Category: Social Media Platforms

Cancel Culture….. The Biggest Misconception of the 21st Century

Cancel Culture  refers to the popular practice of withdrawing support for (canceling) public figures and companies after they have done or said something considered objectionable or offensive.

Being held accountable isn’t new.

If a public figure has done something or has said something offensive to me why can’t I express my displeasure or discontinue my support for them? Cancel culture is just accountability culture. Words have consequences, and accountability is one of them. However, this is nothing new. We are judged by what we say in our professional and personal lives. For example, whether we like it or not when we’re on a job hunt we are held accountable for what we say or may have said in the past. According to Sandeep Rathore, (2020, May 5). 90% of Employers Consider an Applicant’s Social Media Activity During Hiring Process, employers believe that social media is important to assess job candidates. This article explains that these jobs are  searching your social media for certain red flags like, anything that can be considered hate speech, illegal or illicit content, negative comments about previous jobs or client, threats to people or past employers, confidential or sensitive information about people or previous employers. Seems like a prospective employer can cancel you for a job for things you may have done or said in the past. Sound familiar?

You ever been on a first date? Has your date ever said something so objectionable or offensive that you just cancel them after the first date? I’m sure it has happened to some people. This is just another example of people being held accountable for what they say.

Most public figures who are offended by cancel culture have a feeling of entitlement. They feel they have the right to say anything, even if it’s offensive and hurtful, and bear no accountability. In Sarah Hagi, (2019 November 19). Cancel Culture is not real, at least not in the way people believe it is, Hagi explained that Cancel Culture is turned into a catch-all for when people in power face consequences for their actions or receive any type of criticism, something that they’re not used to.”

What harm is Cancel Culture causing?

Many cancel culture critics say cancel culture is limiting free speech. This I don’t get. The very essence of cancel culture is free speech. Public figures have the right to say what they want and the public has the right to express disapproval and displeasure with what they said. Sometimes this comes in the form of boycotting, blogging, social media posting etc. Public figures who feel that they have been cancelled might have bruised egos, be embarrassed, or might have their career impacted a little but that comes as a consequence of free speech. A Public figure losing fans, customers, or approval in the public eye is not an infringement on their rights. It’s just the opposite. It’s the people of the public expressing their free speech. They have the right to be a fan of who they want, a customer of who they want, and to show approval for who they want. Lastly, Cancel Culture can be open dialogue but  rarely do we see the person that is on the receiving end of a call out wanting to engage in open dialogue with the people who are calling them out.

No public figures are actually getting cancelled.

According to AJ Willingham, (2021 March 7). It’s time to Cancel this talk of cancel culture, “people who are allegedly cancelled still prevail in the end”.  The article gives an example of when Dr. Sues was supposedly cancelled due to racist depictions in his book, but instead his book sales actually went up.  Hip Hop rapper Tory Lanez was supposedly cancelled for allegedly shooting  female rapper Megan the stallion in the foot. Instead of being cancelled he dropped an album describing what happened the night of the shooting and his album skyrocketed in sales. There are numerous examples that show that people are not really being cancelled, but instead simply being called out for their objectionable or offensive behavior.

Who are the real victims here?

In AJ Willingham, (2021 March 7). It’s time to Cancel this talk of cancel culture, the article states “there are real problems that exist…. to know the difference look at the people who actually suffer when these cancel culture wars play out.  There are men and women who allege wrong doing at the risk of their own career. Those are the real victims.” This a problem that needs to be identified in cancel culture debate. To many people are are prioritizing the feelings of the person that is being called out rather than the person that is being oppressed. In Jacqui Higgins-Dailey, (2020, September 3). You need to calm down : You’re getting called out, not cancelled, Dailey explains “ When someone of a marginalized group says they are being harmed, we (the dominant group) say the harm wasn’t our intent. But impact and intent are not the same. When a person doesn’t consider the impact their beliefs, thoughts, words and actions have on a marginalized group, they continue to perpetuate the silencing of that group. Call-out culture is a tool. Ending call-out culture silences marginalized groups who have been censored far too long. The danger of cancel culture is refusing to take criticism. That is stifling debate. That is digging into a narrow world view”.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Blurred Boundaries: The multidimensional convergence of Social Media’s Impact on Privacy, Speech and Employment Law

Are employees and employers operating in a universe without realizing the density of the fog that obscures the boundaries of the employee-employer relationship in cyberspace because the Supreme Court prefers to decide cases on narrower grounds?

Due to narrow rulings, examining decisions beyond employment law may yield analysis that can serve as temporary guideposts for employers and employees while monitoring the developing landscape.

