Slashdot Mirror
Criminal Complaint Filed Against Facebook After Girl's Death
An anonymous reader writes "A prosecutor has opened an investigation into how Facebook allowed the publication of insults and bullying posts aimed at 14-year-old Carolina Picchio, who took her own life after a gang of boys circulated a video on Facebook of her appearing drunk and disheveled in a bathroom at a party. The Italian Parents Association has filed a criminal complaint against Facebook for allegedly having a role in the instigation of Carolina's suicide. 'This is the first time a parents' group has filed such a complaint against Facebook in Europe,' said Antonio Affinita, the director. 'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts, yet Facebook is effectively entering into a contract with minors regarding their privacy, without their parents knowing.''
But since they've IPOed recently I don't think they could turn down my offer of $50/hour to monitor posts!
Sue the fuckwads who kept posting these videos if you're going to sue anyone.
If you're going to sue Facebook, you might as well sue Al Gore for inventing the Internet.
And facebook does business in Italy? So Italian courts have jurisdiction over facebook. They can argue US 1st amendment all they want, it's just not relevant.
________
Entranced by anime since late summer 2001 and loving it ^_^
'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts, yet Facebook is effectively entering into a contract with minors regarding their privacy, without their parents knowing.''
how is facebook allowing this? did facebook buy the people internet connections? did facebook force her to sign up? did facebook force her to get hammered and act a fool?
Look, i understand all the facebook hate. and a lot of it is just, no question about that. but you cant blame facebook for any of this
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
This from the same country that sued scientists for predicting earthquakes (or not predicting them good enough).
If the parents don't know about the "contract" that their children "sign" and this is a problem, then maybe the parents should be sued?
If that's how Italy wants to play the game, then Facebook should just require that all Italian nationals provide government identification in order to use Facebook. Then they can validate the user's age and ensure that their "contract" is legal.
Stupid and silly, you say? I agree, but how else is Facebook - or any other website - going to ensure that they're able to operate in Italy?
Yes, this may mean that many business simply won't be able to do business in Italy. Oh well. Italy can suffer for its own stupidity I suppose.
that all the kids didnt have pocket sized HD video cameras when I was in school - the shit that went on would have been embarrassing for anyone reliving it later...but now, kids cant make mistakes and learn from them without being taunted fr life with the stupid mistake...
Of corse binge drinking and other crazy stuff that hapens at partys is wrong - hense the term mistake...Mistakes should be learning experiences, not stains that follow you around for life...
How can kids be kids with cameras everywhere?
Facebook isnt guilty here, just like guns don't kill people, its the kids that posted that shit that are to blame here...
The Italian Parents Association has filed a criminal complaint against Facebook for allegedly having a role in the instigation of Carolina's suicide. ... 'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts...'
The biggest lie on the internet is the answer to the question "Are you 18 or older?"
Big deal. Almost every country is the same way. Only a parent's group would be as naive is to attempt this. And only a parent's group would try to shirk responsibility for parenting -- which is what this is really about. Look, if you can't educate your crotch fruit on how to safely use a computer, don't let them use one. Stop asking the damn government to do your job -- in the 50s, we could buy little Jimmy a chemistry kit that included Arsenic in it, or a glass blowing kit that was identical in every way to the tools used by adults, except they were made for children's hands.
In most societies that haven't yet gone full retard thanks to people propping children up as a shield for their own political gain, children start doing adult work as soon as they are physically and mentally capable. Run around in Africa and you'll see 7 year olds tending crops and making dinner. Meanwhile, in the United States, god help you if you forget to include the fork with your teenager's meal... they'll just stare blankly at it, or even complain.
I guess what I'm saying is: It's your parenting that's at fault, not the internet. No, really, it is, and I don't care what bullshit legal argument you care to make. If you have a crappy kid, it's very like to be a sign that you're a crappy parent. Deal with it, and stop ruining everyone else's lives with goverment regulation because you decided to breed but lacked the mental capacity to do any of the work that comes after your 15 seconds of joy.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
freedom of speech, even speech we dont like is legal
But harassment is not.
Italian Prosecutor. Enough said.
By any chance is this the same Italian prosecutor that went after Amanda Knox?
The Italian legal system is a total joke. Facebook can just sit on this, nothing will happen for years.
-- I have a private email server in my basement.
Facebook is an american company freedom of speech, even speech we dont like is legal
it is so sad that you actually believe that
did facebook force her to sign up?
Irrelevant, since the crap wasn't posted on her account.
thank you for making my point. YOU the parent are in charge. if YOU the parent let your child on facebook, or anywhere else, thats on you. no one else.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Parents should be monitor their kids. I don't think it's facebooks fault, they really have no way of telling if people are using real names & real ages. Let alone verifying any of the info.
I'd like to see the video, because I'm wondering if it was really bad, or if she was suicidal and it was a good enough excuse. I do remember when I was 14 and it seemed like everything evolved around the world i was in, and everything seems like it mattered and was important. Then again, I guess if my less then memorial moments were captured on video, i don't know.
But I think Italy needs to be talking to the parents, not facebook.
Be seeing you...
you dont believe in freedom of speech?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
did facebook force her to sign up? did facebook force her to get hammered and act a fool?
As far as I understand, the incident has nothing to do with her even having a FB account. The videographers who recorded her being drunk did have an account; but that has nothing to do with *their* privacy (such as of the account owner.)
In essence, FB is being sued for allowing someone else (the people who recorded the video) to post that video for everyone to see. That video was offensive to some other people. How would FB censors, even if FB had them, know what is and what isn't offensive?
In the end, it will be judged by the fact whether FB had a certain duty, and they failed at that duty. I suspect FB has no duty to watch users' videos. With regard to the contract, I am not sure if there was a contract. Most of the Web operates without an explicitly defined contract. It is hard to even establish competence over the Internet; and most services are free in every aspect. Can FB be guilty of giving access to a child? Depends on what that child said about his age. Most likely the EULA says "By clicking "Accept" I verify that I am of certain age and of legal age to form a contract." If the child did that, he misled the service provider and fraudulently obtained access to FB. The FB has no way to verify his age. It could be even impossible with EU's strict privacy laws.
so if i dont have a FB account
but people are talking shit about me on facebook
in your mind I have a case against them for harassment??
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Facebook is an american company freedom of speech, even speech we dont like is legal i feel bad for the girl being bullied but i dont blame anyone for their death who kills themselves except for them.
not ALL speech is legal in the US. take the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" example. or cases of defamation.
in some US jurisdictions, there are laws criminalizing severe verbal harassment and there are actionable torts for intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
too many folks in the US misunderstand exactly what the First Amendment entails.
in addition, there are arguments for why Facebook should be subject to Italy's laws. if they benefit from any way by doing business in Italy with Italians, those persons would at least have an argument that any harm Facebook does as a company against Italians should have consequences.
Facebook is an american company freedom of speech, even speech we dont like is legal
it is so sad that you actually believe that
Why is it sad?
Just make sure you can raise the child you two make after the dinner. :)
The real story here is that "Italian Parents Assocation" is a thing.
You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
long story short, its no different then blaming google for copyrighted works being searchable. its just wrong.
the only people to blame for the girls death are sadly the girl. she killed herself, no one else.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
i feel bad for the girl being bullied but i dont blame anyone for their death who kills themselves except for them
Fuck you and your ivory tower. Having been bullied to the point of considering suicide several times when I was a kid, I can tell you without a doubt, the bullies are accessories to the death. A human can only take so much abuse before they crack; juvenille minds even more so.
I have zero tolerence for bullies. They should be treated like criminals.
Once again the internet blurs the boundaries between public/publishing and private. On one hand this is like complaining to the paper company because someone wrote a nasty note using one of their products. On the other hand web sites do control the means of publishing and bear some responsibilities.
Note they are currently simply exploring. From the prosecutor: "This is an open investigation without named suspects, as yet. Facebook itself is not under investigation."
Am I the only one that finds it hilarious that Americans - home of the most ludicrous legal system...
Really? I'd think North Korea would be at the top of the list at least, with at least a few others until we hit the USA... But hey, as long as we're throwing all perspective out the window, this is obviously the most ludicrous comment I've seen on Slashdot. Maybe I should sue you for defaming the US on the internet, hmmmm? After all, this comment could cause many innocent deaths from violent Americans who have been incensed by your comment. Someone needs to be held responsible. That's the ethical thing to do.
This is undoubtedly singing the same tune that will most likely go on for decades to come but bullying must be brought to a end.
Parenting can only go so far - it's ridiculous to assume that telling your adolescent and hormonal child to be strong in the face of adversary will stop them from killing themselves. This poor girl left a note apologising for not being strong enough.
There's also no chance that one parent will lecture or attempt to teach another a child that bullying is wrong - that's, unfortunately, not their place. Of course, one parent could talk to another but that's only if they know.... which if often not the case.
However, there should be some figure of authority that should be able to do something...
If bullying is witnessed in the playground, a teacher would usually bring it to an end, and (hopefully) punish the bully - lecture them, make them sincerely apologise, etc. Although there's been ridiculous cases where teachers end up lecturing the bullied - that just infuriates me.
So, if this would occur in the schools and playgrounds, why not in the digital realm? It shouldn't be Facebook staff, in this case, but it should be the parents at the least. They really need to look after what their children are doing and what's happening to them. Facebook and other social media sites are just giant playgrounds for kids except there's no teachers around and that's always a recipe for disaster.
Of course, this should be all within reason - don't exactly want parents digitally stalking their kids 24/7 but it's not difficult to just check peoples walls every once in a while...
Anyway, that's enough ranting - hopefully that all makes sense.
I understand what you are saying. but posting a video of something that happened, whether or not is is unflattering does not fit into the realm of yelling fire in a crowded theater . as for being subject to italy's laws, I just dont see it. italy has the option to block them much like china, It would be wrong but it could be done. italy cannot hold zuck accountable for this (yes i know its public and zuck isnt "in charge" so to speak) the DOJ tries to take out sites like the pirate bay but they cant touch the .sx tdl.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
The bullies are to be blamed for the death, not facebook. May be facebook with its detailed logs can help us find the passive audience who watched the bullying and did nothing to stop. May be we can teach the passive by standers how they could help assuage the hurt feelings of the bully victim behind the scenes etc. I think the by standers are the real key in solving bullying issue. If we could find a way to make them side with the victim without exposing themselves bullying might eventually get solved
sed -e 's/Chuck Norris/Rajnikant/g' joke > fact
Don't be so coy, tell us how you really feel.
If this was your kid and she got bullied so bad she killed herself what would you do? I know I wouldn't be fucking around with lawyers and a lawsuit. I'd have to have some personal satisfaction of some good old fashion revenge.
Take the Red Pill.
Would this be an issue if this video was posted up on times square? I think so. The only difference being facebook is a tad more private than a public broadcast. But I'm interested to hear peoples opinions none-the-less.
That isn't correct, going into the future. We are inching ever closer to making "mean" language a crime: Bullying.
Instead of holding adults -- parents of the teased, the teasers, the teachers, the administrators and so on -- accountable for things and not letting awful behavior slide in schools and alienating and harming the children therein (school can be a hideous place for children and the adults often just look the other way, meaning you are basically sending your kids to Lord of the Flies camp five days a week) . . . we hold "Facebook" accountable for ever letting someone post mean things on there or videos of someone making a fool of themselves. Or we make it an actual crime to tease someone, if that person ultimately does something to themselves.
It is exceedingly easy to drive us to the point where this is going to happen (it already is happening), because we all have sympathy for the little girl who harms or kills herself (over and over again with each story, of course) because she was teased and harassed by other children. Once you have our sympathy, it's easy to say "well, god damn it, something should be done about this!" without paying much sense to the more abstract concept of, you know, people's rights and common sense.
And facebook does business in Italy? So Italian courts have jurisdiction over facebook. They can argue US 1st amendment all they want, it's just not relevant.
If I were mr Face I'd just shut down all Facebook accounts in Italy.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
circulated a video on Facebook of her appearing drunk and disheveled in a bathroom at a party. The Italian Parents Association has filed a criminal complaint against Facebook for allegedly having a role in the instigation of Carolina's suicide.
Why just Facebook? Clearly Sony did nothing to prevent the video from being recorded by the handicam they manufactured. For that matter, the architect of the house where the party took place did nothing to prevent the poor girl from being drunk and disheveled in the bathroom he designed.
And if the architect can't be bothered to be responsible in the first place, where was he when she was being harrassed? Where was he when this poor young girl needed someone to talk to, to explain that people can be horrible sometimes, and it doesn't mean she is any less of a person? That she needs to develop the strength in herself to withstand these kinds of attacks, because they are a part of life in a world that is sometimes cruel? Where was the architect when she needed to understand that getting too drunk and making a fool of herself was a dangerous, but ultimately healthy cautionary tale for a young girl, and that she should take it as a learning experience on the risks of underage drinking and those who might take advantage of her? I mean, obviously her parents -- the ones filing the suit -- weren't doing their job, so where was the architect?
Look, parents: If your daughter gets in a situation like this and kills herself, we don't want to have to point out that you are the best chance she had, because that is a horrible reality for you and it does not necessarily mean you caused her death. You may not have done anything wrong -- these horrible tragedies just happen sometimes. But if you are going to pull out the lawyers and start insisting that the blame be placed on someone -- if you are going to corner society, through its legal system, into putting the blame on someone -- you leave us little choice but to point out that the people most responsible for your daughter's ability to cope with the harsh realities of the world are you. If you can't accept that it is not Facebook's fault, how can we not point out that you are vastly more responsible for your daughter's psychological wellbeing than a website?
Stop-Prism.org: Opt Out of Surveillance
they would've taunted/bullied/whatever her regardless of whether *she* had a facebook account.. the difference would've been that she learned about it from someone else that did have one. damage done either way.
thank you for making my point. YOU the parent are in charge. if YOU the parent let your child on facebook, or anywhere else, thats on you. no one else.
If the girl's parents had not allowed her to create a Facebook account, would this not have happened? No, it would still have happened because the video was posted by someone else, not the girl.
stop acting like you were the only one, im in the same boat but you know what.. i didnt, and you didnt either. Thinking about it is one thing, doing it is another, and i am sure you know that since you have also been a victim of bullies. I stand by my statement. bullies are not an accessory to the death, if they were you would have killed yourself, but you didnt, because you knew it was wrong.
i have zero tolerance for people who self pity themselves to death and blame others for their misery
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Look, if you can't educate your crotch fruit on how to safely use a computer, don't let them use one
I sounds like other people's kids misusing the computer were more of the issue....
If this was your kid and she got bullied so bad she killed herself what would you do?
Firstly, I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities, had them assisting in chores and other things, and developed in them a sense of self-reliance and independence. A child that can do things for herself is not a child that can readily have their self-esteem destroyed by a bully. Such self-reliance would include self-defense classes; No girl should fear that a boy will assault her. Secondly, I'd track down the parents of the child bullying and explain the situation to them verbally and in person. If the parents didn't step up to the plate, I would explain to them in a non-verbal way my disappointment in their lack of parenting.
But the one thing I wouldn't do is go off whining to the government or some parenting group about how my child was being bullied and, so enmeshed in my own ineptitude as a parent, allow the situation to worsen to the point my child committed suicide. I mean, really, as a parent how can you not see your child is struggling? You do whatever it takes to protect your family; You, not the government, you. It's called taking responsibility for the situation, and I would parent my child by example by showing that same self-reliant quality in my own involvement in the situation.
But I would not engage in 'revenge'. That is the refuge of a coward; If I'm angry enough to fight someone, they're going to be facing me and they're going to be armed. And then they're going to lose.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
And yet the US is adamant in it's right to enforce it's laws on internet presences that are not based in the US because they are used by US citizens. You can't have it both ways.
More importantly, just cause Facebook is based in the US doesn't mean that's the only law it has to worry about if it does business in other countries. You aren't going to allow foreign owned companies to ignore US laws while operating in the US.
The only way this comment would make any sense would be if Facebook specifically blocked anyone who wasn't a US citizen from using their service. They not only don't do that, they actively advertise and monetize in other countries.
It doesn't actually "make your point" at all, but whatever. I see someone else already corrected you... as much as that is possible for someone with a knee he can't control.
First, how is it relevant that "she wasn't forced to sign up", since her account wasn't the one used to harass her? The remainder of your post doesn't deal with that at all.
Second, if Facebook wants to do business in Italy, then Italian law is certainly relevant. If they don't want to deal w/ Italian law then they're free to prohibit people in Italy from using Facebook. No scheme for doing that can be perfect, but I'd settle for blocking the appropriate IP ranges. They didn't, hence they have chosen to do business in Italy, and are subject to Italian law w/ their Italian accounts. This is not the same thing as someone in country X just looking at a prohibited website in country Y, for which the website owner should bear no responsibility. Let country X worry about censoring what their citizens can look at.
Yes. If someone publishes abusive remarks about you in a newspaper, it doesn't matter if you subscribe to the newspaper or not. You can still sue them, and depending on the jurisdiction you and the newspaper (or Facebook) are in, you might just even win.
