MySpace Diatribe Not Protected by Privacy Rights, Says California Court
In case anyone, even after all the related firings and arrests, is still confused about whether or not their Facebook/MySpace/Twitter comments are protected by privacy acts, a Fresno-based California appellate court clarified the issue last week, the Recorder/Law.com tells us. The court case focused on Cynthia Moreno, a University of California at Berkeley student who, back in 2006, posted an "Ode to Coalinga" on her MySpace page, according to the Citizen Media Law Project. Referring to her Central California hometown, she wrote, "The older I get, the more I realize how much I despise Coalinga."
In the mere six days that the posting appeared online, Roger Campbell, the principal of Coalinga High School, noticed the scathing commentary and forwarded it to a local reporter for the Coalinga Record, who, in turn, published it in the paper's letters section. The resulting backlash from the town of 19,000 inhabitants was immediate and, according to the Morenos, devastating. Negative reactions forced the father to close his 20-year-old private business, and, because of threats, and the fact that Cynthia's sister still attended Coalinga High School with Principal Campbell, the family eventually moved. Consequently, the Morenos filed suit against Campbell, the Coalinga Record, its publishers, and the Coalinga-Huron Unified School District for "invasion of privacy and intentional infliction of emotional distress."
Last Thursday, Fifth District Court of Appeals Justice Bert Levy ruled that, once Moreno posted the ode on MySpace, the "article was available to anyone with Internet access," adding that, since Moreno made the post readily available, she lost any right to privacy expectations. Justice Levy did leave the door open for the Morenos to pursue emotional distress complaints, specifically referring to the principal, determining that a jury should decide "whether Campbell's actions were extreme and outrageous."
We're not sure how long it will take for this message to become ingrained in people's heads, but, at this point, it's hard to feel sympathy for anyone punished for posting derogatory public comments (although we can feel sorry for the apparently naive family). If you want to lambaste someone without repercussions, post it on Facebook after updating your privacy settings so that it's not available to everyone with Internet access.
Free-speech lawyer Karl Olson offered some extremely poignant words of wisdom to those who whimsically post every random thought on social networking sites when he told Law.com: "Some people probably may need a Miranda warning before they go on the Internet -- that anything they post can and will be used against them." Hopefully, not everyone will heed the warning, as we'd sorely miss reading the daily evolutionary tales about culling the social network herd. Check out the Facebook Face-Loss gallery below for more examples of the sorts of repercussions that can occur when folks publicly post careless content on their social-networking pages. [From: Law.com]
Losing Face on Facebook
Facebook is going to rewrite the book on standard office excuses, at least for its shortsighted users. Kevin Colvin, an intern at Anglo Irish bank, thought that had an ironclad story when he asked off to attend to a "family emergency." When his boss was alerted to this fresh picture posted to his Facebook profile during his absence, that story lost just a tad of its believability -- unless he was curing Aunt Hattie with his magical powers and a potent hoppy elixir. We're sure that posting the picture seemed like a good idea at the time, Kevin, but you were sadly mistaken. Same goes for that costume.
Students at Glen Ridge High School in New Jersey were shocked and confused when the news trucks rolled up to get the scoop on a set of Facebook photos. Obtained by a nosy parent, the pictures featured underage drinking that led to the suspension of school athletes. Many saw the role of the photos in the punishments as legally questionable, but despite organized protests and other umbrage, many students opted to just take their own racy Facebook pictures down as soon as possible. Live and learn, everyone -- just don't post visual evidence of it happening on your profile.
Even the charmed lives of beauty queens can be dragged through the mud by Facebook photos taken far away from the pageant stage. Miss New Jersey Amy Polumbo discovered this firsthand over the summer when she was the target of a strange "blackmail plot" centered on profile images of her partying and carrying on in a less than royal fashion. She ended up releasing the photos herself, and soon everyone was wondering what the fuss was all about -- from venture capitalists to gossip reporters, Facebook has a tendency to get people riled up.
Thinking about shoplifting some clothing? Here's a tip -- think twice before posting pictures of yourself modeling the hot merchandise on Facebook. Two students at Radford University in Virginia learned this lesson the hard way when a store owner was tipped off and found the incriminating images on Facebook. A stroke of the 'print' button, a trip to the police office, and the bust was complete.
This story -- women who show little discretion in their alcohol consumption and even less when documenting their misadventures on their profiles -- seems to have started the most recent wave of Facebook embarrassments. While it's difficult for many to understand the personal pride and motivation behind such excess, it's even more mind-boggling to know that these exploits are being glorified online for all to see. Mom must be proud, and potential employers are surely beating down the doors.
