Tag: First Amendment

  • What’s Up with YouTube Pulling Ads from Videos?

    Speak No Evil by Robert Young from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Speak No Evil by Robert Young from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    In the last week, several people have posted that YouTube pulled the ads from their videos because their content wasn’t “advertiser-friendly.”

    What’s Advertiser-Friendly Content?
    According to YouTube policies, ads can only be run on content that’s all-ages appropriate. “It has little to no inappropriate or mature content in the video stream, thumbnail, or metadata (such as in the video title). If the video does contain inappropriate content, the context is usually newsworthy or comedic and the creator’s intent is to inform or entertain (not offend or shock).”

    According to YouTube, you can’t run ads against content that contains the following:

    • Sexually suggestive content;
    • Violence
    • Profanity or vulgar language
    • Harassment
    • Promotion of drugs
    • Sensitive subjects – including, war, political conflicts, natural disasters, and tragedies

    If a user repeatedly posts videos that violate this policy, YouTube may suspend monetization on your whole channel. This could be problematic for content creators who make a living in part from their YouTube channel(s).

    Their Site, Their Rules
    Reading the YouTube rules, it’s ok to create and post content that violates some of its advertiser-friendly guidelines, but not make money from it.

    And don’t even think about trying to argue that YouTube is violating your First Amendment right to free speech. It’s their site so they make the rules. They’re not stopping you from creating and publishing content on your own forum, just setting the rules for their platform.

    Compare this to a shopping mall. They control who can sell wares and what behavior is appropriate. If you break the rules – by screaming or walking a body bag through the food court (not that I’ve done that) – you can be asked to leave or even banned for a period of time. Likewise, if you scream obscenities on the street, the police might be called and you could get a ticket for disturbing the peace.

    So, What’s Changed?
    It appears that not much has changed on YouTube. The policy regarding advertiser-friendly content hasn’t changed, but rather how it’s enforced. Before, if a video violated this rule, they would merely turn off the monetization feature, and you may not notice the difference unless you checked your Video Manager. Now, YouTube is sending an email notice when they turn off monetization.

    I went back and reviewed the law firm’s YouTube channel. I run ads on most videos, but I haven’t made a cent from YouTube. There’s only one video on which monetization was turned off. My other videos where I may occasionally swear and/or mention sexual content like “revenge porn” are still monetized. (Not that I expect to make money from my videos, but you never know.)

    If you have an internet-based business that relies on another platform to make money, be sure you read the site’s terms of service before you design your business model around it. (Remember, there’s a good chance the site can change the rules at any time.) If you want to talk more about internet or social media law, you can contact me directly or connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or LinkedIn. You can also get access to more exclusive content that is available only to people on my mailing list, by subscribing here.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Dislike or Defamation – Rules about Online Reviews

    https://www.flickr.com/photos/jesper/269194762
    John and Jesper | Thumbs Down by Jesper Rønn-Jensen from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    When it comes to online review sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor, it may be difficult to do to determine when a reviewer is a legally sharing their dissatisfaction about you and when they are out-and-out defaming you. The former is legally protected speech that requires damage control; and the latter may require a cease-and-desist letter or a lawsuit.

    One of the best things of out the Internet is that it gives Joe Average people a platform to share their thoughts. Review sites like Yelp and TripAdvisor let multiple people share their experiences with a business that others can read and the business owners can respond to reviews within this forum. They can give you an idea of what to expect before you arrive and whether a particular place will fulfill your needs or expectations. I find it highly valuable, and when I’m satisfied with the service I received from a company, I often asked them where I can leave positive feedback for them online.

    When a company sucks, I don’t hesitate to share those thoughts either. I believe that friends don’t give friends bad referrals, and that there is no problem with calling out a business that does a particularly bad job. But there is a right way and a wrong way to do it.

    1. Stick to the Facts: Unless you have a nondisclosure agreement that prevents you from sharing in your experience, there shouldn’t be a problem if you simply state the facts of your experience – i.e., the delivery people were 2 hours late, your food was cold when it arrived, the clerk apologized for not having the item you wanted.

    2. Share your Feelings: Share how you felt during the experience – you were pleased that the restaurant comped the meal that you sent back, you were angry that you missed an appointment while you were waiting for the delivery guys, you were shocked that the clerk stared at your chest instead of looking you in the eye when he/she spoke to you.

