Slashdot Mirror
Mother Sues After Bebo Story Hits Press
slick_shoes notes a story out of England: a woman named Amanda Hudson is suing six national newspapers for defamation and breach of privacy after they ran stories based on her 15-year-old daughter's exaggerated claims about her party, published on her Bebo site. The party was held at the family's £4m villa in Spain, and the daughter's account claimed that jewelery had been stolen and furniture and a television set thrown into the swimming pool; in addition there were claims of sex and drug use. The mother says that this was all falsehood and exaggeration. A number of newspapers picked up claims and photos from Bebo and ran them nationally. From the article: "The case is expected to have far-reaching consequences for third parties who use or publish information from social networking sites. Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites."
> Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites
Isn't that what newspaper reporters and editors are for?
The fact that some party thrown by a rich 15 year old girl is national news is kind-of depressing. Am I missing something?
The only relevant fact that newspapers needed to check was that it was actually the 15-year old daughter that put it up for the world to see. Other than that, as the legal guardian, if the mother didn't want her daughter to post this information, she should have been a better parent.
There might actually be a case others have against the mother for defamation of character, since she is responsible for the actions of her daughter, and her daughter might have defamed them.
I wish parents would stop blaming other people for their own failings. Until their children come off age, what the kids do and what happens to the kids is the parents' sole responsibility.
Newspapers have always had the responsibility to verify their stories, why should that change simply because the information's off the web?
A newspaper or TV station should ALWAYS identify it's source. This attitude that seeing it online is somehow equivalent to being an eyewitness is silly and dangerous. I hope they lose this stupid case just so we can get some journalistic integrity back for when it matters.
Publishing something does not make it a fact. It simply makes it published. If the information is not true, you can still get your pants sued off, as these newspapers are finding out.
That's why you should always check your sources. Learn to protect yourself from libel suits.
"The case is expected to have far-reaching consequences for third parties who use or publish information from social networking sites. Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites."
Aren't journalists supposed to do this ANYWAY?
before people learn not to post stories that they don't want the whole world reading? I hear stories like this time after time, and its always, "They should respect my privacy." Well, guess what... if you post information publicly over a global connection that EVERYONE has access to, then you have no privacy. That said, I do think the media are idiots for taking "credible" information from the social networking page of a 15 year old girl. I think that they should absolutely be held responsible, especially for a story that is so damaging to a person's character. There's a reporter somewhere that should be fired for this.
I'm not going to get all "PC" on you, I'm actually going to bust out some child psychology.
In research on parenting behavior, methods of control have commonly been divided into three categories. The first type of control is the use of power by parents. Such techniques, in which parents attempt to force or pressure their children to behave in certain ways, are associated with children who are less socially competent. When parents use power to control their children, the children are likely to see their choices as governed by external forces. They do as they are told but only as long as there is a power to make them. They may become passive or rebellious.
A second type of control is love withdrawal, in which parents show disapproval for behavior that displeases them. It may include ignoring, shaming, or isolating the child. The use of love withdrawal shows mixed results in its effects on children; some studies have found it to be acceptable, whereas other studies have found it resulted in dependent or depressed children. New research on parents' use of psychological control may have identified what parts of love withdrawal are especially toxic. When parents use guilt or manipulation to control their children, the result is anxiety and depression for children. In contrast, when parents use reasonable monitoring and negotiated control of behavior, children are less likely to get in trouble.
The third type of control is induction. Induction includes reasoning with children and helping them understand the effects of their behavior on others. For example, a parent might say, "When you yell at your sister, she feels very afraid and sad. She feels that you don't like her." Induction is the type of control that is most likely to result in socially competent children.
There are also clear benefits for a child's moral development when a parent uses induction because induction teaches children to think about the effect of their behavior on others. Induction both activates and cultivates the child's own logic and compassion. Children raised with induction are more likely to have internalized standards for behavior, better developed moral sensitivities, and less vulnerability to external influence.
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1244/Parenting-Education-Content-Parenting-Education.html -- this isn't exactly a primary source but it rehashes things I learned in a "Human Development" class; I just don't feel like getting super academic on you and researching/citing the primary sources. If you really care about your children enough to give them the best childhood possible, you'll do that on your own anyway -- of course, maybe you won't, after all, you said it yourself, "I just don't care." Great attitude!
You don't know of a better way to parent a child because you were never shown how, but please, for the sake of your children, research parenting methods before having any. Don't do it the way your Father did just because that's all you know -- it is well known that power assertion is one of the least effective means for instilling intrinsic motivation into a child. What you want is for the child to internalize the reasons for their behavior, so that when they move out at 18 years old they continue to truly believe in and follow the lessons you taught them, instead of just throwing them to the wind 'cause they are out from under the harsh glare of mean ol' Dad.
Mrs Hudson said her daughter has also suffered greatly because of the breach of her privacy. "Jodie is 15 years old," she said. "She did not consent to the publication in the media of any photograph of her or her party, or of any material that she wrote on her Bebo site."
Looks like she learned about it the hard way. What you post on-line is public info.
This is what you get when you have multiple 24-hour news channels and lots of news web sites itching to have something new. There's only so much real news, and not enough of it to even fill one TV channel with content. So they have to dig for crap. This is what you get.
Slashdot: Failed Car Analogies. Amateur Lawyering. Anecdote Battles.
Why is it ridiculous? What possible harm could a half glass of cider or whatever given to a child by a parent under supervision cause? If more parents gave their children small amounts of alcohol as they grow up (e.g. at the dinner table) then young adults would be more responsible towards alcohol as in countries such as France. By "more responsible" I mean less likely to go out 'on the town' and far surpass their limits.