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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Think you have not revealed personal secrets on Facebook? Think again!

Even though Facebook users try to keep personal information private, it turns out, that is hard to do.  A recent Cambridge University  study shows that computer programs can track how a person uses Facebook, and undisclosed private information about an individual.  Private information that can revealed includes, Facebook users’ sexuality, drug habits, and users’ parents relationship status.  Financial Times reported on this study, and their article can be read here.

NCAA Loosens Social Media Policy for Sportscasters

I must confess that I pride myself of knowing my college sports, and on having a fairly strong understanding of social media.  I even know that the NCAA has very strict regulations regarding whether athletes can tweet about their teams.  But what I was not familiar with was the NCAA strict ruling on non-athlete social media use.  Apparently, the NCAA had a rule on the books that limited the number of posts credentialed media could post to social media platforms such as Twitter and Facebook.  The theory behind the ruling was that constant updates would deter viewers from watching the broadcast versions of the games, and in turn would hurt advertising revenue.  But with upcoming March Madness upon us, there is some good news.  Apparently the NCAA is having a change of heart.  No longer will the NCAA cap a reporter’s use of social media.   NCAA’s change of heart reflects the larger trend among corporations, government and sports organizations from viewing social media as a threat to viewing it as a necessary accessory; one that complements viewing of traditional broadcasts.  I am all for the ruling, but if CBS starts showing little hashtags on the bottom right-side of the screen, much like American Idol or Glee, I’m out!

Do lawyers have a constitutional right to blog about thier victories?

A recent case coming out of Virginia tests the First Amendment rights of Lawyers who post blog entries about cases in which they participate (and – since their blogging about them presumably win).  The case, Hunter v. Virginia State Bar stems from a disciplinary dispute that the Virginia State Bar filed against Horace Hunter, President of Hunter & Lipton, P.C.  The Firm maintains a website, a part of which is dedicated to a blog entitled  “This Week in Criminal Defense.”  Some entries highlight cases in which Hunter secured victories for his clients.  In July 2010, the Virginia State Bar notified Hunter that in its belief, the blog did not conform to the State’s Professional Conduct rules and instructed him to post on the blog a “results may vary” type of disclaimer.  Hunter refused to post the disclaimer, arguing that his blog posts were protected under the First Amendment.

Because of Hunter’s refusal, the Virginia Bar filed disciplinary charges against Hunter.  In response Hunter filed suit in Federal Court seeking injunctive relief.  The case made its way to the Circuit Court of Richmond, which ruled found that the blog posts, even though they contained commentary and opinion about the criminal justice system, were really a form of advertisement for his practice, and were therefore not entitled to constitutional protection.  Two justices dissented, characterizing the speech as political and therefore beyond the reach of regulation.

Following the ruling, Hunter’s attorney, noted scholar and former law dean Rodney A. Smolla said that Hunter plans to petition the case to the Supreme Court.  If there their petition is successful, the case would represent one of the first before the court to deal with issues of blog posts.

Hunter’s chief gripe seems with the disclaimer requirement.  Publishing a disclaimer, does, arguably, dilute the objectivity of a case observation.  But query, what if Hunter had orally stated to a local news agency the commentary he made on his blog?  Would he have had to make a disclaimer under such circumstances?  And isn’t the fact that the blog is on his firm’s website sufficient to demonstrate a modicum of self-promotion rendering the disclaimer unnecessary?

Ambulance Driver Who Updated Facebook Status While Driving Ambulance Survives Summary Judgment Motion

Summary judgment is always tough for an employer to get in disability discrimination suits because the cases tend to be marred with detailed facts – and even this Ambulance Driver, who posted ON FACEBOOK WHILE SHE WAS DRIVING THE AMBULANCE, managed to eek her case past that “genuine issue of material fact” requirement… Brown v. Tri State Ambulance Corp., N.D. W.Va., No. 5:12-CV-5, 2/19/13. She’s arguing that the handful of minor infractions for which she was written up and then terminated was only a pretext for discrimination based on her hip issue. The fact that she refers to “updating facebook while operating a few thousand pounds of steel in a potentially deadly manner” as a “minor infraction” seems problematic to me.

Prank Photoshopping May Be Wrong, But it Isn’t Criminal

The folks over at techdirt.com came across an interesting matter concerning Georgia lawmaker Earnest Smith’s proposed law that would make it an offense to prank photoshop an image of another without his or her permission.   According to Smith, the law poses little constitutional threat since in his words, there is no First Amendment Right to make fun of anyone.

While many may find Smith’s comments troublesome because they are just plain wrong on the matter (you can constitutionally make fun of someone – ask any cyberbullier) the issue raises a larger concern regarding the public perception of social media.  The easy dissemination of hurtful comments seems galvanize lawmakers into lifting their legislative swords.  These proposed laws are trying to criminalize the good manners that are better left to parents.   I point you to a recent article by Lyrissa Lidsky and Andrea Garcia, How Not to Criminalize Cyberbullying, which eloquently highlights the problems and perils of such regulation.

When public prominence mixes with social media, bad things are sure to happen.  Just ask Rep. Smith, who fathered the bill after his face was photoshopped onto a porn star’s body.  Such conduct is pointless and juvenile.  It is not, however, criminal in the American justice sense of the word.

 

Michigan Judge Won’t Let Attorneys Post Just Anything

My colleague John Humbach alerted me to an interesting matter concerning the right to post settlement agreements on Facebook.   Dearborn Heights, Michigan resident, Ahmed Ahmed filed a class action suit against McDonald’s for selling non-halal chicken McNuggets, which were advertised as halal.  Judge Kathleen Macdonald (no relation) presided over the case and struck a $700,000 settlement deal that required McDonalds to contribute to local Muslim charities and not-for profits.  Dissatisfied with the ruling because it didn’t call for direct reimbursement for those who unknowingly ate food in violation of their religious beliefs, local activist Majed Moughni, who is not part of the case,  took to his Facebook page, and posted dissatisfaction with the decision.   Over 1300 people “liked” Moughni’s posts.

Attorneys argued the posts were misleading and included misinformation.  They filed a motion asking Judge MacDonald to stop Moughni from issuing further posts.  Judge MacDonald not only granted the motion, but also ordered Moughni to replace his posts with copies of the settlement agreement.

Now the ACLU and Public Citizen’s have gotten involved arguing that Judge MacDonald’s decision, among other things, violates the principles of the First Amendment.

By the way, a new Facebook page, title Majed Moughni has a right to free speech, has now popped up.  Interestingly, as of this time, only 23 people have liked this one.

 

Social Media and Sunshine Laws

In a move that acknowledges that “online tools of communication are not going away”  Minnesota officials are considering a move to permit local officials to use social media for public debate, without violating the State’s open meeting rules.  According to Open Meeting (or Sunshine) Laws, governmental officials may not conduct business in private.  These laws require government bodies to hold meetings with sufficient notice and at times and places that are accessible and open to the public.  So how does this reconcile with on-line debates held through Twitter, Facebook or other social Media forum?

Representative Duane Quam, (R-D25) introduced H.F. No. 653 which would add to the list of exceptions to Minnesota’s Open Meetings Law by allowing participation in social media forums, whether or not a quoraum of thepubic body is participating.  The bill makes clear that votes may not be taken and meetings may not be held via a technological platform.

The proposed legislation is among the first to acknowledge the growing presence of and reliance on social media as a means of communication and public debate for local government issues.  Does passage of the bill suggest a tacit acknowledgment that on-line discourse is an acceptable replacement for the village green?

Skip to toolbar