First Amendment – Social Media Legality

Jonesing For New Regulations of Internet Speech

From claims that the moon landing was faked to Area 51, the United States loves its conspiracy theories. In fact, a study sponsored by the University of Chicago found that more than half of Americans believe at least one conspiracy theory. While this is not a new phenomenon, the increasing use and reliance on social media has allowed misinformation and harmful ideas to spread with a level of ease that wasn’t possible even twenty years ago.

Individuals with a large platform can express an opinion that creates a harm to the people that are personally implicated in the ‘information’ being spread. Presently, a plaintiff’s best option to challenge harmful speech is through a claim for defamation. The inherent problem is that opinions are protected by the First Amendment and, thus, not actionable as defamation.

This leaves injured plaintiffs limited in their available remedies because statements in the context of the internet are more likely to be seen as an opinion. The internet has created a gap where we have injured plaintiffs and no available remedy. With this brave new world of communication, interaction, and the spread of information by anyone with a platform comes a need to ensure that injuries sustained by this speech will have legal recourse.

Recently, Alex Jones lost a defamation claim and was ordered to pay $965 million to the families of the Sandy Hook victims after claiming that the Sandy Hook shooting that occurred in 2012 was a “hoax.” Despite prevailing at trial, the statements that were the subject of the suit do not fit neatly into the well-established law of defamation, which makes reversal on appeal likely.

The elements of defamation require that the defendant publish a false statement purporting it to be true, which results in some harm to the plaintiff. However, just because a statement is false does not mean that the plaintiff can prove defamation because, as the Supreme Court has recognized, false statements still receive certain First Amendment protections. In Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co., the Court held that “imaginative expression” and “loose, figurative, or hyperbolic language” is protected by the First Amendment.

The characterization of something as a “hoax” has been held by courts to fall into this category of protected speech. In Montgomery v. Risen, a software developer brought a defamation action against an author who made a statement claiming that plaintiff’s software was a “hoax.” The D.C. Circuit held that characterization of something as an “elaborate and dangerous hoax” is hyperbolic speech, which creates no basis for liability. This holding was mirrored by several courts including the District Court of Kansas in Yeagar v. National Public Radio, the District Court of Utah in Nunes v. Rushton, and the Superior Court of Delaware in Owens v. Lead Stories, LLC.

The other statements made by Alex Jones regarding Sandy Hook are also hyperbolic language. These statements include: “[i]t’s as phony as a $3 bill”, “I watched the footage, it looks like a drill”, and “my gut is… this is staged. And you know I’ve been saying the last few months, get ready for big mass shootings, and then magically, it happens.” While these statements are offensive and cruel to the suffering families, it is really difficult to characterize them as something objectively claimed to be true. ‘Phony’, ‘my gut is’, ‘looks like’, and ‘magically’ are qualifying the statement he is making as a subjective opinion based on his interpretation of the events that took place.

It is indisputable that the statements Alex Jones made caused harm to these families. They have been subjected to harassment, online abuse, and death threats from his followers. However, no matter how harmful these statements are, that does not make it defamation. Despite this, a reasonable jury was so appalled by this conduct that they found for the plaintiffs. This is essentially reverse jury nullification. They decided that Jones was culpable and should be held legally responsible even if there is no adequate basis for liability.

The jury’s determination demonstrates that current legal remedies are inadequate to regulate potentially harmful speech that can spread like wildfire on the internet. The influence that a person like Alex Jones has over his followers establishes a need for new or updated laws that hold public figures to a higher standard even when they are expressing their opinion.

A possible starting point for regulating harmful internet speech at a federal level might be through the commerce clause, which allows Congress to regulate instrumentalities of commerce. The internet, by its design, is an instrumentality of interstate commerce by enabling for the communication of ideas across state lines.

Further, the Federal Anti-Riot Act, which was passed in 1968 to suppress civil rights protestors might be an existing law that can serve this purpose. This law makes it a felony to use a facility of interstate commerce to (1) incite a riot; or (1) to organize, promote, encourage, participate in, or carry on a riot. Further, the act defines riot as:

[A] public disturbance involving (1) an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons, which act or acts shall constitute a clear and present danger of, or shall result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual or (2) a threat or threats of the commission of an act or acts of violence by one or more persons part of an assemblage of three or more persons having, individually or collectively, the ability of immediate execution of such threat or threats, where the performance of the threatened act or acts of violence would constitute a clear and present danger of, or would result in, damage or injury to the property of any other person or to the person of any other individual.

