Litigation Social Media, Damage Control Attorney
Multi-media company seeks attorney for New York/Chicago location. Experience in social and multi-media to be part of in-house legal team. Must be aggressive and detail -oriented. Financial background helpful. Salary commensurate with experience. Stock options, benefits and relocation package available. EOE.
To apply send resume and telephone number to firstname.lastname@example.org. Please reference job title in subject line
According to press reports in December of 2015, terrorist Tashfeen Malik posted her allegiance to ISIS on her Facebook account before killing 14 innocent civilians at the County Health Department in San Bernardino, California. Though Facebook had removed her account as violative of internal company rules, the government was not immediately alerted by the company to the existence of the post — or the possibility of an attack. In a more recent example, gunman Omar Mateen checked his own Facebook posts and other social media accounts during the five-hour standoff in the Orlando bar where he killed 49 people on June 19, 2016, to verify that his pledge to Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the leader of the Islamic State, had been properly publicized. We suggest in this article that socialmedia companies, like other corporate entities, should be legally required to institute compliance programs that ferret out and report terrorist activity at the earliest possible opportunity. Most of these companies, such as Facebook, Twitter, YouTube, and Instagram, already have internal rules against messages that might violate the federal prohibition against material support to terrorists or to a Foreign Terrorist Organization. Lesser known and new sites, such as Tumblr and Soundcloud, and even nonprofits such as Internet Archive in San Francisco, should be forced to follow suite. Additionally, many of these companies already have both a method of internal reporting by other users against rule-breakers, as well as computer programs that seek out key words to alert company monitors that a breach of internal rules might be occurring. We suggest two supplementary federal proposals.
The first would create a new substantive offense; it would criminalize the failure by social media companies to discover terrorism-related posts by its users and to immediately release the posts to the government. A social media company would be guilty of this new crime if it knowingly, recklessly, or even negligently failed to institute a government-approved compliance program and report any suspicious results it discovered through its program to federal authorities. We realize that this proposal is strong medicine. However, we believe that the danger of online terror activity warrants such a vigorous federal response. This proposal does not replicate the Online Terrorism Activity Act recently proposed by Senator Feinstein, though we agree that her bill ought to be enacted. We are not suggesting merely that the social media companies be required to report known terrorist activity to federal law enforcement agents. Rather, we would require such companies to monitor customers for compliance with 18 U.S.C. sections 2339 to 2339D and other terrorism offenses on pain of criminal liability. And rather than automatically shutting such accounts down when they are discovered, which may have adverse unintended consequences, we would shift those decisions to the FBI experts best suited to make them. In some cases, it might serve intelligence needs to allow the postings to continue. Moving the loci of such decision-making from a private company to the government might also allow innocent and aggrieved users to pursue avenues of redress.
The second proposal is to simply grant these companies leniency at sentencing should they be found liable under the federal doctrine of respondeat superior for the material support crimes of their agents. The federal government does this already with corporations, primarily in the white collar crime arena, to prevent the violation of federal criminal statutes or, failing that, to assist the government in discovering whom within the corporation committed the offense, and to prevent its recurrence. This strategy will likely not be nearly as effective as a tool against terrorism as our first proposal, as federal prosecutors have not yet attempted to charge social media companies for the crimes committed or assisted by their agents, and such agents may not have the required mens rea regarding postings by the users. Such a strategy works best when the corporation is facing criminal liability, with its attendant high-dollar fines, for its own violations. It is doubtful that social media companies will consider themselves sufficiently exposed under current substantive terrorism law to bother with the expense of such programs. However, because it will be less effective at criminalizing corporate behavior, and because it does not directly impinge on the privacy rights of social mediausers, this proposal might be politically palatable; it effects only those entities already found to have committed a serious federal felony, and it does not require offending companies to reveal offending posts to the government.