    3. Be Accurate: Federal law requires you to be truthful and accurate when giving a review. Avoid half-truths and insinuations. There should be no doubt in the reader’s mind between what you wrote and what you meant. This law also requires you to disclose when you are compensated for providing your opinion – such as getting free products or paid for providing a review. (The penalty for violating this rule is a fine for up to $11,000.)

    In general, be thoughtful about what you post online and reading each review carefully before you hit “post” or “save.” If you are making a statement that sounds like a fact, make sure that it is verifiable. So that means you can’t say that a particular restaurant gave you food poisoning unless you can present hard evidence (like a doctor’s note) that that particular meal is what made you sick. Otherwise, you might be better off calling or email laying the manager directly and explaining that you were sick shortly after eating at that restaurant and that they might want to make sure all employees are complying with the rules to avoid food borne illnesses.

    If you believe and online review may have crossed the line from expressing dissatisfaction to defaming a person or the company, contact a social media attorney to review the situation and advise you of your options. With so many people sharing their opinions and experiences on a multitude of platforms, this is an issue that is not going away any time soon. If you want to talk more about this topic, please contact me directly or connect with me on social media via Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, or LinkedIn.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Why is it Hard to Remove a Post from The Dirty?

    Clubbin' by rudlavibizon from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Clubbin’ by rudlavibizon from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    For those of you who don’t know, The Dirty is a website where a person can post “dirt” about another person. It’s a website where you can post celebrity sightings, make fun of people, and call out somebody for cheating on you, etc. The purpose of the site, from what I can tell, is to provide people a forum to post truthful stories and others can read and post comments about them.

    As a social media attorney, I regularly get calls and emails from people who claim there is a false post about them on The Dirty or a similar site and they want me to get it removed. Many of these people don’t want to get the police involved, file a lawsuit, or pay a lot of money to make this happen. I think a lot of them hope that a letter from a lawyer would be sufficient to get a post removed. Sometimes that works, but sometimes that is not the case – especially when it comes to The Dirty.

    The people who run The Dirty and their attorney understand the First Amendment. They tell their users only to post truthful information, but for the most part, they can’t tell when someone is telling the truth or not in a post. If the poster says what they wrote is true and the person they wrote about says it’s not, how would the people who run the website know who is telling the truth? The Dirty gets thousands of requests from people claiming that a post on the site contains lies about them. With few exceptions, they won’t remove a post simply because you asked them to.

    I’ve never met The Dirty’s attorney in person, but we’ve exchanged several emails. My conversations with him tell me that he is a kind and thoughtful man and also a very good attorney. He won’t tell his client to remove a post just because a person is upset that a story about them is on the site or because he gets a demand letter from that person’s attorney; however, he will comply with court orders to remove material, which usually requires some type of injunction or prevailing in a defamation, invasion of privacy, or similar lawsuit. The Dirty also appears to have respectful policies related to revenge porn and false posts about an individual having an STD.

    When I meet with someone when I meet with someone who claims to be the victim of defamation and/or invasion of privacy on one of these sites, I often have to inform them that the law doesn’t care about what they believe or even what they know; the law cares about what you can prove. When it’s a case of he said versus she said, there is often not much I can do. Yes, my client could sue for defamation; however, if the other party doesn’t have any money, it’s usually not worth pursuing.

    If my client feels like they are the victim of cyberharassment or revenge porn, I refer them to the police. Cyberharassment and revenge porn are crimes and there is a lot more information that law enforcement can get from a website related to a criminal case than a lawyer can get access to during a civil lawsuit.

    If you feel like your rights have been violated in an internet post, please contact a social media attorney in your community for assistance. If you want additional information about defamation, privacy, and the internet, please check out my book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. You can always send me an email if you ever have questions, and please stay connected with me on Twitter, LinkedIn, Facebook, and YouTube.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Google Reverses Ban on Porn on Blogger Sites

    Censored by Peter Massas from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Censored by Peter Massas from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    Last month Google announced an upcoming change in its terms of service that would ban all pornography from Blogger sites. (Blogger is Google’s blogging platform.) This change would have been retroactive and impacted some users who have used Blogger to post sexually explicit material for over 10 years. Users reacted hard and fast, saying that posting pornographic material on their sites is an expression of their identities.