Under this definition, we might have a basis for holding Alex Jones accountable for organizing, promoting, or encouraging a riot through a facility (the internet) of interstate commerce. The acts of his followers in harassing the families of the Sandy Hook victims might constitute a public disturbance within this definition because it “result[ed] in, damage or injury… to the person.” While this demonstrates one potential avenue of regulating harmful internet speech, new laws might also need to be drafted to meet the evolving function of social media.

In the era of the internet, public figures have an unprecedented ability to spread misinformation and incite lawlessness. This is true even if their statements would typically constitute an opinion because the internet makes it easier for groups to form that can act on these ideas. Thus, in this internet age, it is crucial that we develop a means to regulate the spread of misinformation that has the potential to harm individual people and the general public.

States are ready to challenge Section 230

On January 8, 2021, Twitter permanently suspended @realDonaldTrump. The decision followed an initial warning to the then-president and conformed to its published standards as defined in its public interest framework. The day before, Meta (then Facebook) restricted President Trump’s ability to post content on Facebook or Instagram. Both companies cited President Trump’s posts praising those who violently stormed the U.S. Capitol on January 6, 2021 in support of their decisions.

Members of the Texas and Florida legislatures, together with their governors, were seemingly enraged that these sites would silence President Trump’s voice. In response, each immediately passed laws aiming to limit the scope of social media sites. Although substantively different, the Texas and Florida laws are theoretically the same; they both seek to punish social media sites that regulate forms of conservative content that they argue liberal social media sites silence, regardless of whether the posted content violates the site’s published standards.

Shortly after each law’s adoption, two tech advocacy groups, NetChoice and Computer and Communication Industry Association, filed suits in federal district courts challenging the laws as violative of the First Amendment. Each case has made its way through the federal courts on procedural grounds; the Eleventh Circuit upheld a lower court preliminary injunction prohibiting Florida from enforcing the statute until the case is decided on its merits. In contrast, the Fifth Circuit overruled a lower court preliminary injunction. Texas appealed the Fifth Circuit ruling to the Supreme Court of the United States, which, by a vote of 5-4, voted to reinstate the injunction. The Supreme Court’s decision made clear that these cases are headed to the Supreme Court on the merits.

Don’t Throw Out the Digital Baby with the Cyber Bathwater: The Rest of the Story

This article is in response to “Is Cyberbullying the Newest Form of Police Brutality?” which discussed law enforcement’s use of social media to apprehend people. The article provided a provocative topic, as seen by the number of comments.

I believe that discussion is healthy for society; people are entitled to their feelings and to express their beliefs. Each person has their own unique life experiences that provide a basis for their beliefs and perspectives on issues. I enjoy discussing a topic with someone because I learn about their experiences and new facts that broaden my knowledge. Developing new relationships and connections is so important. Relationships and new knowledge may change perspectives or at least add to understanding each other better. So, I ask readers to join the discussion.

My perspectives were shaped in many ways. I grew up hearing Paul Harvey’s radio broadcast “The Rest of the Story.” His radio segment provided more information on a topic than the brief news headline may have provided. He did not imply that the original story was inaccurate, just that other aspects were not covered. In his memory, I will attempt to do the same by providing you with more information on law enforcement’s use of social media.

“Is Cyberbullying the Newest Form of Police Brutality?”

The article title served its purpose by grabbing our attention. Neither cyberbullying or police brutality are acceptable. Cyberbullying is typically envisioned as teenage bullying taking place over the internet. The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services states that “Cyberbullying includes sending, posting, or sharing negative, harmful, false, or mean content about someone else. It can include sharing personal or private information about someone else causing embarrassment or humiliation”. Similarly, police brutality occurs when law enforcement (“LE”) officers use illegal and excessive force in a situation that is unreasonable, potentially resulting in a civil rights violation or a criminal prosecution.

While the article is accurate that 76% of the surveyed police departments use social media for crime-solving tips, the rest of the story is that more departments use social media for other purposes. 91% notified the public regarding safety concerns. 89% use the technology for community outreach and citizen engagement, 86% use it for public relations and reputation management. Broad restrictions should not be implemented, which would negate all the positive community interactions increasing transparency.

Transparency

In an era where the public is demanding more transparency from LE agencies across the country, how is the disclosure of the public’s information held by the government considered “Cyberbullying” or “Police Brutality”? Local, state, and federal governments are subject to Freedom of Information Act laws requiring agencies to provide information to the public on their websites or release documents within days of requests or face civil liability.

