This paper is about the steps that may be taken to dilute but not totally eliminate the prejudicial effect of on-line material that relates to a defendant about to stand trial. It is posited upon the fact that jurors, despite strong judicial directions, will go on-line to seek out information relevant to the case that they are trying. The solution lies in the use of what could be described as “take-down” orders whereby material is removed from websites and de-indexed from search engines during the course of the trial to eliminate or dilute any prejudice that may otherwise arise. The remedy of a “take-down” order restores the qualities of practical and partial obscurity of prejudicial information that was a characteristic of the pre-Digital Paradigm. The paper also discusses the issue of juror contempt in light of proposed changes to the law in the Administration of Justice (Reform of Contempt) Bill.
Attorneys Jim Boyers and Robert Simmons from the law firm Wooden McLaughlin discuss the importance of social media in cases and the ethical obligations attorneys have with respect to preserving clients’ social media ESI.
For decades, the Supreme Court has applied what is known as the third party doctrine, which allows police, acting without a warrant, to secure information that an individual has voluntarily revealed to others. The doctrine has long been criticized by scholars and only narrowly escaped its formal demise last Term in Carpenter v. United States, when the Supreme Court deemed it inapplicable to geo-locational data possessed by cell phone providers (third parties).
While the merits of the third party doctrine continue to be debated, an important development has escaped notice: state and lower federal courts have been hollowing it out from below. They have done so when deciding Fourth Amendment privacy claims brought by individuals who have shared their information online, basing their decisions in significant part on users’ privacy settings and terms of service agreements. As the cases make clear, mere exposure of information to others, or the theoretical possibility of doing so, does not necessarily negate the privacy expectations of users, as robust application of the third party doctrine would require. Increasingly, the dispositive question of the third party doctrine, whether one “voluntarily” exposes information to another, is assuming new meaning in the Internet Age, based on the application of contract law principles.
Building on these doctrinal developments, this Article provides the first in-depth discussion of the potential role contract law can play in Fourth Amendment privacy determinations. We bring to bear standard tools of contract interpretation, combined with the growing body of social science research illuminating the behavior and motivations of contracting parties, to provide a fuller, more realistic understanding of privacy expectations in the online environment. In doing so, we offer a much-needed doctrinal alternative to the Katz reasonable expectation of privacy test, justly condemned as ill-suited for the internet by the members of the Supreme Court and scholars alike.
Here is an interesting take on the $5 billion fine issued by the FTC against Facebook. The author of the article illustrates how many could see this fine as too little while authors might say that it is not enough.
Social media has become the buzz word of marketing nowadays. Today it is difficult to visualise the effectiveness of promotion mix of any company without social media. Starting from basic means of exchanging information, it grew to development of means of communication whose purpose was manifold. With the advent of social media customers and businesses have become well connected with each other. Business to business, business to customer, and customer to customer communication has been great facilitated by social media. Various types of social media platforms have evolved over a period of time, which have become more sophisticated in terms of technology, more effective in terms of capability to influence the customers and more efficient in terms of reaching the customers in optimum time. All these developments took place over many years and have passed through several stages. The aim of this paper is to capture the historical developments of social media over a period of time
Court Says Trump Can’t Block Twitter Followers
Citing the First Amendment, a 3-judge panel of the 2nd U.S. District Court of Appeals upheld a lower court ruling that the President cannot block certain Twitter users. In Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University vs. the Donald Trump, the appellate court determined that since he uses Twitter “to conduct official business and to interact with the public” the president is essential preventing his critics from participating in a public forum.
The court went on to state that
[The] First Amendment does not permit a public official who utilizes a social media account for all manner of official purposes to exclude persons from an otherwise-open online dialogue because they expressed views with which the official disagrees…to read the entire opinion go here.
Deciding What Gets Removed from Facebook
This week Facebook released a report examining their proposed independent oversight review board which will address the removal of controversial content on the platform. Presumably, this board will set the standard for internal content moderation on Facebook. According to Casey Newton from the Verge, who has an article about the process of creating the board, available here, there are at least two reasons why the board should be created. First it demonstrates an awareness by Facebook that citizens should have some input on speech regulation. Second, giving power back to the public makes Facebook more accountable to its users.