Over a decade ago, the unanimous Supreme Court did just that. In City of Ontario, Cal. v. Quon, the Court avoided addressing the employee privacy issue by deciding that employer acted reasonably, thereby justified their non-investigatory search of an employer-issued pager in 2002. The employee brought an action for deprivation of civil rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. The § 1983 claim requires a governmental actor to deprive a constitutional right while acting under the color of law. The government, as the employer, issued a policy covering emails and Internet usage, but it was not specific to text messages. However, a supervisor verbally put all employees on notice that text would be considered emails, despite the difference between the technology used during transmission. Some of the non-work-related messages sent during working hours were sexual. Despite both the District Court and the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit decided that the employee had an expectation of privacy in the text messages, the Supreme Court avoided addressing that issue while finding the search constitutional.

Since most of today’s labor force has never carried a pager, the more relevant aspect of this decision is the Court forecasting the “rapid changes in the dynamics of communication and information transmission” which may be evident “in the technology itself but in what society accepts as proper behavior.” How right they were, I could not have predicted the explosion of technology. Because emerging technology’s role in society was unclear, detailing the constitutionality of other actions could have been risky. Last month this preference was reinforced. However, definitive holdings could have become the foundation upon which employers and employees could make educated decisions while technology’s role in society becomes more evident. Like an airplane flying out of cloud cover, suddenly the landscape becomes visible.

The Court had the foresight that cell phone communications would become essential in self-expression that it would require employers to communicate clear policies. However, the challenge lies in setting clear policies when privacy and protected speech boundaries are not clearly defined but obscured in the fog created by balancing tests established in other speech cases.

One such landmark ruling is the 1969 “school arm-band case” during the Vietnam War. In Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School Dist., the Court separately analyzed the time, place, and type of be¬havior/communication. Tinker’s substantial disruption analysis requires that the prohibition on speech needs to be due to something other than just the desire to avoid discomfort and unpleasantness.

The Court in Young v. American Mini Theatres, Inc. established that speech cannot be suppressed just because society finds the content offensive. Likewise, in Skinner v. Railway Labor Executives’ Ass’n, the Court also found that the amendments to the constitution also applied to the government when performing non-criminal functions.
Likewise, the Court ruled in Treasury Employees v. Von Raab that not only did the Fourth Amendment apply to the government as an employer but that the issue of privacy applies to private-sector employees as well.

More recently, Justice Stevens addressed a public employee’s expectation of privacy in his concurring opinion in Quon. He highlighted the significant issue: there “lacks tidy distinctions between workplace and private activities.” Today’s social media and society’s view have further blurred the boundaries to the point of non-existence.

Just last month, the Supreme Court had an opportunity to establish bright lines that would have further clarified the legal landscape of social media. The rule could have applied to the employer-employee relationship. In Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., the Court held that the school violated the student’s free speech rights because the school’s special interests did not overcome the student’s right to freedom of expression. The decision was based primarily on the time of the speech, the location from where B.L. made it, the content, and the target audience. The school’s interests also focused on preventing disruption in the facility.

Justice Alito, in his concurrence, explains that it is not prudent to establish a general First Amendment rule for off-premise student speech but rather to examine the analytical framework. While this approach serves the parties of this case and is of some value to other students, it is so narrowly tailored that it may have little precedence in other speech disputes.

Rather than a bright-line rule, the Court is building a boundary fence around the First Amendment one panel at a time. While the legal community functions within this ever-changing reality, society pays the burden until clarity is achieved.

  The Court’s lesson from Mahanoy might be that regulations on student speech raises serious First Amendment concerns; school offi¬cials should proceed cautiously before venturing into this territory. That same caution may be prudent for both the private sector and public sector employers. Social media’s impact is not limited to situations where a person’s post impacts their employment. One example, among many, is Amy Cooper, the Central Park 911 caller, who was immediately fired for racism and later charged with filing a false police report. She has since filed a civil suit against her employer.

Unfortunately, the Court’s preference to dispose of cases narrowly while avoiding addressing all the possible issues creates tension between different interpretations until the Court adds the last panel completing the boundary fence around the First Amendment. Until then, we will have to consider how the courts will decide issues within the employment arena, such as the termination of Amy Cooper or any law enforcement officer firings due to social media posts.

Will the Courts find that employees, like students, do not “shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression” at the workplace gate in the era of social media?

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?

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 21st 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:

  1. Do you spend a lot of time thinking about social media or planning to use social media?
  2. Do you feel urges to use social media more and more?
  3. Do you use social media to forget about personal problems?
  4. Do you often try to reduce the use of social media without success?
  5. Do you become restless or troubled if unable to use social media?
  6. 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.

Is There Such a Thing as Off-Campus Anymore?