New Jersey Open Public Records

While the New Jersey Supreme Court has not decided if arrest photographs are public, the New Jersey Government Records Council (“GRC”) has decided in Melton v. City of Camden, GRC 2011-233 (2013) that arrest photographs are not public records under NJ Open Public Records Act (“OPRA”) because of Governor Whitmer’s Executive Order 69 which exempts fingerprint cards, plates and photographs and similar criminal investigation records from public disclosure. It should be noted that GRC decisions are not precedential and therefore not binding on any court.

However, under OPRA, specifically 47:1A-3 Access to Records of Investigation in Progress, specific arrest information is public information and must be disclosed to the public within 24 hours of a request to include the:

Date, time, location, type of crime, and type of weapon,
Defendant’s name, age, residence, occupation, marital status, and similar background information.
Identity of the complaining party,
Text of any charges or indictment unless sealed,
Identity of the investigating and arresting officer and agency and the length of the investigation,
Time, location, and the arrest circumstances (resistance, pursuit, use of weapons),
Bail information.

For years, even before Melton, I believed that an arrestee’s photograph should not be released to the public. As a police chief, I refused numerous media requests for arrestee photographs protecting their rights and believing in innocence until proven guilty. Even though they have been arrested, the arrestee has not received due process in court.

New York’s Open Public Records

In New York under the Freedom of Information Law (“FOIL”), Public Officers Law, Article 6, §89(2)(b)(viii) (General provisions relating to access to records; certain cases) The disclosure of LE arrest photographs would constitute an unwarranted invasion of an individual’s personal privacy unless the public release would serve a specific LE purpose and the disclosure is not prohibited by law.

California’s Open Public Records

Under the California Public Records Act (CPRA) a person has the statutory right to be provided or inspect public records, unless a record is exempt from disclosure. Arrest photographs are inclusive in arrest records along with other personal information, including the suspect’s full name, date of birth, sex, physical characteristics, occupation, time of arrest, charges, bail information, any outstanding warrants, and parole or probation holds.

Therefore under New York and California law, the blanket posting of arrest photographs is already prohibited.

Safety and Public Information

Recently in Ams. for Prosperity Found. V. Bonta, the compelled donor disclosure case, while invalidating the law on First Amendment grounds, Justice Alito’s concurring opinion briefly addressed the parties personal safety concerns that supporters were subjected to bomb threats, protests, stalking, and physical violence. He cited Doe v Reed which upheld disclosures containing home addresses under Washington’s Public Records Act despite the growing risks by anyone accessing the information with a computer.

Satisfied Warrant

I am not condoning Manhattan Beach Police Department’s error of posting information on a satisfied warrant along with a photograph on their “Wanted Wednesday” in 2020. However, the disclosed information may have been public information under CPRA then and even now. On July 23, 2021, Governor Newsom signed a law amending Section 13665 of the CPRA prohibiting LE agencies from posting photographs of an arrestee accused of a non-violent crime on social media unless:

The suspect is a fugitive or an imminent threat, and disseminating the arrestee’s image will assist in the apprehension.
There is an exigent circumstance and an urgent LE interest.
A judge orders the release or dissemination of the suspect’s image based on a finding that the release or dissemination is in furtherance of a legitimate LE interest.

The critical error was that the posting stated the warrant was active when it was not. A civil remedy exists and was used by the party to reach a settlement for damages. Additionally, it could be argued that the agency’s actions were not the proximate cause when vigilantes caused harm.

Scope of Influence

LE’s reliance on the public’s help did not start with social media or internet websites. The article pointed out that “Wanted Wednesday” had a mostly local following of 13,600. This raised the question if there is much of a difference between the famous “Wanted Posters” from the wild west or the “Top 10 Most Wanted” posters the Federal Bureau of Investigations (“FBI”) used to distribute to Post Offices, police stations and businesses to locate fugitives. It can be argued that this exposure was strictly localized. However, the weekly TV show America’s Most Wanted, made famous by John Walsh, aired from 1988 to 2013, highlighting fugitive cases nationally. The show claims it helped capture over 1000 criminals through their tip-line. However, national media publicity can be counter-productive by generating so many false leads that obscure credible leads.

The FBI website contains pages for Wanted People, Missing People, and Seeking Information on crimes. “CAPTURED” labels are added to photographs showing the results of the agency’s efforts. Local LE agencies should follow FBI practices. I would agree with the article that social media and websites should be updated; however, I don’t agree that the information must be removed because it is available elsewhere on the internet.

