Parents Not Responsible For Kids' Nasty Facebook Posts

from the computers-are-not-dangerous-weapons dept

Last year, we wrote about yet another misguided lawsuit filed about activity on Facebook. Apparently, a group of students at a high school in New York set up a private Facebook group which, in part, was used to make fun of another student (though only six students were members). The student who was the target somehow discovered the postings and sued the classmates for libel and sued the classmate's parents for not controlling their kids. She also sued Facebook, though it had an easy Section 230 out and was quickly dropped from the lawsuit. Thankfully, the judge has now dismissed both claims, noting that while the Facebook comments were "puerile attempts by adolescents to outdo each other," and while they displayed "an utter lack of taste and propriety, they do not constitute statements of fact," even though they made some factually false assertions. As the judge noted, even though they made such assertions no reasonable person would believe it. Perhaps my favorite part of the judgment:

A reasonable reader, given the overall context of the posts, simply would not believe that the Plaintiff contracted AIDS by having sex with a horse or a baboon or that she contracted AIDS from a male prostitute who also gave her crabs and syphilis, or that having contracted sexually transmitted diseases in such manner she morphed into the devil.

Indeed.

Perhaps more importantly, the judge totally dismissed the idea that the parents were somehow responsible for the kids' postings since it would require parents giving kids a "dangerous instrument" to make them negligent. The judge noted that it is ridiculous to conclude that a computer is a "dangerous instrument," and thus there is no parent liability here:

To declare a computer a dangerous instrument in the hands of teenagers in an age of ubiquitous computer ownership would create an exception that would engulf the rule against parental liability.

The judge notes that this case may involve "cyberbullying," but thankfully New York has no anti-cyberbullying laws, so being a jerk online may still be childish, but is hardly actionable legally speaking.

Filed Under: bullying, defamation, facebook groups, parental responsibility
Companies: facebook

Are Facebook Groups the New (and Improved) Online Petitions?

from the point-and-click-political-activism dept

There was a time when online petitions were pretty common, but they never were that effective at actually lobbying government, mainly because there's no easy way to validate signatures. The concept was ported straight from the analog world to the digital, but it's interesting to see how government lobbying has evolved online. The Ontario government recently backed down from proposed restrictions on young drivers in the face of a significant backlash, which included a Facebook group that gathered over 150,000 members. The Premier, Dalton McGuinty, mused about conducting consultations through Facebook and, though that never materialized, the group was cited as one of the major indications that the government had "stepped in it." Earlier this year, another Facebook group, Fair Copyright for Canada, had caught the attention of the national parliament in Canada.

What is it that Facebook groups have that online petitions don't? First of all, 150,000 members in a Facebook group is not the equivalent of 150,000 signatures on a (real) petition. A portion of this group's members are probably not even from Ontario (though at least Facebook provides some assurance that most members are real individual people). But, in the same way that 150,000 signatures isn't the same as 150,000 people at a rally outside the legislature, you take the context into account. It's a pretty significant number for getting a sense of a public reaction -- the government definitely hit a nerve here. A Facebook group also contains associated debate and discussion, links to other efforts (websites, YouTube videos, etc.) and a means for members to coordinate further efforts online and offline. It's more about organizing protest efforts than simply presenting a list of names.

Obviously, there are other relevant services besides Facebook (and there are lots of silly Facebook groups), but the Facebook example serves as an interesting illustration of how this sort of political activism has evolved from the digital attempt at petitions to a more involved hub of activity. In Canada, we see examples of politicians now beginning to pay attention, but to get involved -- like McGuinty suggested through consultations and like the Obama team has demonstrated through a campaign -- would take things to another level.

Filed Under: canada, facebook groups, petitions, political action
Companies: facebook