The First Amendment stipulates that Congress may not pass laws that prohibit people from expressing their ideas or opinions. If you think the President is utterly wrong about something, you're free to say so, and you don't need to fear any persecution from the government. However, the First Amendment is not a license to say anything you want about anybody without consequences. If you write something false that defames the President's reputation, he can sue you for libel.
The First Amendment goes beyond words, as well. Actions such as protests or demonstrations can be considered speech, but the limits on actions are even harsher. Your free expression may not infringe on anybody else's rights. That means your protest can't block a business, harass someone, disrupt traffic, or damage property. You'll face legal consequences for all of those. If your "speech" is a threat (and you show sufficient capability and intent to follow through with that threat), the person you're threatening may even be able to legally kill you in self-defense.
The First Amendment is not a weapon that you can use to attack someone. It is a freedom that you can use to ensure your ideas are available to the world.
You do not have a moral or legal right to do absolutely anything you want.
I don't know how Italian contract law works, but in many jurisdictions there is a provision for "unconscionable conduct" or words to that effect.
There are many factors which might be taken into account in determining unconscionable conduct. Here are some examples from Australian law:
- the relative bargaining strength of the parties
- whether any conditions were imposed on the weaker party that were not reasonably necessary to protect the legitimate interests of the stronger party
- whether the weaker party could understand the documentation used
- the use of undue influence, pressure or unfair tactics by the stronger party
- the requirements of applicable industry codes
- the willingness of the stronger party to negotiate
- the extent to which the parties acted in good faith
If you look down the list, you can see a few factors which may come in to play when the stronger party is a company worth $15 billion and the weaker party is a 14 year old girl.
If this was about an EULA which a 14 year old "agreed to", most of us would conclude that she couldn't legally do that, so the EULA is not binding. Why is the same not true of a privacy policy? Would it matter if the 14 year old gave her age honestly (remember, the minimum age for using Facebook is 13), but any agreement made by a 14-year-old is still not legally binding?
These are questions, BTW, and I honestly don't know the answers. I don't know if a 14 year old in Italy can legally consent for her private information to be used by Facebook in the way that we all know Facebook uses private information, and what Facebook's responsibilities are if they know she is 14.
Yes, her parents should not have let her share private information on the net. This is not the whole story.
BTW, I'm a nerd too. I also tend to narrow in on one little factoid that, were it different, the whole mess wouldn't have happened. But this ignores the fact that a lot of things need to line up for messes to happen. It is a constant struggle for we nerds to fight that tendency to get too focussed on one detail, and miss the big picture.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
It's ok to yell "fire" in a crowded theatre if there really is a fire.
I think cyko was insinuating that Facebook was a law unto itself.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Seriously? FB doesn't have to comply within other countries' laws when they are operating there?
That's a new one. So, Samsung, Sony, Honda, Earl Grey, and other international companies based outside of US don't have to comply with US laws even when they operate in USA?
Glad to hear that.
You're the Mucking Foron of the day.
Wow -- "Ivory Tower", eh? Because only you have been bullied and understand it, and anyone who thinks different from you is living in a different world? Yeah, being bullied sucks, and I went through plenty of it. However, I completely agree with the original poster that suicide is a personal responsibility. That doesn't mean that bullying is OK and should be allowed. There's also a range of bullying, from mild to a severity that includes criminal acts. I wouldn't agree with you that all bullying equals criminality.
In fact, I think "bullying" is way too broad a term to be dealt with in a legal context. The specific act in question here is the video that was posted, obviously without consent. That may be something that is or should be illegal. It doesn't need the "bullying" label to fog up the specifics. Absolving the person in question from their own responsibility for having engaged in behavior they apparently found so embarrassing later that they took their own life out of shame when people other than the people who already saw her behavior at the party were able to view it, is also missing the point about personal responsibility in general.
There is no denying that this girl had a primary hand in every action and consequence leading up to her suicide. That does not make anyone else's horrible (and possibly illegal) behavior ok. But to be clear: those boys are responsible for maliciously posting a video of a girl doing stupid and embarrassing things. That is what they are responsible for. The girl herself is responsible for doing those things in the first place, being in a situation where that video could easily be recorded by the assholes who did so, and then taking her own life. Holding other people accountable for those decisions she made is illogical.
By that standard, every person who has watched an embarrassing video of someone online, who has made an insulting or nasty comment to another online, etc. is potentially an accessory to any future suicide of any of the involved victims of those actions. Even though much milder, your statement of "Fuck you and your ivory tower" to the original commenter in response to their mildly stated stated opinion sounds a lot like the aggressive insulting language of bullies I have known. If that person ever feels like they have passed a limit of nasty input from online commenters including yourself and takes their own life, I hope you are prepared to be judged by your own standard.
An where do they pay their taxes?
italy has the option to block them much like china
And Facebook has the option to block Italian IP ranges if they don't want to deal with Italian law for their Italian accounts. Facebook does business in Italy. This is not the same as saying that a website in country X has a responsibility to block people in country Y who want to read it. You can't make billions, partly from people in Italy, and claim you're not doing business there.
Not to seem cruel but it looks like the original problem was her being drunk in a bathroom at the age of 14. If you don't want a video of you being drunk getting out then don't get drunk in public.
and I still blame the parents. where were they when their 14 year old daughter was out getting drunk??? Does no one believe in taking responsibility for themselves (or their kids) anymore?
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Completely relevant.
Agreed, and moreover for the part of the complaint is that Facebook entered into a contract with the minor, the crap posted on any account would seem to be irrelevant. Really the question is whether agreeing to the ToS constitutes a binding contract in Italy.
Facebook has no obligation to police content to comply with the laws of any nation except the USA.
FB has an obligation to abide by the law of any country in which they do business. However that obligation would be enforceable only in countries in which they have a corporate presence.
Everyone else can fuck right on off.
Comity: look it up!
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
And yet the US is adamant in it's right to enforce it's laws on internet presences that are not based in the US because they are used by US citizens. You can't have it both ways.
I've seen commercial entities based in the US request via the USDOJ and other entities that other countries put pressure on internet presences not in the US in an attempt use US laws as a hammer.
I've seen the USDOJ and other entities become complicit in communicating the requests to other countries.
I've seen the governments and agencies thereof bend over for the US by complying with the request.
I've seen the internet presences bend over for their own government agencies.
But other than invading Nicaragua and kidnapping Manuel Noriega to put him on trial in the US, I haven't really seen the US enforcing US laws abroad. In fact, I've seen them keep GITMO open, despite campaign promises by three presidents, precisely so that they have a place controlled by the US military so they can store prisoners there and specifically NOT have to comply with US law.
The first two observations are the US' fault, at least in the general sense of "Blame the US for the actions of RIAA/MPAA/whoever, which is generally reviled by the average US citizen who cares one way or the other".
The last two observations are the fault of the target country and the internet presences in that target country having no backbones, and that's all on you.
you dont believe in freedom of speech?
Not the OP, but I believe in Freedom of Speech. I also know that it doesn't, and shouldn't, mean that you can harass people.
Your website can be accessed by any country in the world, are you going to study every country's laws and comply with them? The lawyer fee alone would make any web venture unthinkable. To define operating by not blocking is stupid beyond belief, by this definition all US websites are operating in North Korea, Iran and China, what do you do when these government asks for your logs, source code and data according to their "laws"?
the sad thing is I am, you just dont see it.
I am thinking of the person who killed themselfs parents. how do you think they feel? or his siblings, do they blame themselves? or what about his friends? maybe they could have stopped it if only they had known...
I am showing compassion, for those who have to live through the death of a family member or friend and have no answers.
sure, blame the pot because my handle is Ganjadude, negating the fact that I made this handle when I was in my teens and in no way has ANYTHING to do with the topic at hand.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I want to give this response a hug and take it to dinner, it's so beautiful.
And what, I'm mud?
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
I don't know Italian law but in some (most?) countries online intimidation/harassment is illegal. In addition of posting the video, they also posted insults/bullying messages which sounds to me like it fits the definition and they could be criminally liable for what happened. Now how can you criminally blame Facebook for what happened I don't know. Under normal circumstances I'd expect a civil case as an attempt to get some $$$ from someone with deep pockets but we are not talking about US here.
Uh-huh. So your ISP is to blame if they allow you to send harrassing emails? Slashdot is to if you post crap that I claim is harrassing?
Do you not understand the difference between moderated and unmoderated places. A printed newspaper or magazine is fully moderated. Their website may or may not be.
I know you don't speak for all of Slashdot but I just love how the general feeling is that comment sections should be wholly unmoderated so as to prevent any form of censorship and then there is also the general feeling that coporations should be held wholly responsible for the unmoderated content produced by their users.
By this logic, any city should be held responsible if it allows people to wander the streets talking loudly enough that others might hear.
To be fair, we're talking about Italy. This is a country that jails seismologists, throws out acquittals, and can't get a single charge to stick on Berlusconi. There aren't a lot of places where you can say the US judicial system has better moral standing, but compared to the Italian system, it does--by a long shot.
And yet the US is adamant in it's right to enforce it's laws on internet presences that are not based in the US because they are used by US citizens. You can't have it both ways.
More importantly, just cause Facebook is based in the US doesn't mean that's the only law it has to worry about if it does business in other countries. You aren't going to allow foreign owned companies to ignore US laws while operating in the US.
The only way this comment would make any sense would be if Facebook specifically blocked anyone who wasn't a US citizen from using their service. They not only don't do that, they actively advertise and monetize in other countries.
You don't seem to understand how America works; we arn't just satisfied protecting ourselves from each other, we need to police the world, it's our responsibility as the best country in the world.
I'm not quite sure how much of that is sarcasm.
to be fair, i dont want it both ways. but sadly i dont get to say how our country is run
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
This seems to me like suing the phone company because telephones were used to bully someone.
But the claim is that she had no relationship with Facebook. I can see allowing action against Facebook to proceed to the extent that it is forcing Facebook to help identify its users who were engaged in the bullying but we must then agree that all companies should be able to be forced to give up information on their "actual" users/customers (don't get started on users being the product not the customer, it is irrelevant to this discussion) when accusations of illegal/improper activity are at play.
In other words, if Facebook can face legal consequences because some of its users posted stuff about underage people, then WikiLeaks can face legal consequences for being involved in the dissemination of classified material. I'm sure there are thousands of other examples that could be used as well, like ISPs giving up info on torrent users.
> If this was your kid and she got bullied so bad she killed herself what would you do?
If I were try to place blame with ANYONE outside of the immediate family, then it would be with the actual "bullies". These are the people engaging in any actual "harassment". Facebook is just a tool. It is a dumb machine that does whatever it's users tell it to do.
You can't really micromanage it without destroying it or much of the rest of the Internet with it.
This isn't just about Facebook but about ANY user created content or ANY website that empowers end users. This kind of witch hunt threatens ANY website that's more than a sad attempt to recreate broadcast from television from the 50s.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
If you write something false that defames the President's reputation, he can sue you for libel.
Can you imagine if this were actually true? Obama could sue the shit out of every Republican and 24hr news outlet in the country, and use the money to build that Muslim-Kenyan-Socialist state I hear he wants so badly.
So how does the girls family have any recourse against Facebook if there was absolutely no relationship between Facebook and the girl?
Wouldn't that be the same as Johnny's parents suing GM or Daimler or Ferrari because Fred uses one of their cars to run down Johnny? Or is it different "on a computer" or "on the internet"?
thanks AC, I didnt even notice the hypocritical nature of his post.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
I think the "alleged criminals" you're referring to are "alleged prisoners of war".
That's an important distinction. Those things matter in law. The relevant makes it legal for non-POWs to be summarily executed. Forget about the incarceration.
A Pirate and a Puritan look the same on a balance sheet.
he didnt say beat, he said pointed out factual points. HUGE difference. but go on, keep bullying him for his views......
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
*sigh*
And here I've already posted in this thread and can't use my points.
However, the First Amendment is not a license to say anything you want about anybody without consequences.
What does that even mean? China has freedom of speech... with consequences if you say something they don't like.
What a grand idea that is!
The only way this comment would make any sense would be if Facebook specifically blocked anyone who wasn't a US citizen from using their service.
Please, can they. - Non-US Citizen
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
But did Facebook or any Facebook employee engage in the harassment or did a third party use Facebook to carry out the harassment? We are really stretching logic when we start holding companies accountable for any and all abuses of their products by the users of those products. i used a car example above so I'll use an even more ridiculous example here ridiculous but identical.
If it so happened that all of the US waterboarding that may have happened had been carried out with Evian water, should Evian be held accountable?
'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts, yet Facebook is effectively entering into a contract with minors regarding their privacy, without their parents knowing.''
how is facebook allowing this? did facebook buy the people internet connections? did facebook force her to sign up?
If FB forced her to sign up it would hardly be a contract. You understand contracts are voluntary agreements, yes?
To enter a contract with a user FB would have to offer something (like use of the site) in return for something else, quid pro quo. As far as the latter, some might argue that agreeing to be bound by the ToS and using the site (as FB derives its value from its userbase) was sufficient. I wouldn't venture an opinion how that plays out at Italian law.
you cant blame facebook for any of this
Sure you can and people are. They are arguing, inter alia that FB failed to remove a harassing video (itself in breach of FBs rules) in accordance with FBs undertaking to do so upon receipt an offensive content report. Interestingly the Italian prosecutor's attitude seems not to focus on breach by the corporate entity, but upon FB employees (Italian residents?) who personally failed to act upon the removal request. From TFA:
"There is a procedure for asking for the removal of messages that break rules,'' [Francesco Saluzzo, the Novara prosecutor] said. ''This is an open investigation without named suspects, as yet. Facebook itself is not under investigation. But we could theoretically investigate employees of Facebook who failed to respond to these requests."
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
I don't know about the laws in Italy (and I am not a lawyer anywhere) but that doesn't really matter as far as I know in the US. Look at the story of Traci Lords. She used fake ID to make porn when she was 16 and there was, at least at the time, no way the other people making it could tell it was fake (it wasn't that hard to do back then). They were still at least charged. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Traci_Lords#Porn_career
All charges were dismissed against these men when it was revealed that the US Government had issued Traci Lords a US Passport indicating the false age under the name "Kristi Nussman". The US government had attested that she was above the age of consent at the time the films were made. This is somewhat similar to the Aaron Swartz case, at least in that government misconduct resulted in a crime.
The Traci Lords circus is a bad analogy for the case of the Italian girl, since, given that the girl could not legally enter into the license agreement with FB under Italian law, there was no contract. No contract = no case.
This is a case of grieving parents who are looking for someone to blame for their grief, and an Italian magistrate who is willing to be complicit in attempting to blame FB, nominally on behalf of the grieving parents, but probably with some political motivation. Politics in Italy are largely viewed by the rest of the world to be about grandstanding for publicity, and then riding the resulting wave into office. There have been many articles in US periodicals about this, the most (in)famous one being Ilona Staller's run for, and election to, parliament.
Look, they do make you sign a contract. Even if nobody reads it. Among others, you have to use your own name, and there are limits to what you can publish. And if it is brought up to their attention that you didn't respect the rules, they close your account, pure and simple. You then lose all your data and there is nothing you can say to bring it back (unless maybe you have some pwerful friends?). That's what happened to me, mainly for posting a photograph part of an exhibition taking place in Paris, and which contained nudity, but nothing shocking, really. But one learns from this and I look at all those free services differently now: FB, Google, Twitter, whatever, THEY have the power and we are way much more vulnerable than we think we are. All that to say: either you are an open content hosting company and you don't need contracts and should not apply any censorship, or you are striving for a virtual equivalent of a secure residential area. You can't just change your mind as you wish, and being discharged of all responsibility, that's too easy. Whoever posted content or visited this website while being registred as under 16, and yet bound by contract to FB terms of use, which is arguably illegal in Italy (whithout parents approval), makes FB either an accomplice or maybe guilty of those sad events. Besides, even in USA, one's freedom stops where another's starts. Thus freedom of speech doesn't allow you to violates another's person privacy (as long the right to privacy is not obfuscating anti-social behaviour and doesn't hurt anybody, otherwise the right to privacy doesn't apply). So please don't bring up freedom of speech in such a childish way, out of context, and isolated from all other possible rights. You reasoning is oversimplified and wrong.
That claim, at least, is probably false. From TFA:
She wrote that on Facebook. That means she probably had an account.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
What we need are ambiguous laws against harassment that stifle freedom of speech.
I also know that it doesn't
Well, you're wrong. You can't have freedom of speech if you choose to limit what people can say based on whether or not you think they're 'harassing' someone. Say "freedom of speech with exceptions" or something, but don't give it a name that implies people have actual freedom.
and I still blame the parents. where were they when their 14 year old daughter was out getting drunk??? Does no one believe in taking responsibility for themselves (or their kids) anymore?
And you never did anything wrong as a teen, never did anything your parent's didn't want you to?
The problem here is that facebook was not the cause, facebook was the medium. The problem here is older than facebook, the internet and wireless communications. The problem is something society has continually refused to blame, yet alone act against for generations.
It wasn't facebook who put the video up, it was facebook that tormented the girl... it was the bullies.
So the parent's are suing facebook when they should be suing the bullies and their parents. But then again, bullying is permitted and facebook is the root of all evil according to social Norm (Norm's a bit of a wanker it seems).