Time

Vernon Gebeth, the leading police homicide investigation instructor, believes time is an investigator’s worst enemy. Eighty-five percent of abducted children are killed within the first five hours. Almost all are killed within the first twenty-four hours. Time is also critical because, for each hour that passed, the distance a suspect’s vehicle can travel expands by seventy-five miles in either direction. In five hours, the area can become larger than 17,000 square miles. Like Amber Alerts, social media can be used to quickly transmit information to people across the country in time-sensitive cases.

Live-Streaming Drunk Driving Leads to an Arrest

When Whitney Beall, a Florida woman, used a live streaming app to show her drinking at a bar then getting into her vehicle. The public dialed 911, and a tech-savvy officer opened the app, determined her location, and pulled her over. She was arrested after failing a DWI sobriety test. After pleading guilty to driving under the influence, she was sentenced to 10 days of weekend work release, 150 hours of community service, probation, and a license suspension. In 2019 10,142 lives were lost to alcohol impaired driving crashes.

Family Advocating

Social media is not limited to LE. It also provides a platform for victim’s families to keep attention on their cases. The father of a seventeen-year-old created a series of Facebook Live videos about a 2011 murder resulting in the arrest of Charles Garron. He was to a fifty-year prison term.

Instagram Selfies with Drugs, Money and Stolen Guns

Police in Palm Beach County charged a nineteen-year-old man with 142 felony charges, including possession of a weapon by a convicted felon, while investigating burglaries and jewel thefts in senior citizen communities. An officer found his Instagram account with incriminating photographs. A search warrant was executed, seizing stolen firearms and $250,000 in stolen property from over forty burglaries.

Bank Robbery Selfies

Police received a tip and located a social media posting by John E. Mogan II of himself with wads of cash in 2015. He was charged with robbing an Ashville, Ohio bank. He pled guilty and was sentenced to three years in prison. According to news reports, Morgan previously served prison time for another bank robbery.

Food Post Becomes the Smoking Gun

LE used Instagram to identify an ID thief who posted photographs of his dinner at a high-end steakhouse with a confidential informant (“CI”). The man who claimed he had 700,000 stolen identities and provided the CI a flash drive of stolen identities. The agents linked the flash drive to a “Troy Maye,” who the CI identified from Maye’s profile photograph. Authorities executed a search warrant on his residence and located flash drives containing the personal identifying information of thousands of ID theft victims. Nathaniel Troy Maye, a 44-year-old New York resident, was sentenced to sixty-six months in federal prison after pleading guilty to aggravated identity theft.

Wanted Man Turns Himself in After Facebook Challenge With Donuts

A person started trolling Redford Township Police during a Facebook Live community update. It was determined that he was a 21-year-old wanted for a probation violation for leaving the scene of a DWI collision. When asked to turn himself in, he challenged the PD to get 1000 shares and he would bring in donuts. The PD took the challenge. It went viral and within an hour reached that mark acquiring over 4000 shares. He kept his word and appeared with a dozen donuts. He faced 39 days in jail and had other outstanding warrants.

The examples in this article were readily available on the internet and on multiple news websites, along with photographs.

Under state Freedom of Information Laws, the public has a statutory right to know what enforcement actions LE is taking. Likewise, the media exercises their First Amendment rights to information daily across the country when publishing news. Cyber journalists are entitled to the same information when publishing news on the internet and social media. Traditional news organizations have adapted to online news to keep a share of the news market. LE agencies now live stream agency press conferences to communicating directly with the communities they serve.

Therefore the positive use of social media by LE should not be thrown out like bathwater when legal remedies exist when damages are caused.

“And now you know…the rest of the story.”

Private or not private, that is the question.

Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act (CDA), protects private online companies from liability for content posted by others. This immunity also grants internet service providers the freedom to regulate what is posted onto their sites. What has faced much criticism of late however, is social media’s immense power to silence any voices the platform CEOs disagree with.

Section 230(c)(2), known as the Good Samaritan clause, states that no provider shall be held liable for “any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected.”

When considered in the context of a ‘1996’ understanding of internet influence (the year the CDA was created) this law might seem perfectly reasonable. Fast forward 25 years though, with how massively influential social media has become on society and the spread of political information, there has developed a strong demand for a repeal, or at the very least, a review of Section 230.

