Category: Social Media Platforms

Maybe this defamation case will go to trial?

Those who watch “defamation by twitter” cases know that very few go to trial and to date none have made it to the level of appellate review.  A new case, however, has court watchers hoping for some decision, and ultimately guidance on whether defamation via social media requires legal treatment of a nature different than the garden-variety brick and mortar type of tort.  The case, Soul Circus v. People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) (filed N.D. Georgia March 6, 2013) concerns a tweet by PETA claiming that “SCI [Soul Circus] does not care about the treatment, health, or wellbeing of its animals.”  The tweet, and a similar posting on the PETA Facebook site, was accompanied by an elephant, purportedly the Elephant Nosey, who appears in Soul Circus, chained to a fenced in area.   The posts received over 100,000 comments.  The same claim originally appeared on the PETA website.

Soul Circus is suing PETA for defamation, tortious interference and false light.  The case seems fairly straight forward.  Assuming Soul Circus can prove damages and that PETA cannot use the defense of truth, the circus should succeed in its claim.

Arguably, it is hard to defame in 140 characters, although here the direct allegation of animal cruelty seems straight forward enough to prove the elements of defamation, without innuendo.  However, even so, it seems to me that the question of damages is a big issue.  The traditional rule where defamation is concerned is that a defendant only commits one count of libel regardless of the number of rebroadcasts of a particular defamatory statement.  Given the proliferation of social media, should the rule change and if so should a damage reward reflect that?

Teachers Know If You Don’t Do Your Homework

A New York Times Article was published today that discusses CourseSmart, a program that allows teachers to track their student’s progress with digital textbooks. CoureSmart allows users to read , highlight, and take notes digitally. CourtSmart tracks this data–what page the student has read up to, what they highlighted and wrote down–which is then sent to the students’ teachers. Not only does CourseSmart track this data, but it also individually packages for each professor information on the students in the class.

The article states that according to surveys conducted by CourseSmart, there are few privacy concerns.  In addition, it states “being watched is a fundamental part of the world they [students] live in.”  But should faculty be privy to this information?  While one of the goals of the program is to discuss and teach students how to read more analytically, should faculty even be allowed to monitor students when they are outside the classroom? Is this an illegal search and seizure under the Fourth Amendment?

In addition, there are long-term repercussions.  If students are constantly being monitored and don’t keep up with their work, what will happen when students are no longer watched over?  In school, if I didn’t do my homework on time or read and study for a test, it was to my detriment; I would get poor grades for homework and exams.  The same is when one enters the workforce.   Employers will not always monitor your work progress; if you don’t get things in on time and do the work necessary to create a good product, there will be repercussions.  If students are not taught to monitor themselves, will this hurt them in the long run?

 

See:  http://www.nytimes.com/2013/04/09/technology/coursesmart-e-textbooks-track-students-progress-for-teachers.html?pagewanted=2&_r=0&hp

Has YouTube Lead to An Increase in Firings?

On the same day that Rutger’s Athletic Director Tim Pernetti fired basketball coach Mike Rice, comes word that the Supreme Court of West Virginia suspended Putnam County Va. Family Law Judge William M. Watkins III.   (decision available here).  The decision came after members of the court viewed several YouTube videos of Judge Watkins.  In one such video, which had been viewed over 200,000 times the judge repeatedly told a paston to “shut up.”  In another incident Watkins said to a woman seeking an order of protection, “”Shut up! You stupid woman.”     The Rice case may be a bit more familiar to readers.   Rutgers fired Rice less than 24 hours after ESPN’s Outside the Lines aired video of Rice committing inexcusable acts, including kicking players, throwing balls at them and yelling homophobic slurs.

The timing of these firings is most curious.  At least in Rice’s case, the firings did not come at the time his superiors learned of his transgressions, but rather after the transgressions were aired on the social media website, leading to huge public outcry.  This begs a question this blog has come back to again and again.   Does the public nature of social media assure greater accountability.  At least in these two instances I would have to say yes.  But-for the public outcry I am not confident that neither of these wrongdoers would have received the same degree of punishment absent the publicity following their acts.  I would go further and say such is most certainly the case where Mike Rice is concerned.

Illinois Appellate Court Rules Teens Twitter Posts Not Relevant in Child Custody Hearings

Earlier this month, the Third District Appellate Court in Illinois ruled that evidence of a teen’s twitter posts “did not support a change” in a decison to refuse a second in camera interview the minor children.  The case, R.M. v.D.Z. (Not reported in N.E.2d, 2013 Il App. 3d)  concerns a challenge to a decision awarding custody of 5th grade twin boys to their mother, R.M.  R.M. has an older daughter, K.M., who, at some point after  the custody award, posted tweets including ““drinking with my mom … now I know why I only drink wine” and “drinking Bailey’s with my mama.” and “I love drinking with my mom LMFAO.”

The father of the boys, D.Z. argued that these tweets gave rise to reconsideration of the child custody issue, or at a minimum, to allowing a second in camera review of the children to get a sense of their comfort with living with their mother.  When considering the relevance of the tweets, the appellate court agreed with the trial court’s conclusion that “it’s become apparent to the court after hearing many of these types of cases now that young people don’t put the normal every day occurrences of life on their Twitter account postings. * * * And trying to rely upon Twitter account postings or MySpace or Facebook as proof of facts, actually things that have happened, just can’t be done—especially with young people.”