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
If they try to hold Facebook liable, they've got an uphill battle.
Facebook has a well-documented history of working to block pre-teen minors from getting accounts, and also for requiring parental consent for teenage minors. They publish their stats, and last year's report was that about 38% of minor accounts were illegal. That is actually a really good number.
The girl was underage. She either filled out the forms properly and had parental consent *OR* she committed fraud and misrepresented her age or her parental consent.
That will play out thusly in court:
From the allegations: ''Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts, yet Facebook is effectively entering into a contract with minors regarding their privacy, without their parents knowing.''
Facebook: We do everything we can to prevent children from committing fraud. Your daughter created an account on [datestamp]. The law required us to ask these questions, and we did. We sent the privacy forms to [email address] on [datestamp] and got a confirmation on [datestamp]. We met the standard required by law. You or your daughter committed fraud.
Court: The paper-trail meets the legal requirements. Dismissed.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
not ALL speech is legal in the US. take the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" example.
That case led to war protestors being punished. Not exactly something I'd want to bring up.
in some US jurisdictions, there are laws criminalizing severe verbal harassment and there are actionable torts for intentional and/or negligent infliction of emotional distress.
Anyone can be offended or psychologically damaged by just about anything, so those laws don't exactly seem intelligent.
too many folks in the US misunderstand exactly what the First Amendment entails.
None of the things you just stated are mentioned in the first amendment, so nice try.
Facebook knows that minors are signing up for the service, it's a big part of their business model. So it's hypocritical of them to think that a "click to accept" faux contract should absolve them.
Fair point. One other thing that may be relevant, therefore, is that the other account holders were all under the age of 18.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
You clearly value your conscience and/or your good name more than you value squeezing every drop of money out of every country you come into contact with.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
Are you sure that it is always illegal to yell "fire" in a crowded theater. I am 100% positive that it is entirely legal and can be done with absolutely no legal repercussions. If you think it through for just a few minutes, you can also see how that is.
As to the harassment, etc. Nobody has alleged that Facebook nor its employees were engaged in that behavior. It is only alleged that users of Facebook's product engaged in that behavior. I realize it is all the rage in some circles to find ways to hold gun manufacturers accountable for any misuse of guns but do we really want companies held accountable for the way its products are misused by customers?
If Facebook can be held accountable for facilitating the harassment, then why not whichever company built the computers used to enter the harassing content into Facebook? Why not also the companies that manufactured the components such as the CPU, video cards, network adapters, etc.?
So, I can sue the planet for letting offensive information propagate through its atmospheric medium?
The girl posted to her Facebook account right before she committed suicide.
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
If they don't want to deal w/ Italian law then they're free to prohibit people in Italy from using Facebook.
While this is technically true, italy is also free to prohibit its citizens from using facebook.
Where do you honestly think the responsibility should exist?
Seems to me that expecting me to prevent people from country X from accessing my site hosted in my home country of Y, just because country X has issues with its content, is a extremely onerous expectation to be applying to me.
I would argue that any sort of law enforcement in site owners on such matters is completely bankrupt of morality.
"His name was James Damore."
But the claim is that she had no relationship with Facebook.
The girl had a Facebook account, and wrote her suicide note on it.
FTFA: she leapt to her death from her third-floor bedroom window, writing on Facebook: ''Forgive me if I am not strong. I cannot take it any longer.''
Facebook keeps a digital paper trail on their accounts for when they signed up, the email accounts used, the age they said they were, and parental verification emails. If the parents didn't know she was on Facebook then the girl committed fraud. It will be easy for Facebook to prove they jumped through those legal hoops.
//TODO: Think of witty sig statement
Firstly, I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities, had them assisting in chores and other things, and developed in them a sense of self-reliance and independence. A child that can do things for herself is not a child that can readily have their self-esteem destroyed by a bully.
Of course no child ever raised in such a manner by a self-righteous parent has ever been messed up, at least at some point in their life.
BTW, why do you write "I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I would parent my child" instead of "I did have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I did parent my child"? You have raised at least one child at least through their teens, right?
If the parents didn't step up to the plate, I would explain to them in a non-verbal way my disappointment in their lack of parenting.
Oh my, aren't we a tough character.
If I'm angry enough to fight someone, they're going to be facing me and they're going to be armed.
Armed? You mean like a duel in a Western? My favorites star Gary Cooper.
If it gets to the point of armed, I say screw the "fair fight" nonsense and just treat it like a war. The only object is to win. Of course I'm obviously not the sort of heroic character you are.
well now that i think about it, is it really any different than people who tresspass on someones property and get hurt falling down a hill and then suing the homeowner for the broken leg? the only relationship to the injured is that you own the property he is illegally on. yet those cases do win from time to time here in america.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
FIRE IN THE THEATER. Have you heard it soon?
But is Facebook the criminal for having "allowed" someone to engage in bullying within their product? If you want to hold Facebook accountable, then you have two choices to make: 1) Establish a reasonable way for companies to police the content posted by its users without being overly draconian in the censorship or 2) Live in a world where the internet has absolutely no social sites. Option 2 would mean that all of the old BBS style social sites would also not exist; Slashdot would not exist. There is no alternative because their is absolutely no way any sane person would allow a third party to post anything if they could be held accountable for that content.
The most pertinent question here I believe is the "Contract" question. EULAs have been ruled on a few occasions in assorted court cases to be agreements, not contracts.
Personally I think this will go nowhere, but IF the Italian courts rule that a EULA it is indeed a contract then EULAs will take on a new legal meaning, at least in Italy, and possibly the rest of the Eurozone (I am not a legal expert, so I don't understand the full ramifications of this, just postulating)
Leg Godt!
Irrelevant. If Facebook wants to do business in EU, then Facebook will follow the EU rules. Period. Otherwise, a widespread ban. End Of Story.
Yet what do you folks do? You target those you have labeled as "bullies", and you direct more wrath, hatred and animosity toward them than they could ever possibly direct at any of their so-called "victims".
Not only bullies, don't forget the poor murderers, thieves and robbers - everybody hates them.
A lot of the time these alleged "bullies" are merely pointing out factual attributes about the person in question. Yes, some people are nerds, and it is not incorrect to point this fact out. Yes, some people are obviously weak, and it is not incorrect to point this fact out. Yes, some people are stupid, and it is not incorrect to point this fact out.
Yea, assault, property damage is a great way to point out a fact. So, how about pointing out the fact that the person is a bully? Announce it in newspapers, every time you see him, punch him and damage his property. Any time he is in a public place, film him, especially if he is being beaten up, then post the videos online. After a few months, start calling him in the middle of the night, telling him to stop wasting oxygen and just kill himself.
This is more like people talking crap about you over a telephone rather than a newspaper. A newspaper has editors that have to read everything in it.
You don't sue the phone company for what people say on the phone.
Were they employees of Facebook? If not, then leave Facebook out of it.
stop acting like you were the only one, im in the same boat but you know what.. i didnt, and you didnt either..
Apropos of nothing, what makes you think you were bullied to the same level as the original poster?
Was he bullied when he was as old as you were, or could he have been younger when bullied?
Is your support group (family, especially brothers) larger than his, or was he essentially alone? Were both his parents holding down jobs and yours weren't?
Are you dismissing a serious issue because it wasn't as serious in your case? We know that kids snap and do bad things when pushed too far. As do all mammals.
Take the smart approach. Rather than blame the victim, perhaps you should consider advocating changes that address the cause of the problem.
... i have zero tolerance for people who self pity themselves to death and blame others for their misery
Keep evolving, you'll reach "human" eventually...
i feel bad for the girl being bullied but i dont blame anyone for their death who kills themselves except for them
Fuck you and your ivory tower. Having been bullied to the point of considering suicide several times when I was a kid, I can tell you without a doubt, the bullies are accessories to the death. A human can only take so much abuse before they crack; juvenille minds even more so. I have zero tolerence for bullies. They should be treated like criminals.
Did you ever stand up for yourself? Fight back? That is the only way you stop bullies. Teach children to have self esteem and know that what other people think doesn't really matter, and nothing a bully does can affect them. If bullies know that you will fight back or that they have no power over you, they will move on.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
In essence, FB allowed someone to share a video, of minority........did i hear THINK ABOUD KIDS? What's next? Porn with kids? And no one to blame???
Since one is a legal product in all jurisdictions where the original producer or its legal agents made the first sale, then no they are not responsible.
Since one is not a legal in most jurisdictions, then yes, they are responsible.
See, engaging in illegal behavior opens the door for problems down the road.
I guess what I'm saying is: It's your parenting that's at fault, not the internet. No, really, it is, and I don't care what bullshit legal argument you care to make. If you have a crappy kid, it's very like to be a sign that you're a crappy parent. Deal with it, and stop ruining everyone else's lives with goverment regulation because you decided to breed but lacked the mental capacity to do any of the work that comes after your 15 seconds of joy.
What a terribly shallow view to have.
Day of scheduled suicide: February 8th 2013, my birthday
Brocklebank said Noah's school gave her a bullying incident form to fill out, organized meetings between her son and his bullies, and asked the boys that were picking on him to sign contracts pledging to stop.
Still, she said, the harassment continued and she wanted authorities to do more. For example, Brocklebank said, Noah sat alone in the cafeteria for two months and often skipped lunch.
The situation came to a head when Noah, who only recently received his parents' permission to open an Instagram account, uploaded the pictures showing tiny cuts on his arm and a caption with his suicide threat on Jan. 26. He blocked his mother from seeing the post.
While her son was in the hospital on a psych hold,
she had this website created for him: http://lettersfornoah.com/about-noah.html
I realize you're still a girl in training, but sooner or later you're going to have to learn that the world isn't so nearly as black and white as you've made it out to be.
Or maybe you'll write a letter to Noah and explain to him that his depression and isolation is all his parents' fault.
Your choice.
[Fuck Beta]
o0t!
Of course no child ever raised in such a manner by a self-righteous parent has ever been messed up, at least at some point in their life.
If by "self-righteous" parenting you mean, parenting, then no. Not by the parent, anyway. Nothing in life is a guarantee, but if you're playing the odds, teaching a child to be self-reliant is going to result in a lot less bullying, and incidentally, may keep your 14 year old daughter from getting drunk at a party because you'll have raised her to be less suseptible to peer pressure as well; She'll trust her own judgements, not that of the "cool kids".
BTW, why do you write "I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I would parent my child" instead of "I did have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities" and "I did parent my child"? You have raised at least one child at least through their teens, right?
To answer that question, I'd suggest thinking about the statements you've quoted, rather than just frobbing the keyboard with a snarky comment and thinking it actually does something for you other than broadcast "I'm a giant asshole."
Oh my, aren't we a tough character.
A fair bit more than a troll on some internet forum, yes.
Of course I'm obviously not the sort of heroic character you are.
Obviously. A true hero of the internets would duel with facts, logic, and experience, not ad hominem, circular logic, and hand waves. Alas, you are unarmed.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
But I see some sense in this. The way I see it is Facebook has made billions, and more than one billionaire. With that comes certain responsibilities. Just like a bartender that keeps serving drinks. Facebook knows that it is used for bullying, pedo, and other nefarious things. And they turn as much of an eye on it as they can get away with to save face so they can maximize a profit. That is reality. The fact is people have been bullied, killed themselves, or been killed to an extent in some part thanks to Facebook. What can be done? I don't know, maybe nothing. But I do believe Facebook does very little because they are afraid it would hurt overall revenues. And that I take issue with when dealing with people under the age of 18. I'm not one of those 'think of the children people', but I'm also not one who believes profits trump all else.
Almost as sick as blaming their death on others "bullying."
Whatever happened to holding people accountable for their actions?
Leaving aside the international question, even in the US contracts entered into by a minor are considered invalid. Facebook does nothing to try to actively restrict access to legal adults even according to US law. There is nothing legally that Facebook can do to enforce an invalid contract such as their AUP. That is the angle the Italians are taking and to me it seems a valid one.
This is a sig. This is only a sig. Had this been an actual sig you would have been informed where to tune for more sigs.
Not to seem cruel but it looks like the original problem was her being drunk in a bathroom at the age of 14.
Cruel? No. Ridiculously blaming the victim? Yes.
If you've never done anything stupid and embarrassing in front of someone else, then you've obviously lived a completely solitary life in a cave.
Or we make it an actual crime to tease someone, if that person ultimately does something to themselves.
The intent should be considered. Teasing somebody a couple of times should not be a crime, even if they kill themselves (because they were mentally unstable etc, which was unknown to the teaser). Driving somebody to suicide (be it by exploiting their mental instability in a short attack or gradually destroying their will to live over a prolonged attack) should definitely be a crime.
Unless you say that it is not possible to drive anybody to suicide, in which case I would disagree. Some people are mentally weak, a lot of others can be broken if the attacker knows how to do it.
While I never considered suicide because of bullying, I was not bullied a lot and if I snapped, I would have killed the bully first. However, I can understand how you can bully someone into committing suicide (though I still don't get why they don't at least try to take the bullies with them).
If this was your kid and she got bullied so bad she killed herself what would you do?
I might turn myself into the authorities for negligent homicide on the grounds that I raised my child so badly that they killed themselves over what are quite clearly self-esteem issues.
"His name was James Damore."
Blame is definitely on a sliding scale. Bullying is terrible, but not equivalent to homicide.
Well, you're wrong. You can't have freedom of speech if you choose to limit what people can say based on whether or not you think they're 'harassing' someone. Say "freedom of speech with exceptions" or something, but don't give it a name that implies people have actual freedom.
In which case the United States has never had Freedom of Speech, because there have always been some limits. Please tell everyone that the First Amendment is a lie.
Facebook knows that minors are signing up for the service, it's a big part of their business model. So it's hypocritical of them to think that a "click to accept" faux contract should absolve them.
At least in the USA, only minors 12 or younger need parental consent. That is the age limit set by COPPA.
'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts, yet Facebook is effectively entering into a contract with minors regarding their privacy, without their parents knowing.''
how is facebook allowing this? did facebook buy the people internet connections? did facebook force her to sign up? did facebook force her to get hammered and act a fool?
Look, i understand all the facebook hate. and a lot of it is just, no question about that. but you cant blame facebook for any of this
1. She did not use her account to post harassing videos and verbal abuse. Other Facebook users did that, so your blaming her for it makes no sense.
2. You do not know the circumstances under which she got drunk. We don't know if it was with her consent. I don't even know if it is legal for anyone to give a 14-year enough alcohol to get her drunk in Italy. 14-year olds can't CONSENT to get drunk for the same reason they can't CONSENT to have sex with adults: they are too susceptible to the influence of their elders to make responsible decisions.
3. If it is found that Facebook continued to allow other users to harass Signorina Picchio after they had been advised of the harassment, they are parties to the harassment and can be found liable for damages.
4. THIS IS NOT THE FIRST TIME A CHILD HAD KILLED HERSELF OR HIMSELF BECAUSE OF PROLONGED FACEBOOK HARASSMENT. Maybe what Facebook needs is a shot amidships about now, rather than another one across the bow.
Get a grip. Freedom of speech does not cover harrasment, and was never intended to. It's supposed to be about freedom to express your political views without fear of repercussion from the government.
Taking videos of drunk teenagers and then posting it for all to see on the internet is a gross violation of privacy, verging on criminal harrasment. Whilst the bullies are not to blame for her death, they certainly contributed.
That said it's pretty much got nothing to do with Facebook and everything to do with the parents of all of the teenagers involved - the victim and the bullies. Why were they not monitoring their children's online behavior?
To answer that question
But you didn't answer that simple straightforward and completely reasonable question. You evaded it. Anybody who had raised at least one kid through their teen years, especially someone as self-righteous as you, would say "yes I have" and "yes I did raise my kid that way and they turned out great because of it". Ergo you haven't, and ergo your comments are a bombastic joke.
Telephones are a carrier though. Facebook is more like a separate messaging service on that carrier were you can leave messages for someone. But I see your point. I'm not trying to argue. Just provide a different perspective.
So if the phones are the telegraph. The telegraph office is sub leased to Facebook. It's the company storing messages... but why expect that company to know whats on the message.
Meh that line of reasoning takes me away from thinking Facebook is the problem. The problem is clearly not on Facebooks end. Reading through this thread the people who should have criminal charges are the kids who video taped the girl without her consent. And the parents for letting the whole thing happen. Providing the kids technology without teaching them the ramifications of using that technology. At that age. Those kids should have known better. I did when I was 13.
And the girl. Who sadly did not have the interpersonal skills needed to deal with the situation. I blame her parents for that too. Though she may have been handicapped. But I highly doubt that.
I was one of those kids who needed a lot of extra care taken to help me interact with other kids in a nice way. So I don't blame the kid. I blame their guardians. Mentors, and teachers.
the Italian situation is still different. For the trespass case to be similar, you would have to have two people trespass on your property, get into a fight and then have the loser sue you for the injuries sustained during the fight.
P.S. You should really learn to limit your profanity, as it would set a bad example for any poor child you might have in the future.
Only a parent's group would be as naive is to attempt this.