The Good Samaritan clause is what shields Big Tech from legal complaint. The law does not define obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, harassing or excessively violent. And “otherwise objectionable” leaves the internet service providers’ room for discretion all the more open-ended. The issue at the heart of many critics of Big Tech, is that the censorship companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube (owned by Google) impose on particular users is not fairly exercised, and many conservatives feel they do not receive equal treatment of their policies.

Ultimately, there is little argument around the fact that social media platforms like Facebook and Twitter are private companies, therefore curbing any claims of First Amendment violations under the law. The First Amendment of the US Constitution only prevents the government from interfering with an individual’s right to free speech. There is no constitutional provision that dictates any private business owes the same.

Former President Trump’s recent class action lawsuits however, against Facebook, Twitter, Google, and each of their CEOs, challenges the characterization of these entities as being private.

In response to the January 6th Capitol takeover by Trump supporters, Facebook and Twitter suspended the accounts of the then sitting president of the United States – President Trump.

The justification was that President Trump violated their rules by inciting violence and encouraged an insurrection following the disputed election results of 2020. In the midst of the unrest, Twitter, Facebook and Google also removed a video posted by Trump, in which he called for peace and urged protestors to go home. The explanation given was that “on balance we believe it contributes to, rather than diminishes the risk of ongoing violence” because the video also doubled down on the belief that the election was stolen.

Following long-standing contentions with Big Tech throughout his presidency, the main argument in the lawsuit is that the tech giants Facebook, Twitter and Google, should no longer be considered private companies because their respective CEOs, Mark Zuckerberg, Jack Dorsey, and Sundar Pichai, actively coordinate with the government to censor politically oppositional posts.

For those who support Trump, probably all wish to believe this case has a legal standing.

For anyone else who share concerns about the almost omnipotent power of Silicon Valley, many may admit that Trump makes a valid point. But legally, deep down, it might feel like a stretch. Could it be? Should it be? Maybe. But will Trump see the outcome he is looking for? The initial honest answer was “probably not.”

However, on July 15th 2021, White House press secretary, Jen Psaki, informed the public that the Biden administration is in regular contact with Facebook to flag “problematic posts” regarding the “disinformation” of Covid-19 vaccinations.

Wait….what?!? The White House is in communication with social media platforms to determine what the public is and isn’t allowed to hear regarding vaccine information? Or “disinformation” as Psaki called it.

Conservative legal heads went into a spin. Is this allowed? Or does this strengthen Trump’s claim that social media platforms are working as third-party state actors?

If it is determined that social media is in fact acting as a strong-arm agent for the government, regarding what information the public is allowed to access, then they too should be subject to the First Amendment. And if social media is subject to the First Amendment, then all information, including information that questions, or even completely disagrees with the left-lean policies of the current White House administration, is protected by the US Constitution.

Referring back to the language of the law, Section 230(c)(2) requires actions to restrict access to information be made in good faith. Taking an objective look at some of the posts that are removed from Facebook, Twitter and YouTube, along with many of the posts that are not removed, it begs the question of how much “good faith” is truly exercised. When a former president of the United States is still blocked from social media, but the Iranian leader Ali Khamenei is allowed to post what appears nothing short of a threat to that same president’s life, it can certainly make you wonder. Or when illogical insistence for unquestioned mass emergency vaccinations, now with continued mask wearing is rammed down our throats, but a video showing one of the creators of the mRNA vaccine expressing his doubts regarding the safety of the vaccine for the young is removed from YouTube, it ought to have everyone question whose side is Big Tech really on? Are they really in the business of allowing populations to make informed decisions of their own, gaining information from a public forum of ideas? Or are they working on behalf of government actors to push an agenda?

One way or another, the courts will decide, but Trump’s class action lawsuit could be a pivotal moment in the future of Big Tech world power.

How Defamation and Minor Protection Laws Ultimately Shaped the Internet

The Communications Decency Act (CDA) was originally enacted with the intention of shielding minors from indecent and obscene online material. Despite its origins, Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act is now commonly used as a broad legal safeguard for social media platforms to shield themselves from legal liability for content posted on their sites by third parties. Interestingly, the reasoning behind this safeguard arises both from defamation common law, and constitutional free speech laws. As the internet has grown, however, this legal safeguard has gained increasing criticism. However, is this legislation actually undesirable? Many would disagree as section 230 contains “the 26 words that created the internet.”

Origin of the Communications Decency Act

The CDA was introduced and enacted as an attempt to shield minors from obscene or indecent content online. Although parts of the Act were later struck down for first amendment free speech violations, the Court left section 230 intact. The creation of section 230 was influenced by two landmark court decisions of defamation lawsuits.

