society communicates, shares ideas and inspires others. But is self-regulation enough? Should there be heightened standards for persons of influence? Should social media be regulated or are the companies sufficiently regulating themselves? Can the government work together with social media platforms to achieve a higher standard? Is judicial witchcraft even a thing? Regardless, your license to practice law is what it’s all about so choose your words wisely.

A Slap in the Face(book)?

Social media law has become somewhat of a contentious issue in recent years. While most people nowadays could not imagine life without it, many realize too, that it’s influence on our daily lives may not be a great thing. As the technology has advanced to unimaginable levels and the platforms have boomed in popularity, it seems as though our smart phones and Big Tech know our every move. The leading social media platform, Facebook, has around 1.82 billion active users a day, with people volunteering all sorts of personal information to be stored in the internet database. Individual profiles hold pictures of our children, our friends, our family, meals we eat, locations we visit. “What’s on your mind?” is the opening invite to any Facebook page, and one can only hazard a guess as to how many people actually answer that question on a daily basis. Social media sites know our likes, our dislikes, our preferences, our moods, the shoes we want to buy for that dress we are thinking of wearing to the party we are looking forward to in three weeks!

With all that knowledge, comes enormous power, and through algorithmic design, social media can manipulate our thoughts and beliefs by controlling what we see and don’t see. With all that power, therefore, should come responsibility, but Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA) has created a stark disconnect between the two. What started out as a worthy protection for internet service providers for the content posted by others, has more recently drawn criticism for the lack of accountability held by social media oligarchs such as Jack Dorsey (Twitter) and Mark Zuckerberg (Facebook).

However, that could all be about to change.

On May 28, 2017, three friends lost their lives in a deadly car accident in which the 17-year-old driver, Jason Davis, crashed into a tree at an estimated speed of 113 mph. Landen Brown, 20, and Hunter Morby, 17, were passengers. Tragic accident? Or wrongful death?

Parents of the deceased lay blame on the Snapchat App, which offered a ‘Speed Filter’ that would clock how fast you were moving, and allowed users to snap and share videos of their movements in progress.

You see where this is going.

As quickly became the trend, the three youths used the app to see how fast they could record the speed of their car. Just moments before their deaths, Davis had posted a ‘snap’ clocking the car’s speed at 123 mph. In Lemmon v Snap, the parents of two of the boys brought suit against the social media provider, Snap, Inc., claiming that the app feature encouraged reckless driving and ultimately served to “entice” the young users to their death.

Until now, social media platforms and other internet service providers have enjoyed the protection of near absolute immunity from liability. Written in 1996, Section 230 was designed to protect tech companies from liability, for suits such as defamation, for third party posts. In the early days, it was small tech companies, or an online business with a ‘comments’ feature that generally saw the benefits of the Code. 25 years later, many people are questioning the role of Section 230 within the vastly developing era of social media and the powerful pass it grants Big Tech in many of its societal shortcomings.

Regarded more as an open forum than the publisher or speaker, social media platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, TikTok, Instagram and Snapchat, have been shielded by Section 230 from any legal claims of harm caused by the content posted on their sites.

Applied broadly, it is argued that Section 230 prevents Snap, Inc. from being held legally responsible for the deaths of the three boys in this case, which is the defense the tech company relied upon. The district court dismissed the case on those grounds, holding that the captured speeds fall into the category of content published by a third party, for which the service provider cannot be held liable. The Ninth Circuit however, disagrees. The Court’s interesting swerve of such immunity, is that the speed filter resulted in the deaths of the boys regardless of whether or not their captured speeds were posted. In other words, it did not matter if the vehicle’s speed was shared with others in the app; the fact that the app promotes, and rewards, high speed (although the award system within the app is not entirely clear), is enough.

The implications of this could be tremendous. At a time when debate over 230 reevaluations is already heavy, this precedential interpretation of Section 230 could lead to some cleverly formulated legal arguments for holding internet service providers accountable for some of the highly damaging effects of internet, social media and smart phone usage.

For the many benefits the internet has to offer, it can no longer be denied that there is another, very ugly side to internet usage, in particular with social media.