The Supreme Court will soon decide Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., which raises the issue of whether the First Amendment prohibits public school officials from regulating off-campus student speech.   The issue arose from an incident involving Brandi Levy (B.L.), who, after learning she had not made her school’s Varsity Cheerleading squad, posted a picture of herself on Snapchat with the caption “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.”  She made the post on a weekend while hanging out at a local convenience store.
Levy thought the post would disappear after 24 hours, and only about 250 people saw the post during that time. But one person took a screenshot of the post and showed it to the school’s cheerleading coaches.  The coaches decided Levy’s snap violated team and school rules, which Levy had acknowledged before joining the team, and she was suspended from the school’s junior varsity cheerleading team for a year.Levy and her parents sued the school under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, arguing that the school’s suspension violated her First Amendment right to free speech and that the school disciplinary rules were overly broad. The district court granted summary judgment in B.L.’s favor, ruling that the school had violated her First Amendment rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed.   On January 8, 2021, the Supreme Court took certiorari.  It heard the case on April 28, 2021.The case presents the first post-Internet decision concerning regulated school speech.  The last time the Court heard a case concerning the regulation of speech on school property was in 1969 when in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, the Court ruled that students’ First Amendment Rights do not end when they enter the school-house door.  In that case, the Court overruled a high school policy that prohibited students from wearing armbands on campus in protest of the Vietnam War.  According to the Tinker Court, schools cannot regulate student speech unless there is a material and substantial disruption to the school or student body.When framed in the context of Tinker, Mahanoy School District seems a pretty straightforward case for the court to decide.  The question under Tinker becomes whether Levy’s Snapchat posed a substantial disruption to the school.  And quite frankly, although disrespectful, the post was not disruptive.The issue, however, is much bigger!

The Internet has given rise to considerable cyberbullying among students.  Quite often the bullying occurs off-campus but is targeted at fellow students or administrators.  The Third Circuit has previously considered and found in favor of free speech in two instances where students bullied school principals.  Lisa S. Blatt, the attorney for the School Board, summed it up best during oral arguments; “When it comes to the Internet,” Blatt argued, “things like time and geography are meaningless.”   Levy’s case presents the Court with the thorny issue of where the school steps start in our current virtual world.

Levy posted her Snapchat in 2017.  At that time, schools were grappling with how to handle off-campus cyberbullying between classmates.  Many authorities agree that under the Tinker standard, school officials can intervene if the off-campus speech has created or could create a substantial disruption or interference at school.  Students have a right to feel secure on campus, and therefore a school has the power to discipline off-campus speech, even at the expense of a student’s right to free speech.  Courts have applied this holding in a way that was favorable to the school to instances involving Internet chatter.  In Rosario v. Clark County School Dist., a 2013 District Court upheld a school administration’s decision to discipline and punish a student for tweets a minor made while at a restaurant about a basketball coach who dismissed him from the team.  In Kowalski v. Berkeley Cnty. Schs.,  the Fourth Circuit ruled that a school did not violate a student’s free speech rights by suspending her for creating and posting to a webpage that ridiculed fellow students.

On the other hand, in instances where students could prove in court that their off-campus social media did not substantially disrupt the school the student has prevailed.  Consider, for example, Layshock v. Hermitage School Dist., in which the full Third Circuit ruled that the school infringed on a student’s First Amendment rights by suspending him for posting an online parody of the principle.  The Court ruled the same way on almost the same set of facts in J.S. v. Blue Mountain School Dist. But to date, among Federal Circuit Courts, only the Third Circuit has sided with the school in instances of off-campus online speech. And even those cases suggest that there are instances where a school can appropriately infringe on a student’s First Amendment Rights.  In response to J.S. and Layshock, Judge Kent Jordan of the Third Circuit stated: “The issue is whether the Supreme Court’s decision in Tinker, can be applied to off-campus speech. I believe it can, and no ruling coming out today is to the contrary.”

The Supreme Court could easily punt in this case; decide whether Levy’s Snapchat disrupted on-campus activities and leave it at that.  But in this instance, the Court should not miss the opportunity to discuss the more significant issue of what rules should apply given the very real issue of blurred school boundaries.  Especially since these boundaries have become even more blurred with the Pandemic.  Living rooms and bedrooms across the country have become virtual classrooms.  It seems impossible to suggest in today’s wired world that, as attorney Blatt suggests, there are any geographical boundaries to school. Prohibiting schools from regulating speech outside brick-and-mortar school buildings provides schools with the opportunity to prevent the severest of cyberbullying.   On the other hand, expanding a schools’ reach threatens the very foundation of our constitution.

The Supreme Court decided Tinker well before the Internet was integral to our homes. Mahanoy Area School Dist. v. B.L., offers the Court the opportunity to provide much-needed guidance to school administrators who walk a tight balance between respecting First Amendment Rights and protecting the right of their students to learn in a conducive educational environment.  Defining that guidance is the difficult part and with three new members of SCOTUS,  it is hard to decide which way they may rule.

How do you think the Court should rule and what would your ruling be if you were a Supreme Court Justice?

 

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!!!

Skip to toolbar