Tag: Facebook

Judge Should Choose her (Facebook) Friends More Wisely

A Florida Judge has been removed from a case for “friending” a litigant who was appearing before her bench.  Judge Linda D. Schoonover made an ex parte friend request to a litigant, who was involved in a divorce proceeding over which Judge Schoonover was presiding.  The litigant was wise enough to click “ignore”  refusing the connection.   But,  the Judge was arguably, annoyed by the litigant’s refusal.   Seems that after the friend denial, Judge Schoonover awarded most of the marital assets to the litigants’ ex-husband. (to read more click here)

Brian Hull, in his article, Why Can’t We Be “Friends”?: A Call for the Less Stringent Policy for Judges Using Online Social Networking, 63 Hatings L. J. 595 (2012)  makes a plausible argument for why allowing Judges to “friend” those who appear before him or her does not necessarily violate the Model Rules of Professional Responsibility.  In a seminar class discussion here at Pace, a great majority of the students seemed to side with Hull.  The bulk of their argument was that Judges would not be so reckless as to friend those who appear before them while proceedings were ongoing.  Seems Judge Schoonover has proved that these students should not be so hasty in giving judges the benefit of the doubt.

California Law Attempts to Protect our Youths Online

A few weeks ago California Governor Jerry Brown signed a new bill (SB 568) consisting of two distinct laws that will take effect January 1, 2015. The bill’s first law attempts to prevent certain online advertisements from reaching the eyes of minors. Any website or mobile application that is directed to minors, or has knowledge that minors use its service, are prohibited from marketing items including alcohol, firearms, tobacco/cigarettes, drug paraphernalia, UV tanning devices, spray-paints, tattoos and fireworks.

In my opinion, the implementation and regulation of this law will lead to more problems than it will solve. The language of this law is so over-inclusive and ambiguous that it fails to create a clear picture for website operators/advertisers to rely on. No where in the law does it require a website to obtain the ages of its users and without such information how are advertisers supposed to know which websites the law is covering? I’m not so sure that advertisers of the ‘black listed’ items intentionally direct their advertisements at kids in the first place, however, I do understand the desire to filter certain aspects of Internet use when it comes to children.

The bill’s second law, the so-called ‘Online Eraser’ law, requires social media type websites (Facebook, Twitter, MySpace and the like) and applications to allow the removal of public content (post, tweet, etc.) upon request of registered users under the age of 18. Again, I completely understand the rationale behind this law (attempting to help a user erase an embarrassing tweet/post from their youth), but it simply will not work as is. A number of commentators have written the law off as ineffective due to the absence of any language that mentions reposts, retweets, or copies of the original. So although the user may be granted a takedown of their original post the law does nothing to help them further. Considering the user is going through the trouble to takedown such ‘regrettable posts’ it seems only logical that the content will be interesting enough to become a 3rd party’s repost or retweet. Recent court decisions have granted First Amendment protection to specific characteristics of social media so even if the law did refer to these subsequent posts aren’t we clearly venturing into First Amendment territory? Critics to this new California law believe that we are.

The Birth of RoboTweeting

NBC News reports that companies are becoming “Twitter-savvy” when it comes to consumer complaints.  In some instances customers logging complaint are retweeted with patronizing responses.  For example, according to the article, when @OccupyLA tweeted “you can help by stop stealing people’s houses!!” The Bank of America retweeted “We’d be happy to review your account.”  Corporate manipulation of Twitter is yet another example of how “the system” can corral innovative technology for its own use.   Gen-xers, hipsters and naughts have fled Facebook in droves  once businesses hijacked the social media.  Now Twitter.  Can Instagram be far behind???

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

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?

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!

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.

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.

 

Pintrest not immune to a Winklevoss-type lawsuit

What were you doing December 27?  While many people were pinning pictures on pintrest.com, perhaps of of New Year’s Eve Feasts or Dream Vacations for yet realized February Blizzards, Attorney Theodore F. Shroeder was filing a law suit in the Southern District of New York against Pintrest founder Brian Cohen for allegedly stealing his idea for what Cohen turned into Pintrest.com.  The complaint reads like the Social Network screenplay.  According to the complaint, while a Colombia Law School student, Shroeder developed the idea for pinning things of interest to a “board.”  Shroeder subsequently brought on a few investors, Cohen being one of them.  But according to the complaint, Cohen stalled Shroeder’s project and misappropriated the idea for his own use.  Schroeder specifically alleges that Cohen “caused the project deadlock so that he could steal the core ideas for himself and freeze out the Plaintiff from reaping benefits.”

This sounds like one to watch.

Skip to toolbar