It is somewhat of an open secret that social media platforms such as Facebook and Instagram, purposely design their apps to be addictive by its users. It is also no secret that there is a growing association between social media usage and suicides, depression and other mental health issues. Cyber bullying has long been a very real problem. In addition, studies have shown that smart device screen time in very young children has shockingly detrimental impacts on a child’s social and emotional developments, not to mention the now commonly known damage it can have on a person’s eyesight.

An increased rate of divorces has been linked to smart phones, and distracted driving – whether it be texting or keeping tabs on your Twitter retweets, or Facebook ‘likes’– is on the increase. Even an increase in accidents while walking has been linked to distractions caused by the addictive smart devices.

With the idea of accountability being the underlying issue, it can of course be stated that almost all of these problems should be a matter of personal responsibility. Growing apart from your spouse? Ditch your cell phone and reinvent date night. Feeling depressed about your life as you ‘heart’ a picture of your colleague’s wine glass in front of a perfect sunset beach backdrop? Close your laptop and stop comparing yourself to everyone else’s highlights. Step in front of a cyclist while LOL’ing in a group text? Seriously….put your Apple Watch hand in your pocket and look where you are going! The list of personal-blame is endless. But then we hear about three young friends, two still in their teens, who lose their lives engaged with social media, and suddenly it’s not so easy to blame them for their own devastating misfortune.

While social media sites cannot be held responsible for the content posted by others, no matter how hurtful it might be to some, or no matter what actions it leads others to take, should they be held responsible for negligently making their sites so addictive, so emotionally manipulative and so targeted towards individual users, that such extensive and compulsive use leads to dire consequences? According to the Ninth Circuit, negligent app design can in fact be a cause of action for wrongful death.

With a potential crack in the 230-armor, the questions many lawyers will be scrambling to ask are:

- - What duties do the smart device producers and/or internet service providers owe to their users?
  - Are these duties breached by continuing to design, produce, and provide products that are now known to create such disturbing problems?
  - What injuries have occurred and where those injuries foreseeably caused by any such breaches of duty?

For the time being, it is unlikely that any substantial milestone will be reached with regards to Big Tech accountability, but the Ninth Circuit decision in this case has certainly delivered a powerful blow to the Big Tech apparent untouchability in the courtroom.

As awareness of all these social media related issues grow, could this court decision open the door to further suits of defective or negligent product design resulting in death or injury? Time will tell…..stay tuned.

Snapchat’s “Speed Filter” Fuels Fatalities

Upon its launch in 2011, the mobile app known as “Snapchat” quickly gained downloads, now totaling 265 million daily active Snapchat users worldwide. Snapchat revolutionized the social media world with the introduction of filters – debuting “smart filters” to capture time, speed, and temperature in 2013, followed by “Geofilters” in August 2014 and “Discover” and “Lenses” in January 2015.

Snapchat in 2013

While filters can provide fun visual effects and cool color edits, the “speed filter” drew criticism early on for encouraging yet another distraction on the road for young drivers. Newly licensed teens could hardly wait to get in the driver’s seat and snap a selfie overlayed with vehicle speed in real time. The widespread belief is that users would earn a virtual trophy through the apps reward system for snapping speeds over 100 miles per hour (mph) – further fueling the recklessness.

img: The Odyssey

Concerns were raised early on regarding the dangers of the speed filter, and Snap responded by attaching a “Do Not Snap and Drive” disclaimer in 2016. Despite the company’s minimal efforts to limit the use of the feature while driving, life-threatening and fatal car accidents linked to the filter prevailed.

Studies indicate that Snapchat leads the list of apps most distracting for young drivers, and more than a third of teens surveyed admitted to Snapping while driving. The National Highway Transportation Safety Administration reports nearly 26,004 deaths due to distracted driving accidents between 2012 and 2019. By 2018, distraction-related fatalities increased by 10% – killing 2,841 people and injuring 400,000 more. Drivers under the age of 19 account for the largest proportion of distracted driving fatalities.

One of the earliest accidents involving the filter occurred in September 2015, with 18-year-old Christal McGee behind the wheel of her father’s Mercedes. McGee admitted to grabbing her phone and using the filter to see how fast she could go. The Atlanta-teen doubled the speed limit at roughly 113 mph before colliding with an Uber driver who was just beginning his night shift. As a result of the accident, the Uber driver was hospitalized for months and suffered a traumatic brain injury. He sued both McGee and Snapchat for negligence damages, alleging equal responsibility by Snapchat for the crash because they failed to delete the miles per hour filter after it was cited in similar accidents prior to the September 2015 crash.