Dear God, won't somebody think of the parent's group?!
Half-way seriously, consider their situation. The bullies are kids, too, so we can't blame the kids. We're a parent's group--what're we going to do, blame ourselves? I don't think so. Besides, some parent has just lost their child. They're victims and we can't blame the victims!
Let's see...who's an adult around that we can blame? AH! Facebook! Large nameless faceless corporation who is run by adults and should have known better because it is all of our responsibilities to protect our children. Yeah! It's their fault!
From TFA:
'Francesco Saluzzo, the Novara prosecutor, said he did not rule out investigating Facebook staff. He was investigating how the video had stayed online ''for days''.
''There is a procedure for asking for the removal of messages that break rules,'' he said. ''This is an open investigation without named suspects, as yet. Facebook itself is not under investigation. But we could theoretically investigate employees of Facebook who failed to respond to these requests.''
So the investigation may include whether Facebook followed it's own procedures. Quotes from the parents' oganisation are not quotes from the legal authorities.
Oh, I see. Facebook failed to have bots watching all posts for suicide threats and procedures in place to alert the local authorities and then reach through the computer to detain the poster.
Given those failings, Facebook really is to blame. At least in the eyes of the logically challenged or fantasy world inhabiting.
Please tell everyone that the First Amendment is a lie.
The first amendment is not a lie. The only lie would be someone saying that the government follows the constitution.
Did you ever stand up for yourself? Fight back?
Sure, the awkward 120lb bookish loner is going to beat up the 4 180lb jocks who literally walk all over him.
Sometimes you can stand up to the bullys. Sometimes not.
Teach children to have self esteem and know that what other people think doesn't really matter, and nothing a bully does can affect them.
And you are back in your ivory tower.
If bullies know that you will fight back or that they have no power over you, they will move on.
Yeah. Sure. If one has to deal with the wimpiest bullies going. Their are other ones out there, ones that don't care if you fight back because they'll kick your ass. And you can't take away their 'power' over you, because its real. They'll arbitrarily decide when you enter a room, when you leave it, by blocking the door and taunting you. They'll take your stuff, or push you around. They'll ensure you are ostracized at every opportunity. School is a social environment... you frequently need to be in pairs, partners, groups, teams, etc. They'll make sure that's hell. That you aren't welcome. That anyone who goes anywhere near you suffers.
I've encountered bullies like that, I myself didn't bear the brunt of it -- I had enough friends that although unpopular with the bully crowd I had enough support that fighting back was possible. But others weren't so fortunate, and I know of at least one guy whose parents ultimately had to move and get him into a new school district so he could get a fresh start.* I moved some years later, and bumped into him again -- he'd been able to make good on the fresh start.
*Not even sure that would work with today's facebook profile following you everywhere.
I moved again midway through highschool and was astonished at the school district I landed it. It was so tame relative to where I grew up; the "bullying" there ... sure "standing up for yourself" and "ignoring them" were perfectly viable strategies.
But in the school district I came from... the kid who tried to "stand up for himself and fight back" went home with cigarette burns on his arms. And the perpetrators had already circulated rumors that 'the faggot' had done it to himself to try and get attention.
The kids dad? A police officer.
There's a good reason schools are trying hard to address the bullying problem. It can be a HELL of a lot worse than anything you seem to have experience with.
I might turn myself into the authorities for negligent homicide on the grounds that I raised my child so badly that they killed themselves over what are quite clearly self-esteem issues.
Another one. You have raised at least one child through their teen years, right?
I've heard this argument before. What content is actually "harmful"? At what point does the nudity stop being National Geographic and start becoming Penthouse? It's the age old question of "what is pornography?" and it's response: "Whatever turns the judge on". You can't define what's "harmful", because it's different for every damned kid. Some kids know and understand sarcasm and some don't (gee, just like adults!) Some kids don't like abusive humor and other kids thrive on it (again, just like adults! It's amazing how this is lining up...) Some kids take external factors personally, while some kids don't (holy shit, three in a row!). PEOPLE are all different, and you can't ever legislate enough to account for the fringes of the bell curve...not without completely eliminating the fundamental human component.
I agree with a lot of the sentiments you're expressing, and your post is fairly eloquent and articulate. The only minor and unfortunate gripe I have is that it has almost nothing to do with the particular topic being discussed.
Not using it is the solution.
It's not complicated, it costs nothing, and your life will not
be negatively impacted in any way.
I am an employer of several hundred people, and one of the questions
asked of potential new hires is whether they use Facebook or not.
If they answer yes, we find some reason they are not suited to the job,
and they don't get hired. This is because I like to hire smart independent minded
people, not sheep.
I agree with you on hypocrisy. We really need international agreements on the internet but I don't trust the international community very much. In any case the USA generally enforces international laws like money laundering on foreign websites.
I don't want it both ways. I want the US government to be told to go fuck itself if it tries to apply US law to a foreign site.
So if you don't explicitly prevent people from other countries from using your service, your service is subject to the laws of every country your users hail from? That's going to get ugly real fast.
They do not need to block Facebook. They will sue Facebook and as Facebook is doing business in their jurisdiction, Facebook will have to pay. There is no option. Or do you think that America will want to waive it's right to sue foreign businesses the to business in America?
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
But you didn't answer that simple straightforward and completely reasonable question. You evaded it. Anybody who had raised at least one kid through their teen years, especially someone as self-righteous as you, would say "yes I have" and "yes I did raise my kid that way and they turned out great because of it". Ergo you haven't, and ergo your comments are a bombastic joke.
You're attacking the messenger, not the message. Whether or not I'm a parent has absolutely dick to do with whether or not my statements are correct. You may think it matters. Many people think it matters. But it doesn't; The truth is the truth, irrespective of who says it. And that, sir, is why the ad hominem is a logical fallacy, and why I didn't see a need to dignify yours with a direct response so you could sound your trumpet and say "See! See! This one isn't a parent yet, so we can safely ignore everything she said!"
You haven't attacked a single point I've made, nor even disagreed with it. All you're doing is hand waves and personal attacks... and the fact that even one person modded you up suggests that critical thinking skills here on Slashdot continue to fall precipitously and are being rapidly supplanted by feel-good but empty irrational discourse.
Speaking of critical thinking skills; here's some extra support for what I've been saying (and you haven't);
Zero tolerance policies are ineffective, most bullying isn't online but in real life, and bullying online often follows from the same, that the primary risk factor for bullying is being socially marginalized, and the correlation between bullying and suicide is tenuous at best. Source
Zero tolerance policies were demanded by parents who wanted to address the symptom (bullying), not the problem (their child). Bullying can be greatly managed by teach the child to defend his/herself, something that teachers, administrators, and legislators are loathe to admit, but every psychologist will tell you is important. Confronting your attacker is therapudic, even after the fact -- it's where the phrase "getting your day in court" comes from. Anti-bullying strategies must be taught by the parents; For both political and social reasons, it cannot be done by the government. As far as being socially marginalized; While a parent cannot entirely prevent this, they can lend emotional support. As any member of the LGBT community will tell you, parental support makes dealing with coming out and social marginalization, isolation, etc., a great deal easier. Every advocacy group, every psychologist, every support group will tell you this. Parental involvement is the salve to the wound of bullying, not government intervention. It's supported in study after study that parental involvement and influence has an enormous bearing on a child's emotional and mental state. And speaking of that, the lack of correlation between suicide and bullying? That points to these teens already having significant mental illness. Well, where were the parents? It's not like depression isn't treatable.
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
More importantly, Facebook has money and the bullies are probably broke. It's also highly likely that the bullies are kids, and can't be sued because they're under legal age.
So the parents are going for whatever money they can get.
Shame on them. Begging for blood money from an organization that's not at fault.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Among others, you have to use your own name
I never signed up for FB, so I don't know - do they require an official verification that your name is what you say it is? I read that Google did such a thing, and was once given a photoshopped driver's license of James T. Kirk - and accepted it.
If they don't, there is an infinite supply of real names that are free for borrowing, from any culture and in any language.
The Republicans would love this. Obama would have to make himself and his entire staff open to being deposed, and all related documents,emails, etc related to the topic would have to be made available to the Republicans.
Interesting that she was from Steubenville, Ohio and got into porn after she was raped at age 10.
Sounds like that place has had issues for a while now.
Sara
Designer, Gamer, Macgrrl in an XP World
Something which is sadly too lacking in today's world. It seems all too often that people today are too ready to push all blame and responsibility on others, instead of looking to fix their problems starting with themselves.
Facebook commits many evils, but killing Carolina Picchio is not one of them. I would instead point the finger at the boys who made the post, their parents who brought them up, their teachers who failed to teach them bullying is despicable, the community they live in which allowed the bullying to carry on.
Blaming Facebook is blaming a tool for the faults of its user. So should we ban cars because they cause car accidents? Knives because they have been used to murder others?
Take responsibility for your own faults.
'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts, yet Facebook is effectively entering into a contract with minors regarding their privacy, without their parents knowing.''
how is facebook allowing this? did facebook buy the people internet connections? did facebook force her to sign up? did facebook force her to get hammered and act a fool?
Since the base of the suit is: "FB entered into a contract with minors", here are some choices:
1. Assuming FB maintains their ToS (which acts as a binding contract), it should avoid entering in contract with minors. Question: how are others (e.g. porn sites) making sure underage persons don't have access?
2. Assuming FB drops their ToS, thus no binding contract whatsoever, minors or not. Question: should FB still be allowed to operate?
Can you see other solutions allowing FB to operate under legislation forbidding the binding contracts with minors?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
No, neither of you did because you weren't pushed enough. This makes you luckier than others not superior, as you'd like to believe.
Everyone has a tipping point. All it takes is to destroy all of a person's hope.
Happy people make bad consumers.
More importantly, Facebook has money and the bullies are probably broke. It's also highly likely that the bullies are kids, and can't be sued because they're under legal age.
So the parents are going for whatever money they can get.
Shame on them. Begging for blood money from an organization that's not at fault.
Couldn't agree with this more. The parents dont want justice, they just want cash.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
I was not bullied a lot and if I snapped, I would have killed the bully first.
Those are related items. The willingness to seriously hurt the bully is a major factor in bullies choosing someone else for their sadist exercises. Usually there is a suitable victim available.
In my experience, bullying ends just about the time when young people learn to defend themselves by dealing an unacceptable damage to the offender. Shortly after that bullying stops altogether because the victim can make a single phone call to the police and cause a ton of pain to the bully. Only children cannot call the police, and only children cannot carry a legal folder. A young man can do both.
Not a contradiction. Most of the Web does not require an explicit contract. You just go to the site and read the information. A small percentage of the Web does have an explicit contract that you accept by clicking that button. Some sites are in between; Slashdot is such a site. It has a contract, somewhere, but nobody reads it. It has accounts, but it doesn't verify anything that you put there. But you don't need to have an account to use the site, even for posting.
In the end, it will be judged by the fact whether FB had a certain duty, and they failed at that duty. I suspect FB has no duty to watch users' videos.
It seems that for FB to operate in Italy, it must not allow underage entering in a binding contract without the accept of the parents - I suspect Italy is not the odd one out in this regards.
With regard to the contract, I am not sure if there was a contract.
IANAL: a "Term of Services" seems to be a binding contract of the adhesion kind: if you break it, the owner of a site is entitled to sue you in civil courts, isn't it? Some countries even criminalize some kinds of such contract breaches (i.e. makes some of them felonies, not only making liable the perpetrator to damages in civil courts)... even letting the "Lulsec" and other such cases, at least this is how I read the Aaron Swartz story.
If this is the case (the company can sue you over ToS breaches), why the same ToS can't be used for someone to sue the company?
Am I wrong? If so, where?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
I'm surprised they aren't suing the camera it was recorded with.
How is Facebook operating in Italy?
Perhaps by having a sales office in Milan?
Blank until
I think this video sums it up nicely.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z_ZiRT8Nwkk
An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
I was responding to your claim that "there was absolutely no relationship between Facebook and the girl".
sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f(q{sub f{($f)=@_;print"$f(q{$f});";}f});
While it is an embarassment, a person who is ready to end it all over such an embarassment has much bigger problems. People have endured sexual abuse, rape, and other awful insults without ending their lives. Some times thay have emotional scars, but many of us do.
This will probably involve more embarassment and pain to the family, as this probably disturbed young lady has her past dissected publicly.
Because if we adopt an idea of X happens,(facebook posting) and person kills themselves, then Facebook must be punished, then it becomes silly season, when something like a student accidentally farting in class might be posted, and declared to be the cause of the student's consequent suicide.
All of this is to say, perhaps the school system, the expectations, and the mental health aspects are more to be investigated than some silly adolescent activities on Facebook. Do those things foster an expectation of perfection? A sort of one strike and you're out world, which coupled with a teenager's normal adolescent anxieties, makes some people feel boxed in and feel as if they cannot ever fail? That any transgression or embarassment is deserving of the death penalty?
Nahhh, let's blame FaceBook. It's easier, and doesn't conflict with our "Isn't there some way this can be your fault?" outlook on life.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
"clicking I agree" IS NOT THE SAME AS "signing a contract". it has ZERO value in real life.
This makes you luckier than others not superior
Well, if someone is difficult to harm emotionally, I would consider that a serious advantage.
Everyone has a tipping point.
Which may be extremely high or extremely low, depending on the person. For all you know, the one you just replied to could have went through extremely severe bullying.
All it takes is to destroy all of a person's hope.
If you're so fragile that someone can destroy your hopes without putting much effort into it, I'd say you (as well as the one bothering to do such a thing in the first place) are on the insane side.
That depends on what you think qualifies as "bullying." You're merely defining it in such a way that allows you to proclaim that anyone who is against bullying is a hypocrite.
What a terribly shallow view to have.
Day of scheduled suicide: February 8th 2013, my birthday
Yes, let's just throw in some emotions to obfusciate the real question: Is filing a criminal complaint against Facebook the right reaction? The parents claim it is because they failed to prevent "cyberbullying". Unfortunately, there is absolutely no evidence to support a link between suicide and bullying. As it so happens, suicide is the result of mental illness, and the DSM-V doesn't have anything listed for "recipient of mean words". Because it's a mental illness that's the cause here, specifically untreated depression, I'm going to have to turn that finger right back around at the parents. Well, what did you do when you noticed your daughter was depressed?
While her son was in the hospital on a psych hold,
she had this website created for him: http://lettersfornoah.com/about-noah.html
Awwww, a completely unrelated but tragic tale to distract us from objectively thinking about this and instead give in to irrational emotional impulses. I'll stick with the scientific method, kthxbai.
I realize you're still a girl in training, but sooner or later you're going to have to learn that the world isn't so nearly as black and white as you've made it out to be.
An ad hominem attack. Stay classy, 'Tubesteak'. (-_-) With a nickname like that, you're hardly one to diss someone else's choice.
Or maybe you'll write a letter to Noah and explain to him that his depression and isolation is all his parents' fault.
To a significant degree... it is. It has a strong genetic correlation; it runs in families. But let's ignore the science for a minute, that seems to be more in character with the NuSlash(tm) residents like yourself that have been filling this place up since it sold out to Dice...
#fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
The discussions over bullying puts too much focus on the bully (what makes someone a bully?) and not enough on the bullied (what makes people prone to being bullied?).
The simple truth is that if you are a kid who's sensitive, can't laugh at yourself, or are embarrassed easily, then you're definitely going to get bullied. Other kids will sense your weakness and jump on you like a pack of wolves. The best advice for bully-prone kids is not to "stand up" to bullies. If you're doing that, you've already lost. You need to accept what you are and be comfortable with it.
Comedians say it best. Fast forward to 3:10:
http://media.mtvnservices.com/embed/mgid:uma:videolist:mtv.com:1689785
Dwarves speaking to bastards explain it pretty well, too.
Hmmmmm. Are you disagreeing with me? Because there is not one thing you wrote that argues against my point.
People who do a lot of bullying can put a lot of effort into it. Insane? Hardly. It gives them more popularity, improves their mood when they're suffering by pushing the suffering on someone else, gives them the joy of controlling their environment (the bullied), and there is very little chance they'll receive much punishment for it if any. It's quite rational behavior. Awful maybe, but hardly insane.
Also, if you're bullied and you don't get enough support from family or good friends to believe things will ever get better, losing hope is a rational response when there isn't enough evidence to suggest any is coming.
Happy people make bad consumers.
No contract can be deemed valid if it was made by a party who is not qualified to make contracts. Your child cannot hire a servant. If the child calls and a servant, being misled, comes and does work, s/he is entitled to compensation, but she cannot stay employed.
In this case, if the video poster misrepresented his age then yes, FB is entitled to some remedy. The most obvious one is to terminate future services. If the poster caused harm to FB (not really) then FB could sue for that. I cannot think of anything else that would stick. FB's servers are running, and no sysadmin got injured. The FB's name may be dragged through the mud, but that's not the first time.
Now, the underage poster cannot sue FB because there was never a contract. Whatever he accepted when he made a FB account is null and void. If FB caused *him* any damage, he is free to sue (through proper representation) but here I don't see any grounds for that.