    Within days, Google made a second announcement saying that they won’t ban all porn on Blogger sites but rather they will be more diligent about their existing policy banned “commercial porn,” meaning porn that is posted online for significant commercial gain. If you have a Blogger site and you want to sexually explicit material, you’re required to mark those posts as “adult” so Google can put them behind an “adult content” warning page.

    I found the initial announcement banning porn on Blogger puzzling. Why would Google, a company that serves an international community of amazing creative people, consider such a conservative policy change? I’m a huge advocate for preventing sexual victimization, child pornography, and revenge porn but those are very different issues than the voluntary creation of legal adult content, produced by adults for an adult audience. Blogger is a blogging platform so I assume most people have little or no financial gain from running their sites.

    This is a topic where each person may have a slightly different belief regarding what is art and what is pornography based on personal and cultural differences. In the conservative U.S., a topless woman is considered explicit but in other countries, topless models (men and women) are used in mainstream advertising and anyone can go topless at the beach. Google made the right decision in regards to this by requiring everyone who uses Blogger to mark their material as “adult” and the consumers can decide for themselves what they’ll read and view and what they will block from their children’s access with parental controls.

    Companies like Google that provide services to a worldwide audience have to decide how policies should be written, which appears to be a challenging task. I’m pleased to see in this instance that Google listened to its users and the culture of the internet in general and repealed this ban.

    If you want to talk more about free speech, censorship, and the internet, please connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, LinkedIn, or send me an email.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , ,
    , , , , , , ,

  • Yes, Personal Facebook Posts can be Harassment

    Hack de overheid by Sebastiaan ter Burg from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    Hack de overheid by Sebastiaan ter Burg from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    A friend recently directed me to a post on Facebook that included a question about the following:

    I have a friend who is having some legal problems that started from a facebook post called “harrassment by communication” for something that was written on their own PERSONAL facebook page. 

    This is my interpretation of this statement: This person’s friend is being a accused of wrongdoing because of a post Friend made on Friend’s personal Facebook page.

    That can absolutely happen. If you talk about another person on your social media profile, the fact that it was made on your page and not the target’s does not shield you from the repercussions. It would be similar if you were yelling about a person while standing on your own front law vs a street corner. You’re still making a statement about a person. The fact that you have more control over your lawn than a public street corner doesn’t change whether the content of your statement is illegal.

    It would a different situation if we were talking about a statement Friend made in Friend’s private diary they keep in their bedside table. In that situation, I wouldn’t expect anyone to find out what Friend wrote as long as he/she kept it private. There is no expectation of privacy in anything anyone posts on social media, regardless of your privacy settings. This is why I tell everyone to treat every post on social media as if it’s going to end up on a billboard or the front page of the newspaper.

    Arizona has criminal laws against cyberharassment and harassment. They both involve communicating with a person with the intent to harass them or with the knowledge that the person was being harassed. The laws do not put limits on from where that harassment can occur. Both crimes are Class 1 misdemeanors, punishable by up to 6 months in jail and up to a $2,500 fine.

    Additionally, I would expect the terms of service for every social media platform to include a provision that forbids users to the site to harass other users and doing so could result in the suspension or termination of the offender’s account.

    Carter Law Firm's Postcards
    Carter Law Firm’s Postcards

    I have no idea if Friend referenced above did anything wrong or if he/she is merely being accused of doing something wrong. I can only say that Friend may have committed some type of harassment depending on the facts of the situation. The fact that they made the post in question from their personal page does nothing to protect them from the legal implications of their statements. The First Amendment does not shield you from the criminal consequences of your actions and there is no expectation of privacy on any social media platform.

    Think before you post – because the consequences of your speech can be severe.

    On the flip side, I tell people if they are being harassed online to document all the instances and take screenshots of all the offending posts – particularly in situations where the person who is making the statements are doing so from their own profile because you never know if/when they might re-think their actions and delete them.

    If you need a resource that explains the legal dos and don’ts of social media in plain English, I recommend my book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. If you need a resource to help protect yourself against harassment and cyberharassment, I recommend The Gift of Fear by Gavin de Becker.