Did Justice Alito Sanction Court’s Lag Behind Technology

It has been said, many times, that the court system lags dramatically behind technology.  All to often, courts must play catch up – or often gerrymander common law doctrine – to fit previously unforeseen complications from the Internet. (think trespass to chattels and spam).   During oral arguments in Hollingsworth v. Perry, the recent challenge to California’s Prop. 8, Justice Alito reminded those following the case, that the proper role of the Court is one of reflection and not necessarily trailblazing.  Speaking to counsel for those opposing Prop. 8 Justice Alito said, “You want us to step in and render a decision based on an assessment of the effects of this institution, which is newer than cellphones or the Internet?”  Sounds like those who question the speed with which courts react to issues of social media have their answer.  Justice Alito says take your time!

 

 

Bridgewater-Rartitan High School, in Bridgewater, N.J. earned notoriety this morning following news that students had initiated an on-campus “fight club”and then posted videos of fights on Facebook.  School officials have taken disciplinary action against those who allegedly engaged in the fights, but acknowledged that it has no jurisdiction over Facebook activity.   It is true that the long reach of the arm does not stretch to conduct outside of school (and presumably the posts were created off-campus after school hours) but perhaps this is an instance where the law should be changed.  Does the fact that students are posting violent crimes that occurred on school property during schools hours create enough of a nexus to justify school regulation?  Or, should the First Amendment, and presumably good parenting regulate how the student conducts him or herself outside of school?

Should Blogs Enjoy the Same Defamation Immunity as Newspapers?

Blog posts are not entitled to the same immunity from libel as are newspapers or other periodicals… at least in Texas.  The issue was resolved in a district court case steming from posts made by a former patient of the University Behavioral Health of Denton (UBH), “a free standing psychiatric hospital specializing in mental health and chemical dependancy care.”    Brenda Wells, a former patient of the hospital, among other things maintained a blog on which she posted defamatory comments that accused hospital staff of unprofessional and even criminal conduct. Wells tried to defend the claim arguing, that not only were the blogs not defamatory, but  that her blogs were protected under a Texas Law, which prohibits libel claims against newspapers and periodicals.  Wells argued that her blogs, which were published, were akin to the type of media receiving defamation immunity and therefore should be protected under the law.  The U.S. Discrtice Court for the Eastern District of North Carolina disagreed, finding that because ” “[p]ostings on the blog are not published at regular intervals. They are not composed of articles, news items, or the like.”

The decision in the case, Ascend Health Corp. v. Wells (here), may make sense in this particular instances, but I can think of a lot of blogs that have the sophisticated and regular type of content of which many newspapers and periodicals boast.   What about blogs that are maintained by newspaper reporters?  Such blogs would not receive immunity under this case.  This is one decision that I think should be revisited.  Thoughts?

 

 

Social Media Strikes Again: Teens Charged With Making OnlineThreats Against Steubenville Rape Victim

There is no doubt that Social Media played an important role in the Steubenville Rape Case.   In fact, the prosecution would have had a significantly weaker case had it not been for the several tweets, videos, and pictures exchanged among students regarding the events that occurred.  It is disgraceful that young students would commit such a horrific act, and then brag about it through social networking sites.  It is even more troublesome, that the numerous students who viewed these tweets, pictures, and video did not report the incident.  Many would hope that young students would learn from this incident and the implications Social Networking Sites may have if used irresponsibly.  However, that is not that case for two teenage girls who used Social Media to threaten the young victim in the Steubenville Rape Case following the verdict.  A 16-year-old girl is charged with aggravated menacing after using Twitter to threaten the life of the victim, and a 15-year-old girl is charged with one count of menacing after making a threat on Facebook.

What will it take for young students to realize that their actions on Social Media sites have real life consequences?

Boxer Curtis Woodhouse Tracks Down Twitter Troll, Shows Up at His House

Reading this article made me consider the legality of “doxxing” a person.  For those unfamiliar “dox” is an internet slang word for finding and releasing personally identifiable information, such as their real name, address, or account information. In this instance, I am unsure how he got the person’s name and address, but clearly he had intentions of confronting the person.  This could have resulted in a violent altercation.  A couple of questions that came to mind:

Can a person be liable (criminally or civilly)  for “doxxing” someone who then suffers harm as a result of being “doxxed”?

Should the act of “doxxing” be considered a tort?

In some states, you can be sued for publishing private facts about another person.  “Private facts” refers to information about someone’s personal life that has not been previously revealed to the public, that is not of legitimate public concern, and the publication of which would be offensive to a reasonable person. However, the law protects you if you publish something that is already publicly available.

Some states also consider it a tort to unreasonably intrude upon the seclusion or solitude of a person.  In order to bring an action for tort of privacy invasion based upon the concept of intrusion on the seclusion of another, the following elements must be established (Doe v. High-Tech Inst., Inc., 972 P.2d 1060 (Colo. Ct. App. 1998)):

-that defendant committed an unauthorized intrusion or prying into plaintiff’s seclusion;
-that intrusion was highly injurious and objectionable to a reasonable man;
-that matter intruded on was private; and
-that intrusion resulted in agony and suffering to plaintiff.

It seems from this that a person can be held liable for “doxxing” someone if that person is harmed, or if the information released is not newsworthy or publicly available.

Thoughts?

Skip to toolbar