In other words, either party is only entitled to compensation of expenses that resulted from an invalid contract. A company could have purchased materials, hired people, etc. - this costs money. But if a child ordered airplane tickets to fly to Florida and play at Disneyland, when he fails to receive those tickets he has no grounds to sue the airline, even if until the last moment everyone believed that the contract is good.
Now, let's see if a valid contract makes a difference. It certainly does, because now those ToS are active - you both agreed, and it is legally binding, that you will follow them. Then yes, either side can sue the other side for the breach. Web companies rarely, if ever, sue (or get sued) because there is usually very little at stake.
The case of Aaron Swartz is somewhat different because he was charged with "wire fraud, computer fraud, unlawfully obtaining information from a protected computer and recklessly damaging a protected computer." It was alleged that he jumped through uncommon hoops to get access: "The authorities say Swartz downloaded the documents through a laptop connected to a networking switch in a controlled-access wiring closet." In this case of FB, nobody hacked anything, and no spy-fu was required - everyone just asked nicely, and they were given accounts. At most, one can allege theft of service, but that won't fly if the service was lawfully obtained through a valid contract with an adult.
But none of that matters if an entirely unrelated party, like the Italian prosecutor, wants to sue FB. The ToS is hardly relevant here because the Italian people did not sign those. What did they sign? They signed the corporate charter of FB, if it operates as an Italian company. That placed FB under the Italian law, and the Italy can sue per their domestic laws.
If FB is not an Italian company then they don't have jurisdiction. The prosecutor has to go to the court that does have it (somewhere in the USA, I presume) and, probably, allege a wrongdoing according to the US law. Otherwise the US court will not listen. Other countries may have weird laws, like prohibition of alcohol in Saudi Arabia. They are not entitled to barge in here and ask US courts to incarcerate pretty much everyone in the USA.
In this case, the Italian side will have to show that a violation of US law by FB likely occurred. Essentially they would report a crime to US authorities. This is super unlikely here.
A civil case would be much easier. For example, if you borrowed money from an Italian and refuse to return, the creditor can probably (IANAL) sue you in the US court. But I don't see how such a thing could fit here - Italy and FB (wholly US based) have no contracts between them that need to be arbitrated.
But I am not a lawyer, and I may know nothing about how the law really works. I am only testing the keyboard - as far as anyone knows :-)
And yet the US is adamant in it's right to enforce it's laws on internet presences that are not based in the US because they are used by US citizens. You can't have it both ways.
But we (the general public) don't want it that way. We want it one way, where there are boarders and jurisdictions between countries.
“Common sense is not so common.” — Voltaire
I can see some level headed justification here... Though it's historically known that Govt. services constantly get the process wrong and like to blame other parties without having a good hard look at themselves before doing so.
On one hand I see Facebook is just like any other communication service. I.E email. If I sent abusive emails to X person then the police went and placed criminal charges on the developers of Exim, that seems hardly fair. On the other hand with Facebook it's akin to an email box except that everyone whose' my friend can read what's in it (and THEN some!).
So the question is who holds the power in this kind of situation? me the account holder, Facebook itself, or local law enforcement?
I can switch off my account or delete posts on my wall at any time but that wont stop the bullying. I cannot prevent the posts within the communities established within Facebook (other walls and Facebook pages) which I can see is the same as say someone verbally abusing me on the street. I can go in my house (block the person) but it doesn't stop the person from ranting and raving out the front of my house, that is, until the police show up.
That's my justification for this and though I wouldn't like to see this issue escalate to criminal charges placed on Facebook. FaceBook is in fact preventing law enforcement to keep the peace in this situation by preventing them from doing their job.
How do we fix that? I'd say its a two sides of the coin issue myself and are we going to hire a Govt appointed 911 for Facebook over this?
Because it seems to me your central assumption is: FB did not entered in a contract with minors in Italy, because any such contract would be automatically void thus unenforceable.
Now, I don't know for sure, but what if the law says: "It is prohibited to offer a minor a binding contract without the consent of the legal guardians"? Much on the same line of: "It is illegal to hire a child" even when the child would be willing (and even when the kid's parent would approve)?
Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
How the fuck can a social website be held responsible for what people share, especially in another country?
I've got better things to do tonight than die.
(A bit off-topic and undoing my mods, but what the hell.)
sure, blame the pot because my handle is Ganjadude, negating the fact that I made this handle when I was in my teens...
I too have undergone a couple of reboots since this account was created.
You'll need to come up with a new backstory to explain the nickname. :)
(And since I am obviously joking, I hope you'll take seriously what I'm saying.)
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
I'm just going to say it: If you kill yourself before you procreate, that is a good thing. Keeps such self destructive genes out of the pool. I've battled with self destructive thoughts, and went though some truly heinous shit as a kid to get to that point. Yet, I survived. I've been beaten as a minority (the only caucasoid in an otherwise all black boot-camp disguised as a rehab run by Quanell X (the leader of the new Black Panther Party in H-town), who was sneaked the other kids out at night to a recording studio where the stars were installed in their eyes and their hearts were filled with hateful militant islamic views. The late night meetings were about, "Hating them crackers, as usual". You can't imagine the level of harassment.
Was the poor girl mocked? So was I. Was she beaten? No? I was. Was she raped? I have been, yet I still survived. If your mind is that weak, then good riddance. The world is better off without your genetic contributions. We've got humans to spare. May the most fit to survive do so.
What part did Facebook play in this girl offing herself? Well, what part did my parents play in the abuse I received at the hands of others? NONE. Deal with it. It was my choice not to be so stupid as to end my life. No force in this universe can cause you to take your own life. That is the one thing you can only blame yourself for. Her parents should blame her, and failing that, themselves, for their flawed parenting skills and bad genes. Certainly not a Internet Service.
I mean, fuck Facebook, but to file criminal charges based on some dumb hairless apes teasing each other with a fucking video? Get bent.
A contract, a real life contract, needs a real signature on a real piece of paper
I don't know about Italy specifically, but in most places you do not need a piece of paper with hand written signatures to have a contract. Paper contracts are used for "important" stuff because it offers a simple way for proving afterwards that there indeed was a contract and what it's terms were.
If a written contract was necessary, how would two illiterate people agree on things?
Bullies learn this from their parents. And there are lot of parents who laugh at everyone who is weaker, looks stranger, etc. etc. And that without natural assumption that children are well...cruel by nature. They learn what's hurt and what's not trough learning. If they have "very good" examples, result is death of the girl.
It should be done in two steps - first, bullies should feel really uncomfortable about what they did for whole life, that's will keep them in check. Second, we must educate our children how to shut it off. I was seriously bullied as kid because I was strange, emotional, etc. I couldn't stand it, but at one point in my life, I just decided to switch it off. It caused other problems in the end, but I was no bullied anymore. I survived.
And let's educate our children talk to us. That's first step.
user@ubuntubox:~$ stfu This server is going down for shutdown NOW!
Given facebook has offices in numerous other countries, it quite possibly does have an obligation to comply with some of the laws of other nations (at least if it doesn't want its assets and personnel in those countries put at risk). The office in Milan, Italy for example.
Sorry but if they don't have offices and servers in Italy I don't see how Italian law applies, if you wanna go that route than every country on the planet would have to support DMCA and our insane-o copyright laws since hey! I can access their sites from here.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
"A human can only take so much abuse before they crack; juvenille minds even more so."
Take Aaron Swartz for example. In some people, stress can send their neuro-endocrine system (HPA axis) into a tail spin that leads to extreme changes in metal health. The question which I'm asking is should this be considered manslaughter, or even murder if her bullies new she had a predisposition for this type of response?
Lithium, in practically any dosage, would have prevented this tragedy. It's one of the few anti-suicidal agents known to man, and it also acts as sort of a prophylactic buffer in individuals with stress induced HPA axis disregulation.
I'm not sure if Facebook is an Italian company, but it is registered in Ireland, so all of the EU directives apply to them (codified in Irish law).
Dilbert RSS feed
If they're seriously claiming people under 18 years of age can not sign up to internet services or the service hosting company is legally liable, they're leading towards banning any people from using online services from that country. Age verification - how, scan and send in a driver's license/ID? Seriously? Is that even sufficient proof? How else would a company escape liability for offering an online service that may be abused in some way. It seems like this "parent's association" is not only overreaching in terms of who is responsible, but really - facebook? Are they the internet police? If something violates their terms, they remove it - if they are refusing to remove content that is either illegal or in violation of their terms..then they may be a target for legal action. I don't think this is the case here.
Well, of course I cannot be sure. I don't even think most US lawyers know how to deal with this because this is an international matter that involves a multinational (?) company. I just use logic - even though it is known that logic and law are not necessarily the same.
"It is illegal to hire a child"
Nobody can be expected to do a miracle or to demonstrate omniscience. If a young man walks into your business, shows a document that is seemingly valid, and the document says he is an adult - then he *is* an adult, as far as a mere mortal can be concerned. You do your due diligence; not more and not less.
How can a foreign Web site verify that you are an adult? And, by the way, who are *you* to begin with? By what identity? Chinese people have several identities for different use, for example. Also, you'd be an adult per laws of what country? Per the country where the Web server is? Per the country where the FB headquarters are? Per the country that you are a citizen of? Per the country that you are visiting? Those are important differences. Just the difference in marriage age can mean that a family that is man and wife on this side of the border are a a child and a child rapist on another.
That's why I think the question is complex enough. However the law is expected to be universally reasonable. If a villain changes all speed signs from 50 to 70 on a certain road, you cannot be guilty of speeding just because you cannot be expected to be a psychic. You did everything in your power that any reasonable person would do. If someone fools a remote Web site by using a stolen or fake ID, there is nothing that the Web site can do to stop you - especially if that is a foreign ID. Outside of international passports, there is no standard for such IDs. You need a personal digital certificate, with biometrics, to be sure - and even then all you can be sure of is that the owner of the digital certificate was somehow involved. For all they know, it might be just his stolen USB key and his finger that they cut off from the body. It's damn hard to authenticate anyone. Just ask Judge Dredd about that.
If they are not POWs, and not criminals, why're those people still held captive?
And what law makes it legal to kill anyone who's not a POW (which effectively means "almost anyone")?
Even if they didn't, Italy would probably manage to find some scapegoat anyway. Wasn't Italy the country who decided to jail some more or less random Google employees because a video of bullying had been posted on YouTube? Since all of the people responsible for YouTube were in other countries, they picked some employees with zero connection to YouTube instead.
Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
Facebook is an american company
freedom of speech, even speech we dont like is legal
i feel bad for the girl being bullied but i dont blame anyone for their death who kills themselves except for them.
Well, they are doing business in italy.
As DOJ has showed us recently, if a random packets get to your country, you have jurisdiction over the country packet came from.
Thus, italy has jurisdiction.
Easy.
Maybe you should read the Wikipedia page on contract law before spouting off such nonsense.
:. Ultimate Control Dedicated/VM Servers
Look at your URL.
Facebook opend an AD SALE office in Milan. That may or may not be a "real" facebook office, but honestly, after hearing about Googles and Apples tax tactics, would anyone be surprised if this was just the office of a rather independant ad-selling company and not anywhere near a position that may have to do with running the facebook website?
bickerdyke
This really sound more as parents fail than anyone others. Especially Facebook. Parents should teach their kids to come to them when something like this happens. And if it happens then help them resolve the problem.
The fact that bullying messages are posted on social netwrok sites can be used as easy evidence against bullies. Just remember how it was before all the electronic stuff wass available. The bullies met you somewhere and threatened you. And you had nothing to prove that he was threatening you. Nowadays you just pulls out message from your phone, e-mail, or whatever way was used and goes after bully. The problem is how it will be handled. Usually reporting bullies will backfire at you. So you should be prepared for that.
Just one question. How did 14 year old get drunk in the first place?
DSM-V doesn't have anything listed for "recipient of mean words"
That's quite surprising, considering the amount of fluff included in the latest version. Don't worry though, chances of something like that being included in a future revision are quite high. (snark is good against depression - see what i did here? regardless, please do keep in mind that it's not polite to bring DSM-V into a serious conversation. if it really must be done, use an earlier version)
It's not easy. Nothing in life ever is. But it's worth it... and you have something I didn't -- a mother that cares. Lean on her until you can stand up straight again. [*] You're a survivor. You can do this.
(* Skipping irrelevant bits)
Hmm. I would be quite tempted to hit you with some more snark for this part, but that would be ill played considering the rest of that paragraph. Still, you might want to consider your own earlier words:
People will tell you that you have to try harder, or just "will" yourself to be happy. You and I both know that's stupid
so simply saying You're a survivor. You can do this. is ... well, you get the idea. Any depressive that's not on medication will ask you a simple question: why? and demolish that argument. If you truly want to write that kind of letter and not just bandy words on /. consider the problem of choice - the lack of it, specifically. Depressives often enough have one way of coping with a situation, and it's a way that is (shall we say) inadequate; hence, the lack of alternatives is a big part of the problem. And depression is not exactly the most find-other-ways-enabling state of mind. I would humbly suggest, as an alternative approach, showing (not talking about) alternatives, even for minor things. To paraphrase a dead French pilot who wrote about little princes, I can describe for you the view from a mountaintop and you'll never have an image for it if you never saw it, but if I bring you there, you'll see it and you'll have your own image. The best thing imho that one can do for a depressive is enable choices. And if, given several choices, suicide still follows, then maybe a life had to come to its end, and these things can happen if you place any value on freedom of choice. But sadly it sounds as if this boy had none.
Ah, and one more thing. I would submit that it's not exactly the brain trying to kill anyone here. Brain cells and their activity suffer quite a bit in a depressive, and I'd count the brain as a victim as well. But that's just a personal opinion.
even in the US contracts entered into by a minor are considered invalid.
You're incorrect. In the US, minors can enter into contracts, but up until their 18th birthday, they can unilaterally rescind any contracts entered into while they were a minor for any reason. As such, one can enter into contracts with minors so long as one accepts the risk therein. Once a minor hits 18, any contracts entered into while they were a minor become fully enforceable unless they've already rescinded them.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
FB has an obligation to abide by the law of any country in which they do business.
That sounds sensible and logical. But who did business with who?
So that italian girl did business with an american website.... Sounds like that girl should fall under US law wich IIRC has regulations about minors signing up to websites. (COPA with a minimum age of 13, right?) Did the girl come to facebook or did facebook come to the girl to "sign that contract".
bickerdyke
http://techcrunch.com/2009/10/26/facebook-opens-its-first-ad-sales-office-in-italy/
Facebook have an office in Italy. They are actively doing business in Italy.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
The difference between Facebook and the newspaper example is that only the newspaper makes a conscious, educated decision to publish the content. Facebook does not moderate content prior to publishing in the same sense an ISP does not moderate traffic. Arguing that Facebook is liable for what its users posts in the hope it will prevent such a tragedy is just reactionary and short-sighted.
You seem awfully confident about the good sense of a legal system that orders 60 year old men to continue paying an allowance to their 30-something kids.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/jan/17/italian-adults-living-at-home
Or that decides parents must continue supporting their kids until they find a job that "fits their aspirations".
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2002/apr/06/philipwillan
The judges said a parent's duty of maintenance did not expire when their children reached adulthood, but continued unchanged until they were able to prove either that their children had reached economic independence or had failed to do so through culpable inertia. An adult son who refused work that did not reflect his training, abilities and personal interests could not be held to blame.
"You cannot blame a young person, particularly from a well-off family, who refuses a job that does not fit his aspirations," the judges said.
Facebook could well be fucked.
-- "Government is the great fiction through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else."
It seems you are referring to those seismologists who were sentenced for "not having predicted the L'Aquila earthquake". This is not correct: they were sentenced, and rightly so, for having misled the public that there was a certainty that no earthquake was going to happen. That's different from saying that there was no certainty it was going to happen. Their (very public) statements convinced many to return to their homes, and die there when the earthquake happened.
It seems you are referring to the fact that in Italy prosecutors can appeal an acquittal. This is a possibility in any European country I know of. If anything, the US is special in that new information cannot be used to reopen a case after the defendant has been pronounced innocent only one time.
Why actually there is one. He has dodged a lot but he was sentenced for tax evasion (same as Al Capone, guess what) and already lost an appeal. There is a very real chance he will be convicted in the last degree of appeal this year and will be automatically thrown out of the Parliament. While of course he should have gone to jail long ago, and flaws in the Italian system allowed him to get off scot-free on many an occasion, but prosecutors in the Italian system have not given him preferential treatment for being a powerful politicial.
On the other hand, I have not heard about a single US prosecutor indicting G. W. Bush for starting a war of aggression. That's way worse than tax evasion, corruption, rape or murder. That's the same crime of Nuremberg. Same goes for indicting Dick Cheney for aiding and abetting torture, international kidnapping ring (known as "extraordinary renditions"), or Obama for international terrorism (because that's what drone strikes are).