    If you want to chat more about freedom of speech and cyberharassment, feel free to connect with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , ,

  • New Trial in Crystal Cox Defamation Case – What Does It Mean for Bloggers?

    First Amendment to the US Constitution by elPadawan from Flickr (Creative Commons License)
    First Amendment to the US Constitution by elPadawan from Flickr (Creative Commons License)

    The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals recently ruled that Crystal Cox will get a new trial for the defamation lawsuit that was filed against her. Cox calls herself an “investigative blogger” and she wrote a blog post where she accused Oregon bankruptcy attorney Kevin Padrick and his company, Obsidian Finance Group LLC of committing “fraud, corruption, money-laundering and other illegal activities.” Padrick sued Cox for defamation and an Oregon court awarded him $2.5 million in damages.

    In general, defamation requires a false statement about a person communicated to a third party that hurts that person’s reputation. Based on this definition, it’s easy to see how a blogger could be accused of defamation if someone suspects the blogger is lying about them in a post. The court applies different standards for different situations involving situations which will affect whether the author has committed defamation and what damages can be awarded.

    A court may award compensatory damages to make up for the person’s damaged reputation and punitive damages to punish the person who committed the defamation.

    Here are the three standards that can apply in a defamation case.

    • Defamation of a public person: The alleged victim must prove that the author knew or should have known they were lying when they made the statement in question – only compensatory damages available.
    • Defamation of a private person regarding a manner of public concern: Punitive damages are available in addition to compensatory damages if the alleged victim can prove that the author was negligent in making the statement.
    • Defamation of a private person regarding a matter that is not of public concern: Compensatory and punitive damages are available if the alleged victim can show that the statement was false and damaged their reputation.

    It appears the lower court applied the standard for defamation of a private person regarding a matter that is not of public concern and the court of appeals ruled that they should have used the standard for defamation of a private person regarding a manner of public concern because the public has an interest regarding whether an attorney is corrupt and committing fraud. So the parties will have to settle the case between themselves or have a new trial and use the correct standard. But note, there is no dispute about whether the statement in question was defamatory, only what standard the court is supposed to use to decide the case.

    Some people are calling this ruling a huge victory for bloggers because it states that the same defamation standards for journalists apply to blogging – and I’m going to respectfully disagree.  The landmark defamation cases may have started with journalists, but we don’t have different defamation laws for journalists and everyone else. (If this were a Shield Law case, it would be different.) There have been other defamation cases against non-journalists where the court applied the same standards. The fact that this might be the first time a court has said that bloggers can write about matters of public concern is an indicator of how few defamation cases go to trial more than anything else. No real new information has come out of this ruling by the Ninth Circuit.

    This case is a good reminder about where you can be sued because of your blog. If you do something wrong via your blog and you get sued, the alleged victim is going to sue you in their state and under their state’s laws. In this case, Cox was living in Montana when she made the original statements and she had to travel to Oregon to defend herself under Oregon’s laws.

    If you want more information about internet defamation, please check out my book, The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed. It has an entire chapter dedicated to online defamation. You can connected with me on Twitter, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me. You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Being Legally Asked to Leave a Public Event

    Think Before You Pink by Sheila Dee, used with permission
    Think Before You Pink by Sheila Dee, used with permission

    My friends called me for clarification this past Saturday morning. They were at Tempe Beach Park where the American Cancer Society’s Making Strides Against Breast Cancer walk was taking place. My friends’ friend was there with another breast cancer organization called Breast Cancer Action.  This is a “national, feminist grassroots education and advocacy organization working to end the breast cancer epidemic.”

    Breast Cancer Action’s goals are to (1)  Advocate for more effective and less toxic breast cancer treatments; (2) Decrease involuntary environmental exposures that put people at risk for breast cancer; and (3) Create awareness that it is not just genes, but social injustices — political, economic, and racial inequities — that lead to disparities in breast cancer outcomes.” They have a Think Before You Pink campaign to ban toxic chemicals found in “pink” products aimed at increasing breast cancer awareness.

    Think Before You Pink by Sheila Dee, used with permission
    Think Before You Pink by Sheila Dee, used with permission

    The group brought their petition to the American Cancer Society’s walk at Tempe Beach Park and was asking for signatures. Given that my friends’ called me at 10 a.m., I don’t think the Breast Cancer Action group solicited signatures for long before they were asked to leave. Tempe Beach Park is a public space and these volunteers weren’t doing anything illegal. My friends wanted to know whether the officers had the authority to tell this group to stop what they were doing or leave.