The first case was in 1991, and involved an Internet site that hosted around 150 online forums. A claim was brought against the internet provider when a columnist of one of the online forums posted a defamatory comment about his competitor. The competitor sued the online distributor for the published defamation. The courts categorized the internet service provider as a distributor because they did not review any content of the forums before the content was posted to the site. As a distributor, there was no legal liability, and the case was dismissed.

Distributor Liability

Distributor Liability refers to the limited legal consequences that a distributor is exposed to for defamation. A common example of a distributor, is a bookstore or library. The theory behind distributor liability is that it would be impossible for distributors to moderate and censor every piece of content that they disperse because of the sheer volume, and the impossibility of knowing whether something is false or not.

The second case that influenced the creation of section 230, was Stratton Oakmont, Inc. v. Prodigy Servs. Co., in which the court used publisher liability theory to find the internet provider liable for the third party defamatory postings published on its site. The court deemed the website a publisher because they moderated and deleted certain posts, regardless of the fact that there were far too many postings a day to regulate each one.

Publisher Liability

Under common law principles, a person who publishes a third-party’s defamatory statement bears the same legal responsibility as the creator of that statement. This liability is often referred to as “publisher liability,” and is based in theory that a publisher has the knowledge, opportunity, and ability to exercise control over the publication. For example, a newspaper publisher could face legal consequences for the content located within it. The court’s decision was significant because it meant that if a website attempted to moderate certain posts, it would be held liable for all posts.

Section 230’s Creation

In response to the Stratton-Oakmond case, and the ambiguous court decisions regarding internet services provider’s liability, members of Congress introduced an amendment to the CDA that later became Section 230. The Amendment was specifically introduced and passed with the goal of encouraging the development of unregulated, free speech online by relieving internet providers from any liability for their content.

Text of the Act- Subsection (c)(1)

“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.”

Section 230 further provides that…

“No cause of action may be brought and no liability may be imposed under any State or local law that is inconsistent with this section.”

The language above removes legal consequences arising from content posted on their forum. Courts have interpreted this subsection as providing broad immunity to online platforms from suits over content of third parties. Because of this, section 230 has become the principal legal safeguard from lawsuits over sites content.

The Good

Section 230 can be viewed as being one of the most important pieces of legislation that protects free speech online. One of the unique aspects of this legislation is that it essentially extends free speech protection, applying it to private, non-governmental companies.
Without CDA 230, the internet would be a very different place. This section influenced some of the internet’s most distinctive characteristics. The internet promotes free speech and offers the ability for worldwide connectivity.
The CDA 230 does not fully eliminate liability or court remedies for victims of online defamation. Rather, it makes only the creator themselves liable for their speech, instead of the speaker and the publisher.

The Bad

Because of the legal protections section 230 provides, social media networks have less of an incentive to regulate false or deceptive posts. Deceptive online posts can have an enormous impact on society. False posts have the ability to alter election results, or lead to dangerous misinformation campaigns, like the QAnon conspiracy theory, and the anti-vaccination movement.
Section 230 is twenty-five years old, and has not been updated to match the internet’s extensive growth.
Big Tech companies have been left largely unregulated regarding their online marketplaces.

The Future of 230

While section 230 is still successfully used by social media platforms, concerns over the archaic legislation have mounted. Just recently, Justice Thomas, who is infamous for being a quiet Justice, wrote a concurring opinion articulating his view that the government should regulate content providers as common carriers, like utilities companies. What implications could that have on the internet? With the growing level of criticism surrounding section 230, will Congress will finally attempt to fix this legislation? If not, will the Supreme Court be left to tackle the problem themselves?

Off Campus Does Still Exist: The Supreme Court Decision That Shaped Students Free Speech

We currently live in a world centered around social media. I grew up in a generation where social media apps like Facebook, Snapchat and Instagram just became popular. I remember a time when Facebook was limited to college students, and we did not communicate back and forth with pictures that simply disappear. Currently many students across the country use social media sites as a way to express themselves, but when does that expression go too far? Is it legal to bash other students on social media? What about teachers after receiving a bad test score? Does it matter who sees this post or where the post was written? What if the post disappears after a few seconds? These are all questions that in the past we had no answer to. Thankfully, in the past few weeks the Supreme court has guided us on how to answer these important questions. In Mahanoy Area School District v B.L, the supreme court decided how far a student’s right to free speech can go and how much control a school district has in restricting a student’s off campus speech.