The US system still practices death penalty, and is based on Common Law (just a notch above tribal law). The Italian system, for all its shortcomings, is not going to get you killed. Also, in lawsuits, the losing part can be and often is sentenced to pay for the other part's legal costs, so frivolous lawsuits are much less common than in the US. Thank you very much, we will keep our Roman-Napoleonic code.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
And please note that the "parents' association" MOIGE is a nutjob organisation of Catholic fundamentalists, in the same basket as the Westboro Baptist Church. They are doing this only to acquire visibility in the bigot arena.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Has facebook any business presence in Italy ? Yes. Well tough luck now facebook has to respect italian law, or forfeit any future benefit of the Italian market. And frankly they should forfeit past benefit too if they did not want to respect the law of the country they were doing business in.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
You clearly value your conscience and/or your good name more than you value squeezing every drop of money out of every country you come into contact with.
But remember, it also costs money to enforce every countries stupid, ignorant, arrogant demands.
Fuck them. When their populations find their logins blocked with a page saying "Because of foolish demands by your government, we are unable to bring you this service." the democratic nations will change their tune pretty fast. The non-democratic ones? Fuck with them the opposite way; set up proxy servers and VPNs for people in those countries to get the Facebook they want.
In the free world the media isn't government run; the government is media run.
Because it seems to me your central assumption is: FB did not entered in a contract with minors in Italy, because any such contract would be automatically void thus unenforceable.
Contracts with minors are not void. They are _voidable_ by the minor and their guardian, but not by the other party if that party is an adult. The minor _can_ enforce the contract if they wish to do so. The other party can't because the minor can void the contract.
Firstly, I would have had my kid involved in extracurricular activities, had them assisting in chores and other things, and developed in them a sense of self-reliance and independence.
I did plenty of chores and sport and it never solved any bullying problems for me.
Such self-reliance would include self-defense classes; No girl should fear that a boy will assault her.
Given opponents of equal fighting skill the larger will tend to win. Not always but it's the way to bet. Being trained to fight to a higher level than your potential opponents is a good way for an individual to overcome bullying but on a larger scale won't solve bullying but can change who the bullies are. There is also a lot of bullying that isn't physical. How do you use self defense classes to combat embarrassing pictures on facebook?
Secondly, I'd track down the parents of the child bullying and explain the situation to them verbally and in person. If the parents didn't step up to the plate, I would explain to them in a non-verbal way my disappointment in their lack of parenting.
<snip>
If I'm angry enough to fight someone, they're going to be facing me and they're going to be armed. And then they're going to lose.
So you'll talk to the parents and if they don't respond to your satisfaction you'll fight them to the death? Unless I've misunderstood, I think you need to revise this plan. If you win, it ends with you in prison and bullies doing whatever they like to your child while you are occupied with much tougher bullies.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Sorry but if they don't have offices and servers in Italy I don't see how Italian law applies,
If an Italian court decides that a crime has happened, and that a company is responsible, then I don't think it makes any difference where the company resides. And it doesn't matter whether there was any contract between company and victim either.
I'd been reading it as "patents". I thought this was another story about that everyday, routine kind of litigation. Been a long day...
Well yes, it would be an ad sales office, that's Facebook's business. And judging by Facebook's own careers page and the statement in this article where a US representative of Facebook says they pay taxes on their business activities in Italy, it would appear that it is indeed Facebook. Unless you can point to evidence to the contrary, your counterpoint is unfounded speculation at best.
I would also suggest that selling ads means it has at least some control over the site's content, regardless of whether the actual servers are located there.
Blank until
That's the problem, let's imagine you are MyReal Name, and you go out and speak at conferences and everybody knows you as MyNickname and even your badge states "MyNickname, Conference freek"... What's the freaking point of having a FB account using your real ID name?!! This is a big pile of nonsense (and I haven't even told you who does the modding...)
it wasn't facebook who posted the posts either, it was the bullies.. ..and as sad it is ultimately it was the parents fault. for letting to get drunk(fairly normal, you can't control a 14 year old in that respect) and for providing an environment where something like that was worth killing yourself over.
world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
He attacked your point that it is possible for the parent to be responsible for everything.
In your first post you didn't provide any reasoning for this opinion. It was just your opinion that parents are responsible. It isn't possible to attack an opinion like that with any real argument. Besides, now you are digging up "zero tolerance" as a straw man alternative to "parents are responsible for everything". I bet it must feel good beating that straw man while giving a lecture on logical fallacies.
Yes. speculation. But an example why discussions about the applicable laws are also speculation unless we know know about the legal basics of FB's various agencys, local offices and alike.
And IIRC, in a similar case about data privacy, FB claimed that solely the Irish branch is responsible for operating the website.
bickerdyke
how Facebook allowed the publication of insults and bullying posts So Facebook should moderate everything that gets through? It's their fault that they allowed a video to remain there? Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts But she *faked* her age! She entered a contract that she shouldn't have entered in the first place. So how on earth is Facebook responsible for this incident?
It's got everything to do with FB, because it's a corporation (=evil, plus they are American =extra evil) with deep pockets. The bullies are teenagers themselves; there's not a whole lot the parents are going to get out of them in terms of money or a morally satisfying punishment. So they turn to the next target that'll give them the most satisfction.
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
You should read some books on child psychology, you will get a bit of a shock.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Another one. You have raised at least one child through their teen years, right?
I take it from your comment that you have. What, apart from your ego makes you believe that you did a remotely good job of it?
Merely having done something once does not act as any guarantee that you (a) did a good job of it or (b) are now an expert in it.
Nevertheless I have not encountered a group so self-righteous as other parents.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
The phone company also does not make money ads by broadcasting said crap to everyone in the world.
Analogy shot down!
MMO Quests are like orgasms:
You may solo them, I prefer them in a group.
It seems you are referring to those seismologists who were sentenced for "not having predicted the L'Aquila earthquake". This is not correct: they were sentenced, and rightly so, for having misled the public that there was a certainty that no earthquake was going to happen. That's different from saying that there was no certainty it was going to happen. Their (very public) statements convinced many to return to their homes, and die there when the earthquake happened.
What very public statements by the scientists themselves?
http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110601/full/474015a.html
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Did you ever stand up for yourself? Fight back?
Sure, the awkward 120lb bookish loner is going to beat up the 4 180lb jocks who literally walk all over him.
I didn't say beat them up, I said fight back. It doesn't matter if you are going to lose, you are going to lose anyway if you don't. And if you are that 120 bookish loner, go take some karate lessons, or go to a gym and take some boxing/muy tai classes. You'll go to 130 lbs real quick, you can fight off that bully (break his nose and I guarantee you he will stop bullying you, and will probably be the laughing stock of the school for a few weeks). Plus, there is the added benefit of, by doing that, you build up your self esteem and will probably improve your overall mental health, and will probably find a couple friends to boot through the classes. Bullies are weak. If they weren't, they wouldn't be bullying people. Start young and learn to fight back against weak people that find themselves in positions of power, and the rest of your life you will be able to deal with it. Because on a basic level, that bully in high school is no different than that crappy boss or manager everyone either knows or hears stories about.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Really? You're really asking that?
I refer to the meeting of the Great Risks Commission in L'Aquila. Granted, no scientist actually stood on a podium and proclaimed absolute certainty there would be no earthquake, but they knew very well that the meeting was just a media event to pass that message, message that was broadcast nationwide the same evening on all TV networks.
They knew very well what was going on, they manipulated the meeting minutes after the earthquake, and they should be held responsible for the deaths that resulted directly as a consequence of their actions.
Victims of 9/11: <3000. Traffic in the US: >30,000/y
Facebook has always maintained that children should be above a certain age.
Questions I would ask:
How old was she when she created her account?
If under the age limit, did she lie about her age?
Did her parents know she had an account?
If so, why the F... were they not monitoring her account and her on-line activities?
If not, why the F... were they not monitoring her on-line activities?
I find it so disconcerting how many parents expect the rest of the world to parent their children and when someone else does, the parents cry foul.
Ladies and gentlemen, if you're gonna have some fun and make some babies, remember YOU (mommy and daddy) are responsible for them until they are 18. That means that the actions they take reflect on how YOU reared them.
If you don't maintain control, you can't expect other to take the blame for not controlling what YOU yourselves could not (or would not) control. /endrant
Life takes interesting turns, but the most interest is when you're off the beaten path.
What you just said is TL:DR. The short version: America, Fuck Yeah! (evil grin)
and I would parent my child by example by showing that same self-reliant quality in my own involvement in the situation
Don't make it too easy for the bullies. Not only she's a drunk, she's a wacko like her mother. They had to call the police you know. I nearly felt sympathy for her.
Right, so as a teenager being held upside down over a toilet and being swirled. Constantly harassed by the wrestling team, just because I had come from a private school where I had taken advance classes, so as a freshman my gym class was with seniors since gym alternates with science lab, and I need to accept that and be comfortable with it?
People like you who think too much discussiong focus's on bully. It should focus on it. Bullies need to be punished severly if we are to get a handle on this. You are expecting young minds to be more advance then they are. Yes I thought about and came within seconds of trying, if a dear friend hadn't stumbled into my room and "saved" me on a trip. That friend is what pulled me through HS.
yes now I'm comfortable with myself. I'm more outspoken. I've learned and adapted and grown. But at 13/14/15 you expect me to be that?
Sorry I couldn't be. Just because kids will do it, doesn't mean there shouldn't be punishment for it.
I did plenty of chores and sport and it never solved any bullying problems for me.
You're alive to post about it, so perhaps it solved the "I got bullied so I must kill myself" problem.
In the first place, I did not really mean to refer to the present case in writing the above post. Rather I was debunking in general the kind of legal chauvinism GP was entertaining. However, since you are interested in the law ...
Did the girl come to facebook or did facebook come to the girl to "sign that contract".
Given that humans cannot yet physically travel by internet and web sites like FB can, it's seems clear that FB "c[a]me to the girl." ;)
Seriously though, you are opening a can of worms --by the name of Conflict of Laws --here. It's such a can of worms in fact that almost any written contract which might involve parties from different jurisdictions will nowadays contain a "choice of law" clause. As, no doubt, does the FB ToS (I haven't looked). However, working on the presumption that the contract was made in Italy, where the girl lacks capacity, that clause would not come into play.
For the sake of argument let's assume accepting the ToS and using a social media site actually forms a contract between the site and the user in all relevant jurisdictions, all other things being in order ...
To restate the facts: FB makes a Carbolic Smoke like "unilateral offer to the world." A minor (lacking in her jurisdiction the capacity to enter into contract) sitting in front of a computer in Italy purports toa ccepts the offer.
In my jurisdiction the "postal acceptance rule," which holds inter alia that a postal contract is made in the place from which the acceptance is sent , should be disposative of the question. Acceptance was made in Italy where user lacks capacity and thus no valid contract was entered into (and the choice of law clause which would have determined the proper law is non-effectual).
I'm not a US lawyer (obviously), but I should be surprised if US law did not similarly regard Italy as the place of contractual formation. And although I understand that place of formation is perhaps a less privileged factor in determining the proper law of the contract in the US, I'm led to believe that a special rule as regards capacity makes the minor's domicile the pre-eminent criterion. If I'm not misled that would mean the US law would conclude also that no valid contract was formed. [If any US lawyers can confirm or correct me here I would be interested].
In Italy ... in Italy. As a common-law lawyer I have no freeping idea! I mean, what the hell are these Italians on about? I would have thought if she lacked the capacity there never was a contract, so how can they go after FB for "entering into a contract with a minor?!!!" Or is this poorly translated?
So that italian girl did business with an american website....
... in Italy. Whether I buy a can of Coke or a can of Ozzie Cola in Australia the same Australian law will apply.
Sounds like that girl should fall under US law ...
Does it still?
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
Perhaps you think you're being clever by asking this question over and over, but really, I can assure you that you're not.
If you feel disconnected from people who haven't raised teenagers, why don't you go to a forum where the people have raised teenagers? A quick google search reveals: http://www.medhelp.org/forums/Parenting-Teens-12-17/show/183
If it's not cruel to blame the victim then what's wrong with it?
You took GP's statement and widened it significantly -- from the specific "drunk in a bathroom at the age of 14" to the general "anything stupid and embarrassing in front of someone else."
You're missing the crucial point -- for this particular girl, being drunk in a bathroom at age 14 was embarrassing enough to make her kill herself.
If something is embarrassing enough that if it got out, you would kill yourself, then don't do it in front of others. Really simple.
Facebook Ireland Ltd, looks like your wrong on a few counts here....
Whois Domain: facebook.it
Status: ok
Created: 2006-03-06 00:00:00
Last Update: 2012-10-26 10:18:21
Expire Date: 2013-07-27
Registrant
Name: Facebook UK LTD
Organization: Facebook UK LTD
ContactID: FACE59
Address: Gladstone House, 77-79 High Street
Created: 2010-07Egham
TW209HY
(SURREY)
GB-27 12:51:57
Last Update: 2010-11-17 14:56:05
Nameservers
a.ns.facebook.com
b.ns.facebook.com
nslookup www.facebook.it
Name: star.c10r.facebook.com
Address: 31.13.77.55
RIPE search on 31.13.77.55
More Info from RIPEstat
inetnum: 31.13.64.0 - 31.13.127.255
netname: IE-FACEBOOK-20110418
descr: Facebook Ireland Ltd
country: IE
address: Facebook Ireland Ltd Hanover Reach, 5-7 Hanover Quay 2 Dublin Ireland
phone: +0016505434800
fax-no: +0016505435325
On the other hand, I have not heard about a single US prosecutor indicting G. W. Bush for starting a war of aggression. That's way worse than tax evasion, corruption, rape or murder. That's the same crime of Nuremberg
Both houses of the United States Congress passed a joint resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. The 'war of aggression' charge in the Nuremburg trials had to do with wars of conquest, i.e. territorial annexation. That is quite a stretch, even for a Euro liberal.
Also, in lawsuits, the losing part can be and often is sentenced to pay for the other part's legal costs, so frivolous lawsuits are much less common than in the US.
We have this as well. It is true that our tort law is in need of some serious revision, but there are (and have been for a while) countermeasures for frivolous lawsuits, including counter-suits specifically because the lawsuit was frivolous and the loser being made to pay legal costs for both parties.
Italy is one of my favorite countries in the world, but these are some mightily rose-colored glasses you've got. The Italian labor market is a joke and starting a business there (even for an Italian) is next to impossible. Unemployment at 11.5% with a youth unemployment rate at 38.4% - the inevitable product of constitutionally 'protected' jobs.
But then I'd expect that sort of selective vision from someone whose signature tries to draw a conclusion from comparing the number of victims in a planned mass murder like 9/11 versus deaths by traffic accidents. Clearly we should just shrug our shoulders and do nothing because, well, they didn't kill as many people as auto accidents do. I'm no fan of GW Bush but you don't need to extend your hyperbole to war crimes to criticize him when he has plenty of perfectly ordinary political decisions to oppose.
Well then a good 70% of the planet are guilty of breaking DMCA...does that mean we get to shut them down and have their owners arrested? After all it IS a crime in the United States.
You see THIS is the problem with that whole idea, as if we follow that to its logical conclusion then the Internet can only be as open as the worst theocracies on the planet because guess what? EVERYTHING is illegal somewhere. Hell there are Middle Eastern and Asian countries where if you show a picture that has the bottom of a foot you can be arrested!
This is why we REALLY need to fight against bullshit like this, even when you feel sorry for the person like the girl in this case, because the freedom of speech we so highly value? Doesn't exist in a LOT of the world and if we let others laws affect us simply because they have the ability to reach us through the web? Well you may as well give up even pretending to have any freedoms at all, because its all illegal somewhere.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
You first talk about the scientists' "very public statements", but now you admit that none of the scientists actually made such statements, because in reality the scientists just failed to correct a public official who talked about "no danger". It's misleading that you keep talking about the scientists' "actions", since at most the charge can be about inaction. Moreover, even if the scientists had corrected the official, they would still have had no grounds to recommend evacuation. The main responsibility for avoidable deaths in this case should go to the people who failed to implement adequate building standards in an area with a known earthquake risk.
Deus est fatalis
The decision making of Congress was driven by the faulty and/or fabricated evidence coming from the Bush administration, however.
Wars of aggression are typically wars of conquest, but the international treaties defining crime of agression do not make annexation a necessary condition. A war of aggression is basically a war without the justification of self-defense.
Deus est fatalis
"DSM-V doesn't have anything listed for "recipient of mean words"
That's quite surprising, considering the amount of fluff included in the latest version. Don't worry though, chances of something like that being included in a future revision are quite high. (snark is good against depression - see what i did here? regardless, please do keep in mind that it's not polite to bring DSM-V into a serious conversation. if it really must be done, use an earlier version)"
thats because it would be listed under "trigger events" for such things as PTSD
BTW does somebody have a downloadable copy of the DSM5 posted somewhere??
Any person using FTFY or editing my postings agrees to a US$50.00 charge
But other than invading Nicaragua and kidnapping Manuel Noriega to put him on trial in the US
That was Panama actually.
"For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
true, my point was simply that it is not unheard of for an innocent person who owns X to get in trouble because someone was on X when they shouldnt be (on FB under age) and hurt themselves (killed themselves) because of something on your property, a cliff (a mean post)
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
there are always unanswered questions, even if the straw that broke the camels back is known there are tons of questions for the family.
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Wars of aggression are typically wars of conquest, but the international treaties defining crime of agression do not make annexation a necessary condition. A war of aggression is basically a war without the justification of self-defense.