    In this situation, the police probably had the authority to make the Breast Cancer Action people stop petitioning. The American Cancer Society had a permit for their event in the park so they had a greater say over what activities could go on in the space they were permitted to use for their walk. If the Breast Cancer Action people were soliciting signatures within those boundaries, the walk organizers could make them stop or leave. The petitioners could have stood on public property outside the boundaries stated in the permit and continued to solicit signatures as long as they weren’t breaking any other laws like harassment, disorderly conduct, blocking a thoroughfare, etc.

    This scenario reminded me of the P.F. Chang’s Rock ‘n’ Roll marathon and half-marathon in January. The routes take runners through the streets of Phoenix, Tempe, and Scottsdale. The race organizers get permits to close the public streets, or at least lanes, along the route. The race has a strict “No Bandits” rule. You must be wearing a race number to run in the race. If you’re not wearing a number, you’ll be kicked off the route and possibly arrested for trespassing. If you’re a jogger who didn’t register for the race, you can’t decide to take advantage of the streets being closed and jog on the race route that day.  The race organizers have the permit for the area so they set the rules regarding who can and can’t be on the race route that day.

    So that’s why groups who get permits for their events have more say over who can be there even when the event is in a public park or a public street. When you have the permit, you set the rules. If you want to chat with me about this or any other topic, you can connect with me Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Prankk Bros vs Providence Police Officer

     

    Alien Invasion Prank by the Freaky the Snowman Guys
    Alien Invasion Prank by the Freaky the Snowman Guys

    Jay Lichtenberger of Prankk Bros and RipFilms, best known for the Freaky the Scary Snowman pranks and videos asked me for my take on their latest Alien Invasion Prank and their run-in with the police. I’m a fan of Freaky the Scary Snowman and the guys seem to be pretty mindful about what they’re doing to make sure that everyone has a good time.

    In their latest stunt, they have one of their guys dressed up as a giant alien who surprises people coming around the corner in Providence, Rhode Island.  They surprised a lot of people (but wouldn’t you be if you encountered a seven-foot tall person?) but everyone on the video seemed to enjoy it. I really appreciated that the alien was careful not to touch anyone initially. Look when he comes around the corner – his palms are open and his hands are up and away from the people.

    The alien took a lot of pictures with people, including with someone’s baby at the request of the mother. He gave high fives and hugs, danced with people, and played with someone’s puppy. When the police rolled up, they acknowledged their risk of liability and that they were being careful to which the officer said, “Have fun.”

    For at least one of their locations, they had permission from the business owner to carry on with their prank outside the place of business. Despite this permission, a different police officer ordered them to leave. Apparently this is the same officer who gave them a hard time about Freaky. I love how the Providence cop kicked them out but the Newport police officer thought it was hilarious and just watched from down the street.

    What about the cop on the alien video who said he told them to stop twice in two days, but from two different locations? I think it’s reasonable for the guys to think that maybe they couldn’t be on public property doing a prank one day but think it might be ok to get permission from the business owner to do the same stunt a different day at the business’ location. If anything, it shows a desire to comply with the law.

    The video shows the officer threatening to arrest the guys for failure to move, which sounds like failure to comply with an order from law enforcement, which is a crime. It was interesting that the officer did not cite any other laws that the guys could be accused of breaking. The video also didn’t show the officer say anything about receiving complaints. I wonder if the guys are acting completely within the laws and this officer just doesn’t like them.

    I appreciate the other officer who suggested that the guys file a complaint against the officer with internal affairs at the police station, especially when he said, “Don’t let them knock you down either.” What these guys are doing is definitely a violation of social norms; but if it’s not a violation of any laws, leave them alone. If there is a violation, tell them so they know what not to do next time.

    The RipFilm guys may want to give up on doing pranks in Providence if filing the complaint against the police officer doesn’t work out. But at least they know that Newport will welcome them with open arms.

    If you want more information about how to stay out of troule while doing pranks, please check out my book Flash Mob Law: The Legal Side of Planning and Participating in Pillow Fights, No Pants Rides, and Other Shenanigans.

