Social Media Platforms – Page 6 – Social Media Legality

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.

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!!!

Five not so smart “smart phone” uses: How using your smart phone can lead to criminal conviction

Yes, your mother always told you “everyone is doing it” is not an excuse and nowhere is that this more true than with smart phone use. Just ask the hundreds of students in Canon City Colorado who could face child pornography charges for housing sexts on their phones. Or Owen Labrie, the high school student at St. Paul School convicted last month for luring an underage minor through the Internet.

Truth is, lots of smart phone activity that you may think is o.k. can actually lead you down a path that ends with you having to check the dreaded “yes” box when asked on a college or job application, “have you ever been convicted of a crime?”

Here are five not so smart “smart phone” uses and their legal consequences.

1. Sending a sext to an underage friend can require you to register as a sex offender for the rest of your life.

Forwarding a picture of your nude or semi-nude self is child pornography, if, that is, you take the picture before you are eighteen years old. And regardless of your age, receiving one of those pictures or forwarding them, is also child pornography and can lead to conviction, jail time and a requirement that you register as a sex offender. Just Ask Phillip Alpert. The 18 year-old forwarded a nude selfie that his 16 year-old girlfriend had sent him. His decision resulted in 72 criminal charges and conviction as a registered sex offender. Alpert, who by all accounts is a good kid who made a bad decision, is, for the next 25 years, prohibited from living near a school, working with children and using the internet freely.

2. Catfishing can land you in jail.

Catfishing isn’t just a show on MTV. Catfishing, the practice of impersonating someone to lure another to fall in love, is a crime in some states. California, New York, Texas and Washington are among the states that have criminalized online impersonation. In fact, last year, a New Jersey teen created a fictitious Facebook profile and used it to entice a classmate into an online relationship. The teen, Andriy Mykhaylivsky, lead his classmate to believe that the fake girl had been kidnapped, prompting his duped “buddy” to call the U.S. Embassy and file a missing persons report. As a result of catfishing, Mykhaylivsky was convicted of making false statements to a U.S. official and sentenced to six months in jail and $500.00.

3. Consensual sex with an underage minor met through a dating app is statutory rape, even if the minor lied about her age in her profile.

Last year, Zach Anderson communicated with a young woman on Hotornot.com who despite being 14 at the time, listed herself as 17 years old on her profile, and who, by all accounts, looked that age. Hotornot prohibited 13-17 year olds from accessing the “adults only” sections of the website, so it was reasonable for Anderson to think the girl with whom he was communicating was really 17. After some online flirting the two met up and Anderson engaged in consensual sex with the girl. Police subsequently arrested a cooperative Anderson and he was charged fourth-degree criminal sexual assault for which he pled guilty and spent 90 days in jail. As Anderson learned, a misunderstanding as to the minor’s age is no defense to the crime, even if the minor is the one who caused the misunderstanding. Anderson’s experience is becoming increasingly common, and some estimate that 25% of those convicted of engaging in sex with a minor have experienced a similar circumstance.

4. Luring a minor over the internet is a crime, even if both parties are minors.

Although initially conceived to stop child predators, courts are using the crime of luring a minor over the internet to punish teenage contemporaries. The crime is defined as expressing interest over the internet to meet a person for sexual purposes. When Owen Labrie, a senior at St. Paul School prep school, sent a 15 year old girl a “senior salute” — a spring semester tradition in which a senior boy sends a younger girl an email to solicit a romantic encounter, he was charged with the and convicted of the crime. In other words, texting someone under 17 about a hook-up could result in a jail sentence.

5. Posting on Anonymous Apps is not really anonymous

Since its inception in 2013, police on several colleges and universities have arrested Yik Yakers for posting threating comments on the app. Last week, police arrested Connor Stottlemyre, a 19 year old student at Northwest Missouri State for posting a terrorist message in response to the racial unrest at the University of Missouri. A 21 year old Virginia Tech student pled guilty to harassment by computer after using Yik Yak to post “Another 4.16 moment is going to happen tomorrow. Just a warning,” a reference to the 2007 massacre at Virginia Tech. In both instances the police were able to access the IP address of the poster and through that information, track him down. Although Yik Yak is anonymous it maintains a private log of the IP addresses along with the user’s GPS coordinates and the time and place of posting. If police present Yik Yak, or any other app with a legally valid search warrant, the app is required to turn the information over for investigation, an investigation which often leads to arrest.

Best to use smart phones smartly

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.

Call them “supper-bloggers” able to shield themselves from immunity because of a federal act.

Tricia Mezzacappa brought suit against Bernie O’Hare for defamation of character. The charge stemmed from anonymous comments posted in response to a blog post O’Hare wrote on his blog, Lehigh Valley Ramblings. For the most part, bloggers are immune from liability for third party comments. The shield comes from Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, which relieves internet service providers (ISPs) from fault. The legislation was enacted after Stratton Oakmont (yes Wolf of Wall Street Stratton Oakmont) successfully sued Prodigy for failing to removing potentially defamatory comments from its site. Following the case Congress rightly recognized that holding ISPs responsible for all content posted on its sites would have a chilling effect on ISPs and would threaten the existence of the existence of the internet at all. The unfortunate by product of Section 230 is that plaintiffs who cannot identify defamatory posters because of their anonymity are left remediless.