Likewise, an incident occurred in late 2016 when 22-year-old Pablo Cortes posted a Snapchat video with the speed filter, accelerating from 82 mph to 115.6 mph. Just nine minutes later, Cortes lost control and struck a minivan – killing both himself and his 19-year-old passenger, Jolie Bartolome, as well as a mother and two of her children.

In the past, Snapchat has not faced liability for incidents arising out of the speed filter due to the Communications Decency Act (CDA). Section 230 of the CDA 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). Congress established the CDA in 1996, with the intent to better regulate pornographic material on the Internet. With the growth of social media, it serves as a powerful tool that shields tech companies and social media platforms from potential liability for content posted by their users.

However, just last month the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit unanimously held that the CDA does not shield the creators of Snapchat from claims. The lawsuit in Lemmon v. Snap arises out of an incident that occurred May of 2017, fatally wounding three young boys. The 17-year-old driver and his two buddies used the speed filter to record a high of 123 mph, just before hitting a tree at 113 mph. The parents of the deceased teens filed a lawsuit in 2019, alleging the “negligent design” of the Snap Inc. app contributed to the crash by encouraging speeding. The trial judge erroneously dismissed the case in 2020, citing the immunity social media companies enjoy under the CDA.

In departing from the district court’s decision, the Ninth Circuit applied the three-prong test set forth in Barnes v. Yahoo!, Inc. (2009) to assess whether Section 230 would apply to immunize Snap from the claims. As such, CDA immunity will shield Snap from liability only if “(1) a provider or user of an interactive computer service (2) whom a plaintiff seeks to treat, under a state law cause of action, as a publisher or speaker (3) of information provided by another information content provider.” (quoting Barnes). In thoughtfully analyzing each of the three prongs, the Court reversed the district court’s dismissal of the lawsuit and remanded it for further proceedings.

This new recognition rests on the fact that the suit is not about what someone posted to Snapchat, but rather negligence in the design of the app overall. The decision is a huge turning point in Internet law and regulation because it establishes that an internet company can be held liable for products with a defective design. Although the language of Section 230 grants broad discretion, Lemmon is a clear demonstration that Internet immunity has its limits and is not guaranteed. While the ruling is among the minority that have rejected CDA immunity to design claims against internet platforms, this radical departure from earlier decisions opens the door to future legal challenges to CDA immunity by alleging injury based on how the website’s design affected the user, rather than how the user’s content affected a third party.

Facebook Posts Can Land You In Jail!

Did you know that a single Facebook post can land you in jail? Its true, an acting judge in Westchester NY recently ruled that a ‘tag’ notification on Facebook violated a protective order. The result of the violation; second-degree contempt, which can lead to punishment of up to a year in jail. In January, the a judge issued a restraining order against Maria Gonzalez, prohibiting her from communicating with her former sister-in-law, Maribel Calderon. Restraining orders are issued to prevent person from making contact with protected individuals. Traditionally, courts interpreted contact to mean direct communications in person, mail, email, phone, voicemail or even text. Facebook tags, however, present a slightly different form of contact.

Unlike Facebook messages, tagging someone identifies the tagged person on the poster’s Facebook page. The tag, however, has the concurrent effect of linking to the identified person’s profile; thereby notifying them of the post. Ms. Gonzalez tagged Calderon in a post on her (Gonzalez’s) timeline calling Calderon stupid and writing “you have a sad family.” Gonzalez argued the post did not violate the protective order since there was no contact aimed directly at Calderon. Acting Westchester (NY) County Supreme Court Justice Susan Capeci felt otherwise writing a restraining order includes “contacting the protected party by electronic or other means.” Other means, it seems, is through personal posts put out on social media.

And Social Media posts aren’t just evidence of orders of protection violations, they are also grounds for supporting the issuance of restraining orders. In 2013, a court granted an order of protection for actress Ashley Tinsdale against an alleged stalker. Tinsdale’s lawyers presented evidence of over 19,000 tweets that the alleged stalker posted about the actress (an average of 100 tweets per day).