Related Links:
_thumbnail.jpg "Vintage Keyboards")
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Ginger said 4:06AM on 4-09-2009
My goodness, when you publish anything, anywhere, under your own name that you would have wanted to remain private, you have violated your own privacy. The way you protect your privacy is by keeping what you want to remain private private.
I'm surprised her attorney even attempted a privacy claim. That would work only if her MySpace page were hacked. The emotional distress issue is separate. Did the principal, the newspaper, and all the other actors say the equivalent of "sic 'em," and help create a mob action against her family? If they did, that should be actionable, but not the privacy claim.
Also, I would think her sister had a right to be protected in school, regardless of anything else any member of her family said or did. She's an individual with a right to a public education as long as she herself doesn't do anything to impair that. The people who threatened her had to be made to stop. I wonder how that was handled.
Reply
RawberrySmoothie said 12:34AM on 4-11-2009
The question to me is not whether the writing was publicly available, but whether the principal of the high school had the right to send it in to the newspaper of the town, and whether that newspaper company had the right to publish her writing, the writing of a private citizen, without her own explicit consent.
What were the principal or the newspaper company planning to accomplish by posting that note? To simply say "Hey, look out, this person hates the town," That really doesn't seem very news-worthy. And really, what would that accomplish them? Seriously, if they were insulted, they could have asked her themselves, instead of publishing it to the whole town before actually letting her know-- or getting her permission. It's a simple courtesy, something they obviously lack.
And the repercussions were tremendous, harassment at school, closing down of business, effectual forced relocation of living. Judging by those scornful and hateful people, this is one seriously messed up town, and I'd hate to live there myself.
RawberrySmoothie said 12:42AM on 4-11-2009
And my first comment didn't really directly respond to your comment, but it's more just my first thoughts on the issue.
Anyway, agreed that whatever's posted to the internet is posted to the public is publicly available, but I'm not entirely clear on norms for quoting private citizens or reproducing their writing or work. A MySpace or Facebook note is considered a publication to some extent, and you're not allowed to post anything copyrighted already. Now that would imply, with the "publications" and especially with copyrights being involved, that any note posted is explicitly the poster's intellectual property and thus subject to their discretion in terms of reproduction.
On the other bits I think we still pretty much agree.
Do you or anyone else know how this is handled?
Mike said 4:45AM on 4-11-2009
my opinion on the matter is this. I can agree that its pretty much giving up the right of your own privacy when you post something on myspace/facebook/twitter. Obviously the reason you are posting something on there and making it public and not private is for EVERYONE who visits your page to see it (which im sure everyone knows there is an option to have it private or public). However, I also acknowledge the fact that the principle made a huge deal of something that in my eyes would be minor, its not like she cursed him out or said anything wrong about him... what did he intend to gain out of doing what he did.
As far as the whole harassment, closing of business and such. I hope they win personally... that's a truly messed up town that they would create such an uproar about a tiny issue like that. I defiantly would never want to live in such a town. Furthermore, its obvious the town itself and the people in it (or at least most) dont have any respect or dignity to ruin someone's life like that... in fact they should all be ashamed of themselves.
Reply
Devynn said 5:11PM on 4-14-2009
this is very much in-line with the mentality of ppl in small towns. they have a tendency to have a chip on their shooulders about the world - how the world sees them and how they see the world. and you better agree with them or face their fury. i'm a city girl, so when i went to my small college town (10,000 students. and they said the town had 16,000 residents. i bet 10,000 of those were students. :p) and then on to the couple of military towns i've lived in with my husband, i couldn't believe how wound up ppl are about their hometowns. for the most part, no one cares. and if ppl got out more, they'd see that.
this prinicipal, the school, the school district and newspaper SHOULD be sued. now, i DO think that the principal and newspaper did violate some copyright laws in taking what the original poster said and spreading it all over the place without her, or at the very least, myspace's express permission. if no copyright laws were violated, than fine. but the FAMILY'S privacy rights were violated. the father can get them for causing them to lose his livelyhood and the lil sister can get them for blocking her access to an education that is harrassment free. i think the original poster was on to something when she wrote about how much this place sucked. Lord knows i wouldn't want to live anywhere like that, esp in light of how ppl responded to her posting,
small towns, for the record, not everyone thinks the place is heaven. some ppl do think it sucks. some are trying to change that, others are not. but it's nothing to get your panties in a bunch about! ppl are entitled to their opinions. you are entitled to disagree with them. and you all need to get over yourselves! :p
Reply
soniandanny said 11:12AM on 10-11-2009
Well if you don`t want the world to know yor business then don`t tell it. For every action there is a rection. To try to get money out of people because of your actions is just wrong.