    You can connect with me on Twitter, Google+, Facebook, YouTube, LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    You can also subscribe to the Carter Law Firm newsletter.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • On Being an Outspoken Blogger

    Call a spade a spade by scarycurlgirl_photos from Flickr
    Call a spade a spade by scarycurlgirl_photos from Flickr

    I had the pleasure of speaking at TechPhx last weekend. My presentation was entitled The Legal Side of Blogging: 10 Questions to Ask Before you hit “Publish.” We had a great discussion about how to be an outspoken blogger without setting yourself up to get sued for defamation or invasion of privacy. Hat tip to Tyler Hurst who joined us via Ustream from Portland.

    I walked away from the discussion with the reminder that big problems can result from little mistakes. Often times saying less is the best course of action. Sometimes it’s best to point out the dots and let your readers connect them. If there’s a news story that’s a hot topic in your community, you may want to write about the topic in general instead of the specifics about the situation. Your readers will know what you’re alluding to without having to explicitly state it.

    When you’re a passionate writer, it’s important to state the facts and your feelings as they are without over-embellishing. Don’t manipulate the facts to get the message you want. Take a step back and review your work. Ask yourself what you can think, what you know, and what you can prove. When something is a rumor or an allegation, state that and cite your source when you can. Always be mindful of the fact that you can be sued for defamation if you repeat someone else’s defamatory statement – even if you didn’t know it was false.

    One of my favorite ways to state my views without having to be so blunt about it is to quote someone who shares my perspective. I could call someone that I dislike or disapprove of an ass on my blog, but I think it’s more fun and effective to listen when others are talking about the issue and quote one of them when I hear them say “He’s a prick.”

    If you want to learn more about your online dos and don’ts, check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed.
    You can also connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

  • Is It Illegal to Tweet Lies?

    Last week during Hurricane Sandy, many of us turned to Twitter for up-to-the-minute updates about the storm. An anonymous person using the handle @ComfortablySmug made several tweets.

    • BREAKING: Con Edison has begun shutting down all power in Manhattan
    • BREAKING: Governor Cuomo is trapped in Manhattan. Has been taken to a secure shelter
    • BREAKING: Confirmed flooding on NYSE. The trading floor is flooded under more than 3 feet of water.

    It was later revealed that the information was false, but not before these tweets were retweeted more than 500 times according to reports.

    Buzzfeed’s Jack Stuef investigated the situation and determined that the anonymous tweeter was Shashank Tripathi, a campaign manager for Republican congressional candidate Christopher Wight. Tripathi has since resigned from his position and tweeted an apology for posting inaccurate information. That was his latest tweet from that account.

    The New York District Attorney’s Office was asked to pursue criminal charges against Tripathi for his irresponsible tweeting. It will be interesting to see if he’s charged.

    What Might He Be Charged With?
    In many situations, it’s not illegal to lie unless you’re entering realms like fraud or identity theft. I did some digging in the Arizona criminal code and I could see a prosecutor making an argument that a person who posts inaccurate information during an emergency could be charged with electronic harassment, falsely reporting an emergency or causing public panic, creating a hoax, or possibly something along the lines of disorderly conduct.

    Some of these crimes, like electronic harassment, require a victim and Tripathi didn’t appear to have a target. I wonder if issues like this might make the prosecution’s job harder.

    What About Tripathi’s Right to be Anonymous?
    Yes, the First Amendment protects your right to free speech, including your right to speak anonymously. It does not guarantee your anonymity. If you want to be anonymous, you have the responsibility of not making it easy for others to figure out who you are. Apparently @ComfortablySmug was unmasked because he posted censored pictures of himself and the uncensored version was easily discovered and revealed his identity.

    If he committed a crime, his right to be anonymous also went out the window.

    What do you think should happen to Shashank Tripathi? Should he be charged with a crime for tweeting lies about Hurricane Sandy? Please share your opinion as a comment below.

    If you want to learn more about your online dos and don’ts, check out my book The Legal Side of Blogging: How Not to get Sued, Fired, Arrested, or Killed.
    You can also connect with me via Twitter, Google+, Facebook, and LinkedIn, or you can email me.
    Please visit my homepage for more information about Carter Law Firm.

    •

    Ruth Carter

    •

    ,
    , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,