The bottom line: Naming another on a social media post, even one that is directed to the twittersphere or Facebook community, rather than toward a particular individual, is sufficient contact for purposes of supporting restraining orders or violations thereof. We should all keep our posts positives –even more so if we have been told to stay away!!!

Would a juror believe that Bob Marley “shot the sheriff” if he posted it to his Facebook Page?

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the prosecution’s introduction of social media evidence to support a conviction against an alleged gang member for narcotics sales, murder and related crimes. The case, United States v. Pierce, concerned several defendants including Melvin Colon, a member of a Bronx N.Y. street gang. As evidence against Colon, the prosecution introduced posts Colon made to his Facebook page including a video of Colon rapping “Somebody make somebody nose bleed / I’m OG shoot the Ruger / I’m a shooter,” and a picture of Colon’s hand showing a “Y.G.K.” tattoo. YGK stands for Young Gunnaz Killer, and Gunnaz was the rival gang against whom Colon committed his violence.

At trial Colon argued that introduction of the Facebook posts violated his First Amendment rights because his conviction “rested on a form of expression, however distasteful, which the Constitution tolerates and protects.” The Court rejected his argument since the speech was not the basis of the prosecution, in other words, Colon was not prosecuted for making the posts, but rather the posts were used as evidence of his participation in a different crime.

The Court also rejected Colon’s argument that the Facebook posts were merely “fictional artistic expression,” which should not be used against him. The Second Circuit, referencing a recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, acknowledged that violent rap lyrics alone are insufficient to sustain a conviction. However, where the violent rap lyrics and the like survive a Fed. R. Evid. 403 challenges and their probative value outweighs their danger of unfair prejudice, the evidence is admissible. The court ultimately sustained Colon’s conviction.

Jurors and Social Media Use: Survey Results Point to a Solution

After hearing all of the frighteningly careless stories of social media use by jurors, it is nice to finally read some encouraging news on the topic. A recently published article in the Duke Law and Technology Review titled “More From the #Jury Box: The Latest on Juries and Social Media,” has revealed that juror instructions on the use of social media appear to be highly effective in deterring juror use of social media during trial. The authors’ conclusions are based on the results of a survey of jurors in federal and state courts on their use of social media during their jury service. The surveys began in 2011 and have continued through the publication of this article in order to get a complete picture of juror attitudes toward social media and determine whether the landscape is changing. The results of the survey strongly supported the notion that jury instructions are the most effective tool in mitigating the risk of juror misconduct through social media. This is certainly a step in the right direction, as the surveys have helped to identify a potential solution to this recent problem that the rise of social media use has ushered in.

The article points out that “[t]he impartial jury has survived the telephone, the radio, the automobile, and the television. There is no reason why it cannot survive Facebook and Twitter, too.” Though jurors have always been instructed to refrain from discussing the trial with anyone, practically speaking there was nothing to stop a juror from going home and calling everyone in their phonebook to chat with them about the trial. Tweeting or posting on Facebook about the trial would not only likely reach a much wider audience, but this misconduct can also be more easily detected due to the lax privacy settings of many social media users. Social media has also simply given jurors additional opportunities to disobey the law, particularly when many are accustomed to alerting all of cyberspace to their every move and thought.

The good news is that jurors appear to respond well to instructions—the survey results indicated that those who were tempted to use social media during trial but refrained from doing so, acted accordingly based on admonishments from the court to abstain from using social media. Specifically, the authors of the article offer three suggestions regarding when and how to administer these instructions to the jury, including early and often, as well as recommending that relevant content be included in the instructions and examples of prohibited activities be provided.

What I find odd about these suggestions is that they indicate that jurors are not willfully disobeying the court’s instructions, but instead are simply forgetting—or worse, not knowing—that they are not supposed to be tweeting or posting about the trial. I had always assumed that jurors who participated in these prohibited activities knew that their social media use was unlawful and were either maliciously attempting to sabotage the trial, or, more likely, merely hoping or assuming they wouldn’t be caught. What the reality of the situation is, according to this survey, might be more troubling to me than what I had initially assumed, because it points to a disturbing level of ignorance about the legal system and the importance of their role as a jury member.

Therefore, it seems that until jurors intuitively assume that they should refrain from using social media during trial, specific and frequent instructions on the matter is the best solution to prevent this misconduct.