In Part I of this Article, we review the development of terror activity in today’s globalized environment, including the high rate of reliance on the Internet and mobile applications. In describing the very well-known danger of terrorism, we focus on “lone-wolf” terrorists and the enormous difficulty of finding such individuals and stopping them before they attack. The internet has made this problem all but impossible to solve, and therefore companies that make their fortunes utilizing the internet must become part of the solution. A Brookings Institute Report estimates 46,000 to 70,000 Twitter accounts used by ISIS supporters from September to December of 2014, and a George Washington University Study counted 900 active FBI investigations against ISIS sympathizers, 250 Americans who have traveled or attempted to travel to Syria/Iraq to join the Islamic State, and 300 Americans and/or U.S.-based ISIS sympathizers active on social media. In Part II, we will respond to perceived insufficiencies in existing legislation and in recent legislative proposals. We will also set forth proposals to address the liabilities of companies to enable the governmental review and discretion of potential terror activity online. In addition to both of our proposals, we offer precedents for such governmental action, including the Federal Guidelines pertaining to organizations, criminal and civil regulations regarding the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, the Bank Secrecy Act, and international bodies in the enforcement of copyright law. Once compared to these other criminal and regulatory measures, the proposals are not as shocking as they might first appear.
In Part III, we respond to both historical and anticipated opposition, grounded in constitutional arguments, to the proposed legislative framework in Part II. We believe that neither proposal would violate the Fourth Amendment protection against unreasonable searches and seizures, nor the First Amendment’s protection of speech and association. A long line of precedent confirms that the Fourth Amendment offers no reasonable expectation of privacy in communications voluntarily revealed to third parties. And the Court’s relatively recent 6-3 opinion in Holder v. Humanitarian Law Project, upholding the material support statute against a First Amendment freedom of speech and freedom of association and Fifth Amendment Due Process vagueness challenge, lends significant support to the validity of our proposals.
Bill Would Make Revenge Porn a Crime in Ohio
The state’s top Senate Democrat wants Ohio to join most states in making revenge porn a crime. Revenge porn occurs when a person’s nude or sexual image is published or shared without the person’s consent, and these days that’s usually online or other electronic means. It is named as such because such actions often occur when an ex-spouse or ex-lover is trying to harass and embarrass the person in the pictures or videos.
Latest Court Opinion on Social Media Authentication (U.S. v. Browne)
The advent of social media has presented the courts with new challenges in the prosecution of criminal offenses, including in the way data is authenticated under the Federal Rules of Evidence—a prerequisite to admissibility at trial.
Appellant Tony Jefferson Browne was convicted of child pornography and sexual offenses with minors based in part on records of “chats” exchanged over Facebook and now contests his conviction on the ground that these records were not properly authenticated with evidence of his authorship.
Although we disagree with the Government’s assertion that, pursuant to Rule 902(11), the contents of these communications were “self-authenticating” as business records accompanied by a certificate from the website’s records custodian, we will nonetheless affirm because the trial record reflects more than sufficient extrinsic evidence to link Browne to the chats and thereby satisfy the Government’s authentication burden under a conventional Rule 901 analysis.
Facebook and Your Political Views
NM SCT Cautions Judges on Social Media Use (State v. Thomas)
(Menlo Park, CA)
Oculus seeks a Lead Counsel to support its virtual reality content business. Oculus invents, manufactures and sells industry leading virtual reality headsets and operates a global virtual reality content and social platform. Success in this position will require you to provide creative and practical guidance to clients on different potential legal and business strategies to help foster a thriving ecosystem of developers, partners, and vendors. You will also be drafting and negotiating a wide variety of contracts, including game distribution agreements, content and software licenses, and developer-facing contracts and terms. This is a unique opportunity to work on cutting-edge issues in a fast-paced start-up environment, as Oculus leads the field of virtual reality.
Be a product counseling and transactional generalist: support business objectives related to games, social platforms, mobile, video, developer relationships, consumer products and live ops services
Contract drafting, negotiation and advisory responsibilities for Oculus’ virtual reality content and social platform business
Build positive and influential relationships with executives, product teams and peers across Oculus and Facebook
Collaborate with subject matters experts at Oculus and Facebook to analyze and communicate legal risks
JD degree with membership in at least 1 state bar
6+ years of experience, including prior in-house experience with technology or gaming companies and/or at a global law firm
Experience with platforms, video gaming, entertainment media, and/or mobile.
Ideal candidate will have demonstrated success building influence with technology entrepreneur executives and advising business and software teams directly