But here is the tricky part, bloggers can get around the CDA by posting their thoughts as comments rather than as blog posts. In this particular case, Mezacappa v. O’Hare, Mezzacappa contended that O’Hare was the one who posted the anonymous comments. The Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas did not address this particular claim and, for several reasons, dismissed the case. In so doing, the court treats a small, manageable blog, one by which the blog administrator can easily monitor content, equal to the AOLs and Googles of the world. Is it fair to relieve a blogger of liability for blog posts that he or she masks as comments, particularly when he or she has the easy ability to delete content? As a blogger I am sighing with relief at the outcome of this case. But as a citizen interested in fairness in dealings…. not so much.

Rebel with a Cause: Ending Revenge Porn

Thanks goodness for “mama bears.” Recognizing the law was not on her side, 55 year old Dr. Charlotte Laws took matters into her own hands after Hunter Moore, alternatively referred to as “The Kingpin of Revenge Porn” and the “most hated man on the internet” posted topless pictures of her daughter Kayla on the website, IsAnyoneUp.com; pictures which Moore allegedly stole from her daughter’s computer and email accounts.

Initially neither the police nor the FBI was willing to assist Dr. Laws in having the pictures of her daughter’s bare breasts removed. It was not until her husband threatened a law suit against Moore that the pictures were taken down. Moore has since been charged with several felonies, including seven counts of aggravated identity theft and seven counts of unauthorized computer use, stemming from hacking Kayla’s computer. Moore has also exposed himself to civil liability. Had Moore initially obtained the photos consensually, the law would have been much more forgiving.

Only a few states currently criminalize revenge porn. Maryland amended its harassment statute in 2014 to include revenge porn, and Texas is considering a bill that makes it unlawful to “disclose or promote visual material.” In 2014 California saw its first conviction under its revenge porn statute.

According to Laws, the author of a new book titled Rebel in High Heels, revenge porn “[is]really more like non-consensual pornography or [as she prefers] to call it cyber rape because … victims act like traditional rape victims and it’s a sex crime.” I am not sure why “high heels” are necessary accessories to decry gender exploitation. But in all seriousness, it is time for all states to criminalize revenge porn, regardless of how photos were obtained.

Should Courts allow Facebook Posts as Evidence of Lack of Remorse?

Last month Orange County Prosecutors charged Victoria Graswald with the murder of her fiancé Vincent Viafore. Ms. Graswald allegedly tampered with Mr. Viafore’s kayak while the two were boating in the icy (yes again icy – see post below) water of the Hudson River. As a result, prosecutors argue, Mr. Viafore drowned.

Although Mr. Viafore’s body has yet to be found, prosecutors believed that Ms. Graswald’s inconsistent stories, and pictures she posted on Facebook after the accident were sufficient to indict her for her fiancé’s death. They cite as evidence a picture of Ms. Graswald in a yoga pose against a bucolic setting and a video of her doing a cartwheel.

Facebook posts that demonstrate a lack of remorse have been figuring into criminal prosecutions for a while. in 2011 Casey Anthony was indicted in the media for posts she shared of a “Bella Vida” tattoo she emblazoned on her back shoulder and pictures she posted showing Ms. Anthony partying while her daughter was still missing. A California, judge sentenced a woman to 2 years in jail for her first DUI offense (typical first time offenders are given probation). The judge cited a post- arrest picture the woman posted to MySpace while holding a drink.

But are Facebook posts, with all of their innuendo, a fair measures of guilt. The Casey Anthony jury probably didn’t think so; although all we know for sure is that the posts, considered as part of the prosecution’s entire case, were not sufficient to lead to a guilty verdict. And arguably posts, without a body, will not provide the lack of reasonable doubt necessary to convict Ms. Graswald.

But should these pictures hold the weight that members of the criminal justice system increasingly ascribe to them? A problem seems to be context. While the pictures seem damning when posted during or soon after an investigation, the evidence is circumstantial at best. Absent testimony by the defendant corroborating his or her intent at the time of the post, (an event unlikely to happen) jurors can never be certain that the pictures demonstrate an expression of relief or a lack of remorse.

The issue of post-indictment remorse is transcends social media. Prosecutors recently introduced into evidence a picture of Dzhokhar Tsarnaev (the Boston Bomber) flashing his middle finger into a camera from a jail holding cell. But Tsarnaev’s attorney, like Ms. Graswald’s spun the picture in a way that suggests it has nothing to do with a lack of remorse.

And therein lies the problem, skilled attorney’s on either side can explain pictures, and intent while posting them, from several different angles. The issue becomes whether their value is sufficient to justify supporting an indictment for a crime? a conviction? or a sentence?

Thoughts?