The question presented in the case of Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L was whether a public school has the authority to discipline a student over something they posted on social media while off campus. The student in this case was a girl named Levy. Levy was a sophomore who attended the Mahanoy Area School District. Levy was hoping to make the varsity cheerleading team that year but unfortunately, she did not. She was very upset when she found out a freshman got the position instead and decided to express her anger about this decision on social media. Levy was in town with her friend at a local convenience store when she sent “F- School, F- Softball, F- Cheerleading, F Everything” to her list of friends on snapchat in addition to posting this on her snapchat story. One of these friends screenshotted the post and sent it to the cheerleading coach. The school district investigated this post and it resulted in Levy being suspended from cheerleading for one year. Levy, along with her parents were extremely upset with this decision and it resulted in a lawsuit that would shape a student’s right to free speech for a long time.

In the lawsuit, Levy and her parents, claimed that Levy’s cheerleading suspension violated her First Amendment right to free speech. They sued Mahanoy Area School District under 42 U.S.C § 1983 claiming that (1) her suspension from the team violated the First Amendment; (2) the school and team rules were overbroad and viewpoint discriminatory; and (3) those rules were unconstitutionally vague. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Levy, stating that the school had violated her First Amendment rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court decision. The Mahoney School District petitioned for a writ of certiorari. Finally, the case was heard by the Supreme Court.

Mahanoy School District argued that previous ruling in the case, Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District, acknowledges that public schools do not possess absolute authority over students and that students possess First Amendment speech protections at school so long as the students’ expression does not become substantially disruptive to the proper functioning of school. Mahanoy emphasized that the Court intended for Tinker to extend beyond the schoolhouse gates and include not just on-campus speech, but any type of speech that was likely to result in on-campus harm. Levy countered by arguing that the ruling in Tinker only applies to speech protections on school grounds.

In an 8-1 decision the court ruled against Mahanoy. The Supreme Court held that Mahanoy School District violated Levy’s First Amendment Right by punishing her for posting a vulgar story on her snapchat while off campus. The court ruled that the speech used did not result in severe bullying, nor was substantially disruptive to the school itself. The court also noted that this post was only visible to her friends list on snapchat and would disappear within 24 hours. It is not the school’s job to act as a parent, but it is their job to make sure actions off campus will not result in danger to the school. The Supreme Court also stated that although the student’s expression was unfavorable, if they did not protect the student’s opinions it would limit the students’ ability to think for themselves.

It is remarkably interesting to think about how the minor facts of this case determined the ruling. What if this case was posted on Facebook? One of the factors to consider that helped the court make their decision was that the story was only visible to about 200 of her friends on snapchat and would disappear within a day. One can assume that if Levy made this a Facebook status visible to all with no posting time frame the court could have ruled very differently. Another factor to consider, is that where the Snapchat post was uploaded ended up being another major factor in this case. Based on the Tinker ruling, if Levy posted this on school grounds Mahanoy School District could have the authority to discipline her for her post.

Technology is advancing each day and I am sure that in the future as more social media platforms come out the court will have to set a new precedent. I believe that the Supreme Court made the right decision regarding this case. I feel that speech which is detrimental to another individual should be monitored whether it is Off Campus Speech or On Campus Speech despite the platform that the speech is posted on. In Levy’s case no names were listed, she was expressing frustration for not making a team. I do believe that this speech was vulgar, but do not believe that the school suffered, nor any other students suffered severe detriment from this post.

If you were serving as a Justice on the Supreme Court, would you rule against Mahoney School District? Do you believe it matters which platform the speech is posted on? What about the location of where it was posted?

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?

How One Teenager’s Snapchat Shaped Students Off-Campus Free Speech Rights

Did you ever not make your high school sports team or get a bad grade on an exam? What did you do to blow off steam? Did you talk to your friends or parents about it or write in your journal about it? When I was in High school- some of my classmates would use Twitter or Snapchat to express themselves. However, the rates for the use of smartphones and social media were much lower than they are today. For instance, today high school students use their smartphones and social media at an incredibly high rate compared to when I was in high school almost ten years ago. In fact, according to Pew Research Center, 95% of teenagers have access to smartphones and 69% of teenagers use Snapchat. This is exactly why the recent Supreme Court decision on Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. is more important than ever, as it pertains to student’s free speech rights and how much power schools have in controlling their student’s off-campus speech. Further, this decision is even more necessary because the last time the Supreme Court ruled on student’s free speech was over fifty years ago in Tinker v. Des Moines, way before anyone had smartphones or social media. Therefore, the latest decision by the Supreme Court will shape the future of the power of school districts and the first Amendment rights for students for maybe the next fifty years.