Using that criteria clearly you believe the kinetic military action taken in Libya by Pres. Obama(without authorization from Congress) was a war of aggression?
I laughed at the weak who considered themselves good because they lacked claws.
What is a 14yr old doing drunk at a party in the first place? Where were the parents to protect their child not just from drinking, but from online abuse? What in the hell were they thinking? If this crap happened to my daughter she would be grounded until she got retirement benefits and I wouldn't allow her near a computer for almost as long. If my kid was fucked up and being bullied, suicidal, drinking, I would send them to therapy as well.
In the first place, I did not really mean to refer to the present case in writing the above post. Rather I was debunking in general the kind of legal chauvinism GP was entertaining. However, since you are interested in the law ...
Same here.. I just wanted to open that mentioned can of worms by providing another valid viewpoint, that would have led to the opposite conclusion.
To restate the facts: FB makes a Carbolic Smoke like "unilateral offer to the world." A minor (lacking in her jurisdiction the capacity to enter into contract) sitting in front of a computer in Italy purports toa ccepts the offer.
In my jurisdiction the "postal acceptance rule," which holds inter alia that a postal contract is made in the place from which the acceptance is sent , should be disposative of the question. Acceptance was made in Italy where user lacks capacity and thus no valid contract was entered into (and the choice of law clause which would have determined the proper law is non-effectual).
I'd question that....
Most "uniliteral offers to the world" are NOT seen as a binding offer, but rather an invitatio ad offernadum, an invitation to treat. I doubt that FB is obliged to accept anyone who tries to sign up. So this would exactly reverse your point: The OFFER would have been sent from Italy, but the ACCEPTANCE wherever the FB branch responsible for the European part of the site might be. (IIRC, FB claims that to be Ireland, but for the sake of the argument it could also be the US)
That would put that whole stuff under US Law, COPPA and so on.
In Italy ... in Italy. As a common-law lawyer I have no freeping idea! I mean, what the hell are these Italians on about? I would have thought if she lacked the capacity there never was a contract, so how can they go after FB for "entering into a contract with a minor?!!!" Or is this poorly translated?
At least oversimplified. I doubt any jurisdiction could ban minors completly from contracts, or else they couldn't do as much as buy an ice cream or a coke on their own. For example, 110 BGB is the law that adds that exception to the general "no contracts with minors" rule. (probably like COPPA allows minors to sign up to websites)
So that italian girl did business with an american website....
... in Italy. Whether I buy a can of Coke or a can of Ozzie Cola in Australia the same Australian law will apply.
But this is where the analogies end: If a minor from italy can get to Australia to buy a softdrink without her parent's consent, we have a completly other matter at hand...
bickerdyke
This is the suggestion for dealing with bullies:
So, how about pointing out the fact that the person is a bully? Announce it in newspapers, every time you see him, punch him and damage his property. Any time he is in a public place, film him, especially if he is being beaten up, then post the videos online.
Now I have to wonder what definition of bullying YOU have that would exclude this behavior?
Facebook is in a tricky situation. They don't fully moderate the content, but they do have a moderation system - you can report content that is harassing or sexually explicit for example. The situation isn't as black and white as you make out.
I agree with the main idea you are trying to convey. I just wanted to point out one thing I have learned since having a child (still young). It is not wise to judge other parents and their methods. It also does not help to think you would never do that. I do agree that many parents are complete and lazy ass's that don't know what the hell they are doing and they don't even seem to care. But I have found myself in situations that I thought would go one way but don't work out that way. The kids do have their own personality and your plans only go so far. The most recent was using bribery to get my daughter to use the toilet. Before that I would have scoffed at bribery as being lazy and likely to lead to problems later on such as spoiled children and temper tantrums. In this case it was the motivation she needed to learn to use the toilet consistently. Now she uses the toilet 100% and does not ask for the potty presents any more. There are other similar examples that have taught me this wisdom.
There are many situations where I see an unruly child and think the parent sucks and that won't happen to me. And even though my child is very well behaved I stop and remember that I don't know the whole situation and I very well could find myself in that very position some day.
All that being said, I still think it is ridiculous to blame others for your own failings and to run to the law and courts for things you should be taking responsibility for. So I guess I think this parent sucks. And even if I stop to remember that I could find myself in their situation I still don't think I would react in the same way they are.
-- ssoorrrryy,, dduupplleexx sswwiittcchh oonn.. -Quote found on actual fortune cookie.
I think by the wya, you are assuming a fair fight. In most fights, it's the first person to land a hit that wins, because one hit generally turns into 10, and then it's lights out no matter how good of a fighter you think you are (and I've done a reasonable amount of full contact fighting which taught me to get the first heavy hit in).
It's highly unlikely any training will help you if it's a fight. It will only , and in a limited sense, help you if you have a drunken fool throwing himself on a sober girl. The rest is a crap shoot.
It exactly is that black and white, though.
Keep in mind -- this is *ITALY*. Their legal system is not the jewel of the world.
If content was reported and Facebook gave it the A-OK, that might make them liable.
If it was just shit going on that Facebook didn't see? They're not liable, but you can bet Italy is going to try hard as they can to make bank off this.
Facebook didn't publish the videos or comments, common carrier blah blah blah -- if I post some hateful speech right now, slashdot is not liable (in any sane world, keeping in mind this case is in Italy so the opposite would be true).
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Are you disagreeing with me?
I responded to a few of the things you said and voiced disagreement, so yes.
Insane? Hardly.
Yes, I think it qualifies. People who do such things to receive shallow 'rewards' such as popularity are, in my books, insane.
losing hope is a rational response
That depends on what you mean by "bullied." Caring about mere words doesn't seem very rational, and getting all depressed won't fix anything anyway, so I don't see how any of it is rational at all. It might not be something you can control, but rational? I don't think so.
"The hypocrisy of the anti-bully movement" makes it sound as if everyone who is anti-bullying is a bully themselves, for one.
Second of all, it is indeed possible to say that actions taken for certain reasons are not bullying, but I wouldn't do that myself.
Now I have to wonder what definition of bullying YOU have that would exclude this behavior?
You made the mistake of thinking that I myself was trying to exclude anything, and I simply wasn't.
This is Italy we're talking about. Are you sure you want to keep the example of having sex with a minor, or is that only OK in Italy if you've paid for it and the girl was foreign?
... still waiting for this free-as-in-beer free beer I keep hearing about.
Sorry. Anyone who seriously proposes a solution to a parenting problem as an armed dual is deserving of all the ridicule coming to them.
Fuck you and your inability to stop bragging about your amazing and unique ability to have kids.
We get it. The condom broke. Congratulations on being too chicken shit to get an abortion.
Slashdot hereby pronounces you to be the sole authority on parenting.
Chuuch. Preach. Tabernacle.
Unfortunately for you, I was referring to the government punishing people, and that should have been obvious. Hopefully, though, if I turned around and physically assaulted you, I'd either find myself in court, in jail, or at least reprimanded by police; we don't need weaklings who resort to violence over trivial matters walking the streets.
yes, but having never done something at all, when it is inherently a experiential endeavor that is as unique as individuals are, means you basically have no standing to speak about the actual complexities involved, though possibly by brandishing enough in the way of psychological studies you have done could rectify this.
By the way, I'm not saying I have raised a child through their teens, but I'm absolutely certain until I've done it 3 or 4 times, preferably with kids of different genetic and socio-economic backgrounds, I can't really say I know enough to pass judgement on someone else or offer critiques. I can critique the actions of any one person (so for example, these bullys are asshats, that is pretty straight forward) but who knows what complexities these parents were dealing with.
What we can say though, is that as long as we feel the government has some role in protecting the disadvantaged (and in most countries, this includes the mentally unstable who would commit suicide) it is at least conceivable a country could decide this falls in the realm of government intervention.
spoken like a non-parent. I _am_ a parent and my child _was_ bullied... My child has plenty of self esteem, probably too much self-reliance (he can weld, drive stick, build a tree fort with power tools, and hack python), and as much independence as an 11 year old should have. The bully's parents would not admit their child was a bully, the school suggested we put our son in Hockey; the bully's dad had a black eye when we spoke to them about his child's bullying... We moved schools, which is a drastic step. Was the original school to blame? Absolutely. There was a problem, we brought it to their attention, and they told us they were powerless unless there was a physical injury and a police report. The most they would do was keep the bully away from my child but in order to make it "fair", they instructed my son to stay away from the bully as well. The side effect of this was the bully began hanging around with my son's friends effectively ostracizing my son.
Until you manage to raise a child yourself, you should probably keep shut ...
For a good time call Betty 555-1212
Can Betty sue the bathroom wall this is written on?
Can she sue the school where the bathroom is located?
Can she sue Sharpie for creating the pen it was written with?
FB is viewed by many people as some kind of privately owned global public utility, it's a naive but not unreasonable POV. It's no secret this "new kind of service" is forcing governments to re-interpret and re-write laws.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
I don't think it counts as a war; it could count as an act of aggression, but I wouldn't know, the situation is not as clear as with Iraq War, which was an invasion followed by an occupation.
Deus est fatalis
It's supposed to be about freedom to express your political views without fear of repercussion from the government.
Right, because it would be fine if the government punished people for having opinions; it's only about expressing political views, after all! If I arbitrarily declare that something is 'harassment', free speech no longer applies!
Laws and rights are the result of what the people that make up society think is right.
Maybe, but I guarantee there are many countries with absolutely insane laws that you wouldn't want to touch with a ten foot pole, so I'd be careful about talking about how corporations somehow have responsibilities to these insane countries.
Facebook isn't omnipresent, and they didn't bully anyone.
If your website takes ads from Iranian companies and has an interface in Farsi then yes, you should obey the laws of Iran. If you don't like it, then don't do business there.
So, if I take Spanish ads, which countries laws am i subject to? There are dozens of contenders. Farsi is not owned by Iran, anyone that wants to can speak it, inside of Iran or out. Just as English isn't owned by the United Kingdom or the United States. You do business where you do business, not per the language that you use. Its gonna always come down to where you are physically located.
Multi-nationals are more vulnerable this way, because they do actually have a physical presence in many countries. I don't have any sympathy - its something an enterprise has to negotiate - you have to select a set of countries that have reasonably compatible laws to operate in, so that you don't get into a "banned in one country, required in another" bind.
yes, but having never done something at all, when it is inherently a experiential endeavor that is as unique as individuals are, means you basically have no standing to speak about the actual complexities involved,
but I'm absolutely certain until I've done it 3 or 4 times, preferably with kids of different genetic and socio-economic backgrounds, I can't really say I know enough to pass judgement on someone else or offer critiques. I can critique the actions of any one person (so for example, these bullys are asshats, that is pretty straight forward) but who knows what complexities these parents were dealing with.
No, I disagree and quite strongly.
By way of a rather silly example, I've never been on a sky dive but I can nevertheless deduce that failing to open the parachute is a really bad idea.
Likewise, I can guess that lavishing a child with attention when they make a fuss is going to train them to make a fuss when they want attention. I know someone who does this with his kids, and sure enough when he is around they behave very badly because that's how they get attention. The kids mum does not do this and they behave much better when the dad is not around.
Some things are just obvious and some people are simply oblivious to it. I'm not saying it's easy to ignore a kid throwing a tantrum out in public (heaven's no!) but nevertheless I can see what is in this case the better long term course of action.
Well I guessed. Now the kids have grown a bit and I can observe the behavioural traits it turns out that I guessed entirely correctly. In other words I did critique (well in my head of course) and I was entirely vindicated.
Likewise, I certainly can judge people who feed their kids very poor quality food, or who expose their kids to large amounts of second hand smoke.
So, I disagree that you have to have been a parent (even to multiple kids) to be able to make any kind of judgement over other people's parenting abilities.
The thing is that while being a parent does give you first hand experience, like every other task, it doesn't mean you are any good at it.
The thing is you don't actually have to be any good at something to be able to pass some degree of judgement correctly about it. For instance, I can't play football, but I could tell the difference between a great footballer and a terrible footballer on TV. Neither can I play a musical instrument but I can tell the difference between one being played well and one being played badly.
Parenting is an activity like any other. Not being an expert I cannot judge the subtelties, but I can easily spot the gross errors. And there are frequently plenty of them to go around.
SJW n. One who posts facts.
Earthquakes are not predictable in the specific, they are somewhat predictable in general. Italy is subject to earthquakes, generally. This is well-known, and documented through a long history of having earthquakes. Why the country does not adopt reasonable earthquake construction standards and _enforce them_ is a great mystery to people in other earthquake prone areas (Japan, California, et.al.). It's third-world. The fact that you put geologists in jail instead, for not predicting the specific (impossible) is baffling. You all know there will be earthquakes. Anyone, politician, "scientist", or whoever that says otherwise should be mocked by a public that knows better.
I doubt it -- every single "zero tolerance" policy I've seen on any subject (bullying included, but hardly uniquely) has been proposed by administrators largely as a way of minimizing their own responsibility for applying discretion appropriately to individual circumstances (and, particularly, of making it harder for them to be challenged for inappropriate punishments meted out for reasons, such as racial/ethnic discrimination, other than the officially stated one.) Sure, they are often motivated by parents demanding that something be done, and "zero tolerance" is often an impressive-sounding way of saying you are doing something, but the choice of that something is all about having a shield to hide behind, not actually being effective (or doing what people want, for that matter.)
And, in practice, the actual enforcement is often as arbitrary and poorly-exercising discretion as prior to zero-tolerance policies, but its harder for those arbitrarily punished to challenge the actions because instead of showing that the punishment was excessive in their particular case (which, under zero tolerance policies, it usually is not on its face), they need to actually be able to show that the supposedly-universal policy is inconsistently applied, which is much harder to do (because its hard to even get access to the evidence necessary to show this.)
'Italian law forbids minors under 18 signing contracts, yet Facebook is effectively entering into a contract with minors regarding their privacy, without their parents knowing.''
how is facebook allowing this? did facebook buy the people internet connections? did facebook force her to sign up? did facebook force her to get hammered and act a fool?
Look, i understand all the facebook hate. and a lot of it is just, no question about that. but you cant blame facebook for any of this
Liquor stores, bars, pubs and so forth don't force children to buy alcohol or cigarettes, and yet they are held responsible for selling to minors.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
did facebook force her to sign up? did facebook force her to get hammered and act a fool?
As far as I understand, the incident has nothing to do with her even having a FB account. The videographers who recorded her being drunk did have an account; but that has nothing to do with *their* privacy (such as of the account owner.)
In essence, FB is being sued for allowing someone else (the people who recorded the video) to post that video for everyone to see. That video was offensive to some other people. How would FB censors, even if FB had them, know what is and what isn't offensive?
In the end, it will be judged by the fact whether FB had a certain duty, and they failed at that duty. I suspect FB has no duty to watch users' videos. With regard to the contract, I am not sure if there was a contract. Most of the Web operates without an explicitly defined contract. It is hard to even establish competence over the Internet; and most services are free in every aspect. Can FB be guilty of giving access to a child? Depends on what that child said about his age. Most likely the EULA says "By clicking "Accept" I verify that I am of certain age and of legal age to form a contract." If the child did that, he misled the service provider and fraudulently obtained access to FB. The FB has no way to verify his age. It could be even impossible with EU's strict privacy laws.
So Facebook should be allowed to host videos of child rape?
Facebook has every way to verify the age of someone who wants an account - they just don't want to bother because there's a cost associated with it.
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
This is more like people talking crap about you over a telephone rather than a newspaper. A newspaper has editors that have to read everything in it.
You don't sue the phone company for what people say on the phone.
You have it completely backwards:
People talking on the phone is (in this day and age) point to point.
Newspapers are broadcast (or at least multicast).
If you're going to publish something you have to be responsible for it. The header at the top of the page says "FACEBOOK".
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
So why isn't the law case against the parents/guardians?
Because the parents didn't have a $12 billion IPO a year ago. Duh.
I have a hard time imagining the parents really arguing all of this in front of a judge anyhow. It is facebook having a contract with their child without their knowledge, it is their child being drunk and in a bad state without their knowledge ( or guidance ), it is their child using the internet in ways that they do not have knowledge of...
At some point the parents are responsible for raising the child.
I can't see how you can fault them for this unfortunate incident. What's a 14 year old girl doing at a party, drunk, with a bunch of boys? Do the parents not have any responsibility here?
the Italian situation is still different. For the trespass case to be similar, you would have to have two people trespass on your property, get into a fight and then have the loser sue you for the injuries sustained during the fight.
I think it is more like if two trespassers got into a fight on your property, one of them picks up your shovel from the ground and kills the other. The victim's family sues you for leaving your shovel outside.
If clicking a button is not signing a contract, then Facebook didn't enter into a contract with any underage teenagers, and therefore violated no laws.
The decision making of Congress was driven by the faulty and/or fabricated evidence coming from the Bush administration, however.
I am happy to indict the decision as a bad decision. Likening it to Nuremberg is facetious and unseroius. If you reduce the criteria for a 'war crime' to 'act of aggression' then you had better have a team of superheroes handy and you'd better start in places like Somalia or North Korea if you're going to include Bush in your list.
