First Amendment – Page 2 – Social Media Legality

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U.S., as we all know, congress can be woefully slow and inefficient, with a particular emphasis on refusing to update outdated laws.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.

Is There Such a Thing as Off-Campus Anymore?

The Supreme Court will soon decide Mahanoy Area School District v. B.L., which raises the issue of whether the First Amendment prohibits public school officials from regulating off-campus student speech. The issue arose from an incident involving Brandi Levy (B.L.), who, after learning she had not made her school’s Varsity Cheerleading squad, posted a picture of herself on Snapchat with the caption “Fuck school fuck softball fuck cheer fuck everything.” She made the post on a weekend while hanging out at a local convenience store.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Would a juror believe that Bob Marley “shot the sheriff” if he posted it to his Facebook Page?

The Second Circuit Court of Appeals recently upheld the prosecution’s introduction of social media evidence to support a conviction against an alleged gang member for narcotics sales, murder and related crimes. The case, United States v. Pierce, concerned several defendants including Melvin Colon, a member of a Bronx N.Y. street gang. As evidence against Colon, the prosecution introduced posts Colon made to his Facebook page including a video of Colon rapping “Somebody make somebody nose bleed / I’m OG shoot the Ruger / I’m a shooter,” and a picture of Colon’s hand showing a “Y.G.K.” tattoo. YGK stands for Young Gunnaz Killer, and Gunnaz was the rival gang against whom Colon committed his violence.

At trial Colon argued that introduction of the Facebook posts violated his First Amendment rights because his conviction “rested on a form of expression, however distasteful, which the Constitution tolerates and protects.” The Court rejected his argument since the speech was not the basis of the prosecution, in other words, Colon was not prosecuted for making the posts, but rather the posts were used as evidence of his participation in a different crime.

The Court also rejected Colon’s argument that the Facebook posts were merely “fictional artistic expression,” which should not be used against him. The Second Circuit, referencing a recent New Jersey Supreme Court case, acknowledged that violent rap lyrics alone are insufficient to sustain a conviction. However, where the violent rap lyrics and the like survive a Fed. R. Evid. 403 challenges and their probative value outweighs their danger of unfair prejudice, the evidence is admissible. The court ultimately sustained Colon’s conviction.

Social Media: Brand Builder or Mind Poison?

A recent interview on ESPN’s radio show Mike & Mike (you can find an article and podcast here) featured two prominent NCAA basketball coaches, John Calipari and Rick Pitino. On paper, these two coaches couldn’t be similar; age (only 6 years apart), coaches at powerhouse basketball schools (University of Kentucky and Louisville separated by only 75 miles), banners (three championships and 11 Final Four appearances between the two, although two of Calipari’s appearances have since been vacated) and the list could go on. While their knowledge and love for the game of basketball may be similar, their view on social media is vastly different.

Pitino referred to social media as a “poison” on his players and he bans them from using sites like Twitter while Calipari refers to social media as a brand builder and goes as far as to encourage his players to participate and use social media platforms. These opposite stances on social media couldn’t be a better illustration of why there is so much debate when it comes to the NCAA and its regulation of social media. You have some coaches prohibiting players from using social media and others promoting the use and regardless of the stance of its coaches, the schools continue to shell out the dough to monitor its players use of social media. If that isn’t a clear example of mixed signals then I don’t know what is.

Many schools, like UK and Louisville, spend tens of thousands of dollars to use monitoring software systems that flag certain keywords and content being used in a post or tweet. The athletes actually must agree to let the school monitor its social media use as a precondition to participate in their respective sports. Some legal scholars view this as a clear violation to the athletes’ First Amendment right to free speech and those views have gained traction as some states have prohibited schools from monitoring the social media accounts of its athletes. The NCAA has encouraged schools to monitor its student athletes on social media sites and in response we have state legislatures passing laws to ban the schools from doing so; another example of how far off we are from some type of amicable resolution.

People are entitled to their own opinions about social media, but we run into problems when those differing opinions lead to ambiguous regulations and policies. It’s hard to say which side has the better argument or if monitoring student-athlete social media accounts is warranted in the first place, but it’s clear that this issue is far from being resolved.

Yelp! at Your Own Risk

What is Yelp?

Yelp, Inc. is an American company that operates an “online urban guide” and business review site. The company’s website began as an email service for exchanging local business recommendations and later introduced social networking features, discounts, and mobile applications.[i] The company’s website contains a discussion forum and other social networking features. It requires reviewers to register and encourages them to create a user profile. It offers “praise and attention” to user reviewers plus special status and social events for its most popular, prolific and “elite” members.[ii]

Simple enough, right? So what’s all the fuss about?

It has become increasingly apparent that writing Yelp reviews may land you in some hot water, which begs the question “Why would writing a negative review get me sued?” The site asks for users to write honest, first-hand accounts of what their experience was like. Yet, when that honest review turns out to be negative/critical, some business owners may not take it so lightly. In the last week or so there have been at least two lawsuits dealing with Yelp reviews, which actually bookend the spectrum of potential outcomes arising from disgruntled reviews. On one end of the spectrum is a review that stated a contractor damaged and stole the reviewer’s property.[iii] The jury came back with a guilty verdict for defamation.[iv] On the other end of the spectrum was a review of a local dentist, who attempted to sue for defamation, but his claim was dismissed referencing California’s Anti-SLAPP Law.[v]

Ok, so the Anti-SLAPP Laws will protect me then?

Not necessarily. California provides a special motion to strike strategic lawsuits against public participation (SLAPPs), which is intended to put a quick end to nonmeritorious lawsuits designed to suppress speech on a matter of public concern.[vi] Public reviews of businesses, health care, restaurants and any other type of service provider, have been around since the first customer was served. Services like Yelp have made the dissemination of these reviews readily available to anyone willing to read them. One would think that every state would have an Anti-SLAPP statute protecting the public, but that is not the case, as 21 states have not enacted an Anti-SLAPP law.[vii] One of those states, Virginia, was home to the first review I mentioned where the defendant was found guilty of defamation after being sued by her contractor. Would an Anti-SLAPP statute have helped her? Should every state have a statute similar to California? It’s tough to say, but one could easily make the argument that Anti-SLAPP laws unnecessarily expand our First Amendment Rights.

[i] Yelp, Inc., wikipedia.org, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yelp,_Inc (last visited February 8, 2014).

[ii] Id.

[iii] Perez v. Dietz Development LLC, Va. Cir. Ct., CL 2012-16249, jury verdict 1/31/14.

[iv] Id.

[v] Rahbar v. Batoon, Cal. Ct. App., No. A136463, unpublished 1/31/14.

[vi] 23 HLR 221 (Issue No. 6, 02/06/14).

[vii] Public Participation Project, Anti-Slapp.org, http://www.anti-slapp.org/your-states-free-speech-protection/ (last visited February 8, 2014).

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.

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?

Tag: First Amendment

Subscribe By Email