The main issue in Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L. is whether public schools can discipline students over something they said off-campus. The facts in this case, occurred when Levy, was a sophomore at Mahoney Area School District. Levy didn’t make the varsity cheerleading team; naturally, she was upset and frustrated about the situation. So, that weekend, Levy was at the convenience store in town with a friend. Levy and the friend took a Snap Chat with their middle finger raised with the caption “F- School, F-Softball, F-Cheerleading, F-Everything” and sent it to her Snap Chat friends. Then, the picture was screenshotted and shown to the cheerleading coach. Which lead to Levy being suspended from the cheerleading team for one year.

Furthermore, Levy and her parents did not agree with the suspension and the school’s involvement in Levy’s off-campus speech. Therefore, Levy and her parents filed a lawsuit claiming their suspension violated Levy’s First Amendment free speech rights. Levy sued the school under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging (1) that her suspension from the team violated the First Amendment; (2) that the school and team rules were overbroad and viewpoint discriminatory; and (3) that those rules were unconstitutionally vague. The district court granted summary judgment in favor of Levy, stating that the school had violated her First Amendment rights. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit affirmed the district court decision. The Mahoney School District petitioned for a writ of certiorari.

In an 8-1 decision the Supreme Court ruled in favor of Levy. The Supreme Court held that the Mahoney Area School District violated Levy’s First Amendment rights by punishing her for using vulgar language that criticized the school on social media. The Supreme Court noted numerous reasons why they ruled in favor of Levy. Additionally, The Supreme Court noted the importance of schools monitoring and punishing some off-campus speech. Such as, speech and behavior that is “serious or severe bullying or harassment targeting particular individuals; threats aimed at teachers or other students.” This is more necessary than ever before due to the increase in online bullying and harassment; that can impact the day-to-day activities of the school and the development of minors.

While it’s important in some circumstances for schools to monitor and address off-campus speech. The Supreme Court noted three reasons that would limit schools from interfering with student’s off-campus speech. First, a school, concerning off-campus speech, will rarely stand in loco parentis. Therefore, schools do not have more authority than parents. Especially not for off-campus speech. The parent is the authority figure; and will decide to discipline or not in most activities in their child’s life, especially what happens outside of school. This is important because parents have the authority to raise and discipline their children the way they believe, not based on the school district’s beliefs.

Second, “from the student perspective, regulations of off-campus speech, when coupled with regulations of on-campus speech, include all the speech a student utters during the full 24-hour day.” There would be no boundaries or limitations to what the school district would be allowed to discipline their students on. For instance, what if a group of students on a Saturday night decided to make a Tik Tok, and during the Tik Tok, the students curse and use vulgar language, would they be in trouble? If there were no limits to what the school could punish for off-campus speech, then those students could be in trouble for their Tik Tok video. Therefore, it’s important that the Supreme Court made this distinction to protect the student Frist Amendment rights.

Finally, the third reason is the school itself has an interest in protecting a student’s unpopular expression, especially when the expression takes place off-campus.” For instance, the Supreme Court stated that if schools did not protect their students’ unpopular opinions, this would limit and ruin the student’s ability to express themselves and schools are a place for students to learn and create their own opinion- even if that opinion differs from the school’s. To conclude, this would severely impact the student’s ability to think for themselves and create their own opinion, and respect other’s opinions that differ from their own.

Overall, I agree with the Supreme Court’s decision in this case. I believe it’s essential to separate in-school speech and off-campus speech. However, the only time off-campus speech should be monitored and addressed by the school is if there is bullying, harassing, or threatening language against the school, groups, or individuals at the school. With that being said, the Supreme Court noted three very important reasons as to why the public schools cannot have full control of students’ off-campus speech. All three of these reasons are fair and justifiable to protect the parents and students from being overly controlled by the school. To conclude, there is still a lot of questions and uncertainty, especially since technology is rapidly advancing and new social media platforms emerging frequently. I am curious if the Supreme Court will rule on a similar within the next fifty years and how this will impact schools in the next few years.

Do you agree with the Supreme Court decision and how do you see this ruling impacting public schools over the next few years?

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 21^st 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?

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.

Tag: First Amendment

How One Teenager’s Snapchat Shaped Students Off-Campus Free Speech Rights

Subscribe By Email