Wars of aggression are typically wars of conquest, but the international treaties defining crime of agression do not make annexation a necessary condition.
They require armed invasion for the purpose of assuming direct control over a sovereign state. Even that is then qualified with 'in a manner inconsistent with the United Nations Charter,' and while plenty of people called the war 'illegal' because the United Nations didn't explicitly authorize it, the resolutions that the UN did pass were much more anti-Hussein than anti-US. You can of course say 'well the UN is toothless' but then one wonders why the UN is being held up as the arbiter for good and justice to begin with.
All of which is really beside the point: 'Bush is a war criminal' is just the neo-liberal epithet for 'I hate Bush and wars are bad because peace is good.' I didn't vote for Bush but statements like that show a tremendous ignorance of history and political thought, particularly circa the 1920s and 1930s. At the very least you could read a book or two and evolve the statement to 'I hate Bush because the Iraq War was just one of several terrible ideas' without adding on 'and people I disagree with should be charged with war crimes and executed' which is pretty much the same sentiment that petty dictators like Hussein live by anyhow.
I didn't say beat them up, I said fight back.
And if you are that 120 bookish loner, go take some karate lessons, or go to a gym and take some boxing/muy tai classes.
The awkward 120lb bookish loaner is going to sign up for karate and boxing? What part of "awkward bookish loner" do you not get? He likes to read. He avoids sports. He's not much good at sports. And even if he forces himself to take karate he's not going to be particularly good at it. Meanwhile the bully is on the school football team and the school wrestling team, and unlike his victim he is good at it. If you think a few karate lessons are going to level the playing field you've got rocks in your head.
break his nose and I guarantee you he will stop bullying you
When you mentioned a broken nose that reminded me of something. My brother in-law (who of course wasn't at the time) got into a fight with bullies as a teen. They jumped him on the way home from school and he fought back, and they broke his nose. Now what? What happens if you fight back and they hurt you even worse? What happens if they break your nose instead?
He got a bit of reprieve after that because the police got involved, charges were laid, it went to court, etc. So the overt physical attacks dropped off but the verbal and social tactics persisted along with passive physical torment (blocking his movement, cutting in front, etc.)
Bullies are weak. If they weren't, they wouldn't be bullying people.
That isn't true. Or even logical. Bullies are frequently strong, or popular, or both. The idea that strong or popular people wouldn't be bullies is idiotic.
Because on a basic level, that bully in high school is no different than that crappy boss or manager everyone either knows or hears stories about.
Its entirely different. If I were to find myself in a job where I was ostracized and nobody liked me and the boss was a giant bully... I'd just quit and get a different job, and I'd never see those people again. I'd find a job where I got along with with people.
Kids in school have a lot less freedom to choose who they associate with.
This makes me think of my son. Second day of kindergarten, an older kid picked on him on the bus ride home. Pretty mean stuff, enough so that my kid was in tears. (and he's not frail by any stretch) Instead of making a big deal about it, I told him the other kid was probably just sad or lonely and didn't know how to make friends. That seemed to calm him down, although it pissed my wife off to no end.
Anyway, that very night he wanted to go out riding his bike. We spotted a couple of kids playing, and he says to one of them, "are you my bully?" I almost fell over laughing. Anyway the other kids pointed mine to the "bully" in question. The funny thing was, he really was just a normal kid who didn't know how to make friends. Now whenever my son sees him around at school events, they are cordial to each other. But he still refers to him as "my bully." So I guess labels stick, but they're not necessarily as harmful as you might assume.
When I was in my teens I did farm work during holidays that strengthened me quite a bit, so in that case yes, but not because of a "sense of reliance and independence".
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
Whether or not I'm a parent has absolutely dick to do with whether or not my statements are correct.
That may be true if you have a background in psychology, or have something which lends to the authenticity of your message, but in lacking suck credentials, some parenting experience would be better than none.
Speaking of critical thinking skills; here's some extra support for what I've been saying (and you haven't);
You then proceed to link a quote from an article which suggests the presence of studies, but provides no links or sources to such studies. I don't disagree with most of what you're saying, but the link you posted offers your argument little credibility.
Apparently wizard is not a legitimate career path, so I chose programmer instead.
As a developer currently working on a project involving an ID card reader, I think this problem *could* maybe be solved with some clever and secure electronic signature infrastructure. I don't know how it is in other countries, but here in Belgium our ID cards allow us to digitally sign documents of all sorts.
It's very much used for tax-papers, in particular, and from a technological point-of-view, I don't think it's unreasonable to build an identification infrastructure for social networks around this.
The obvious privacy issue could be addressed if the verification entity was independent and trustful, much like we see Certification Authorities (CA) for SSL. These authorities migt then be trusted to only hand out the age of an individual signing up for the account. This would, in effect, act like an age barrier.
You are not a lawyer.
What era are you living in? Multi-person telephone calls have been around for ages.
I could talk to 10 people at once with my VoIP provider.
The discussions reminded of an exercise we went through in a college psychology class, in which a story is told about a woman who was killed, and the students in the class must rank the culpability of all of the characters in the story. I googled "psychology class story about who is responsible for murder of woman on ferry".
The first google result was an academic paper about how that exercise is used and interpreted by some psychology professor somewhere.
The second google result was Mark Zuckerberg's wikipedia page. I wonder if that would have happened before the news of this suicide had come out.
Bullies are weak. If they weren't, they wouldn't be bullying people.
That isn't true. Or even logical. Bullies are frequently strong, or popular, or both. The idea that strong or popular people wouldn't be bullies is idiotic.
Weakness and not being strong are two different things. Bullies are emotionally weak: in some part of their life they are unsatisfied or feel powerless, maybe at home, maybe they just don't like themselves. And being popular does not really help this: I know personally a girl I went to high school with, she was very nice, popular, beautiful, everyone liked her, and she ended up going through severe depression. While bullies are usually physically strong, emotionally or mental-health wise, they are still weak.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
Fair enough on the distinction between what you meant by strong and weak.
But this 'weakness' you ascribe to them isn't necessarily resolved by 'fighting back' especially if you are over-matched. If part of their psyche is to deal with their sense of powerlessness over something else in their life by overpowering you -- then as long as they can do that they will. Fighting back, if you don't win, just reinforces their bullying you as an outlet to regain a feeling of power over something.
Remember they selected you to bully because they think they CAN control you. And while everyone loves the fairy tale ending where the smaller kid learns karate and fights back and the bully retreats and leaves him alone... in the real world they just as often, if not most of the time, get their ass kicked by the bully when they try to fight back. As you said, the bully is physically stronger, chose his victom precisely because he is weaker, and perhaps, as you noted he even has a psyhchological need for this power over his victim. He'll fight to keep it and the odds in a fight are heavily stacked in his favor.
it wasn't facebook who posted the posts either, it was the bullies.. ..and as sad it is ultimately it was the parents fault. for letting to get drunk(fairly normal, you can't control a 14 year old in that respect) and for providing an environment where something like that was worth killing yourself over.
Right. You've never had kids, nor can your remember being one.
As you said, you cant control a 14 yr old.
It wasn't the parents who posted the videos, it was the bullies.
Here you're part of the problem, as I said society has continually refused to punish bullies and worse yet, will even encourage them by blaming the people who were bullied.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
Most "uniliteral offers to the world" are NOT seen as a binding offer, but rather an invitatio ad offernadum, an invitation to treat
FB is making a single and final offer to all qualified to accept it. Take it or leave it. There is no question of treating. Nor is there any ambiguity as to what is on offer or the steps required to accept it. One would be hard pressed to devise an hypothetical which more clearly demonstrates an offer to the world that is not an invitation to treat.
Given the rest of your argument falls away as a consequence I should leave it there but to make two observations.
Firstly, if it is the case that American courts look to a party's domicile in assessing capacity, the question of where the contract was formed is inconsequential even at US law. Finally, (and this I believe was my original point), as the process is taking place in an Italian court all questions of jurisdiction, contractual formation and capacity must be decided according to Italian law. Rendering our entire conversation impertinent (if somewhat interesting).
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
So Facebook should be allowed to host videos of child rape?
Well, in this particular case no rape was involved. I haven't seen the video, but apparently it depicted a drunk girl in some state of disrepair. We also know that it was used to further haunt that girl.
But to answer your original question... I think nobody can be "allowed" to host illegal materials. The one that you threw in as an example would classify as illegal. Providers are immune from prosecution as long as they don't have a positive censorship system. Some forums are moderated, and therefore have such a system. The provider of an unmoderated forum has to remove the illegal material as soon as they are informed about its existence. The poster may be prosecuted for distribution of an illegal material.
One question to ask would be what FB people knew, and when they knew it, about this video. Did the girl complain to FB? If she did, and FB people did nothing, that would be bad. If the girl did not complain (didn't know that she can, for example) then FB had no way to know that a certain video, one out of millions that are uploaded daily, is causing problems.
Facebook has every way to verify the age of someone who wants an account - they just don't want to bother because there's a cost associated with it.
Most likely because they do only what the law requires. Gaming sites, for example, just ask to enter your birth date. You can enter whatever you want. Is the law insufficient? Perhaps. But that's the best law money can buy.
In most cases the age cannot be verified without an interview where government-issued documents are checked. Can you imagine how much *that* would cost? Can Slashdot afford that, for example? For a registration from Central Africa? You'd have to send an expedition to conduct that interview. Will the civilization be better off if Web sites refuse to accept registrations from 3rd world? Or, perhaps, the society as a whole benefits from free access to information; and if that information is too much for some - that's sad, but we won't keep millions of adults in diapers. Don't hold millions of responsible children hostage just because one or two, somewhere, were not responsible. Make sure it's they who are punished, not thousands of innocent users.
There is yet another reason to that. You cannot, technically and physically, protect everyone from everything. Once you achieve some level of protection, another idiot discovers how to bypass that protection, and you are back to square one. If idiots are not fought against, you will get more of them. It's far more advantageous to not let idiots run free. Idiots must be contained, and punished as a lesson to others. In the end you will get fewer fools, and you don't need to infringe on rights of honest and careful people.
Just as an aside:
I doubt any jurisdiction could ban minors completly from contracts, or else they couldn't do as much as buy an ice cream or a coke on their own.
That's why I tell my kids all those toys they bought ... they actually belong to meeeeeeee! Muhahahah!
For example, 110 BGB [gesetze-im-internet.de] is the law that adds that exception to the general "no contracts with minors" rule.
You are citing legal German at me? Completely unfair, it is guaranteed that your understanding of it exceeds mine by a few hundred percent. But since you have been intrepid enough to argue common law with a common law lawyer, I'll be cheeky enough to return the complement ... ;)
So here's your opportunity to shoot me down in flames: While I can't actually read that provision, I wonder if it does support your argument (a minor to enter a contract, as opposed to forming one ... my this is getting pedantic). From what little I can parse, the provision would seem to make a contract valid ab initio which a minor purports to enter, where the means to fulfil the contract have been furnished to said minor for that purpose by another with the capacity to enter a contract. (ie. it speaks to the validity of the contract rather than the status of the minor.) Should I have parsed this correctly, this would leave the Vertretter or den Dritten as the contracting party for the purposes of any future legal action, oder?
LOL, you have to give me marks for my Tapferkeit, but then I guess German is not all that far removed from English ;)
Better to be despised for too anxious apprehensions, than ruined by too confident a security. --Edmund Burke
It's highly unlikely any training will help you if it's a fight.
is contradicted by this statement:
I've done a reasonable amount of full contact fighting which taught me to get the first heavy hit in
It's true that situational awareness will do more for you than being trained but caught unawares. My wife does ju-jutsu training. They teach the women that if they are confronted by a large male attacker, unless they have no other option they should run for the exact reason you bring up, it is hard to land a devastating first blow and the first blow they land will devastate you. I tell her find a weapon, since we have kids and it's likely she won't be able to run without leaving them. Untrained, even with a kitchen knife she's not that scary. I want her trained so that hopefully she could intimidate an attacker and as a last resort have a better chance of landing that first blow.
http://marriedmansexlife.com/
actually you definitely do. But, your example is a great one:
you have lots of experience listening to music, playing/watching soccer/football, and seeing over multiple instances how your friend's parenting affected his child.
The problem is you have quite a variety of experiences with the first 2, and what sounds like very limited experiences with the latter. So you come to a generalized conclusion that sure, works if you also assume every child has the same make up as your friend's(you forget that your experience is equivalent to the spherical cow), but all you prove is you haven't been exposed to proper variety. I can give an excellent counterexample of a friend in middle school who, at first, seemed like he was being completely spoiled and that his bad behavior was exactly what you implied, a function of the fact his parents bought him gifts when he got into trouble (and also when he did well, but I always thought it was a great way to make him into a selfish person who didn't understand actions and consequences). I also thought it was really weird how they never showed the same style of lavish gift giving to their older son.
Well I find out later that he had some very very severe mental health issues that meant he didn't understand how to take being yelled at/scolded as we are used to. This also filtered into why it was so hard for him to function in a regular school along with a lot of other things. Whereas their elder son suffered from some other issues that made him suicidal at one point. Sure, their actions didn't look good on the surface, but until you know the entire circumstances, it's very hard to pass judgement. What the GGGP was saying was that you can draw a straight line from "child commits suicide" to "parents did a really crap job and I can provide a list of things that they must not have done".
You are right, you don't have to be a parent to get a lot of the experience, but the GGGP certainly shows the arrogance and firmness of belief that only a person without experience could have and the experience has to come with observing and interacting with children on more than one level.
So sure, maybe this parent did commit some gross errors, but maybe they did everything in their power properly and they are pissed off that there is one public forum where verbal abuse is allowed when it may not be allowed in any other parts of Italian society. Fundamentally, you, and I, and those defending and those condemning the parents, do not know.
you do realize that your link in no way debunks the belief that bullying can lead or a a major factor in driving a depressed youth to commit suicide?
In fact, your article cites 0 studies that show in and instead begin talking about how bullying is believed to cause mass murder (not the discussion here or a commonly held belief if reports of recent shootings are believed).
What era are you living in? Multi-person telephone calls have been around for ages.
I could talk to 10 people at once with my VoIP provider.
You could but I'm sure you generally don't. I'd guess you probably never have.
Even if you had, there's a huge difference between 10 and 10,000,000
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
So Facebook should be allowed to host videos of child rape?
Well, in this particular case no rape was involved. I haven't seen the video, but apparently it depicted a drunk girl in some state of disrepair. We also know that it was used to further haunt that girl.
I chose an extreme example to illustrate the point but the issue remains that the publisher (in this case facebook with the 'authors' being the minors who uploaded the videos) must be responsible for what they publish. If a newspaper or television station publishes something they shouldn't they are expected to publish a retraction (and possibly pay reparations, depending on what it is).
The issue for me isn't so much this girl in particular, as that Facebook is not following a law specifying that there can be no contracts with minors - which they are ignoring (for all intents and purposes) to make money.
But to answer your original question... I think nobody can be "allowed" to host illegal materials. The one that you threw in as an example would classify as illegal. Providers are immune from prosecution as long as they don't have a positive censorship system. Some forums are moderated, and therefore have such a system. The provider of an unmoderated forum has to remove the illegal material as soon as they are informed about its existence. The poster may be prosecuted for distribution of an illegal material.
One question to ask would be what FB people knew, and when they knew it, about this video. Did the girl complain to FB? If she did, and FB people did nothing, that would be bad. If the girl did not complain (didn't know that she can, for example) then FB had no way to know that a certain video, one out of millions that are uploaded daily, is causing problems.
I don't disagree with you on this. It isn't relevant to the general issue of whether minors can have accounts without their parents' permission though (the contract thus being with the parents and not with the minors).
Facebook has every way to verify the age of someone who wants an account - they just don't want to bother because there's a cost associated with it.
Most likely because they do only what the law requires.
Depends on whether having an account which requires signing terms & conditions (even electronically constitutes a contract. If it does, and I believe it does, then they are not doing what the law requires.
Gaming sites, for example, just ask to enter your birth date. You can enter whatever you want. Is the law insufficient? Perhaps. But that's the best law money can buy.
Just because that's the way they do it does not mean that it is following the law to the extent required by the law. The law does not say "You must ask the age of someone before you enter into a contract with them". It says (paraphrasing and generalizing) "You must not have contracts with minors".
We could equate the selling of alcohol or cigarettes to minors. The vendor must do more than just ask the age and take the buyer's word for it- it must not sell to minors. And if the vendor makes an error, it's the vendor that pays the fine.
In most cases the age cannot be verified without an interview where government-issued documents are checked. Can you imagine how much *that* would cost? Can Slashdot afford that, for example? For a registration from Central Africa? You'd have to send an expedition to conduct that interview. Will the civilization be better off if Web sites refuse to accept registrations from 3rd world? Or, perhaps, the society as a whole benefits from free access to information; and if that information is too much for some - that's sad, but we won't keep millions of adults in diapers. Don't hold millions of responsible children hostage just because one or two, somewhere, were not responsible. Make sure
blindly antisocialist = antisocial
Actually, the only important thing in all of this is whether or not your child feels like you are someone that they can talk to. If your child can talk to you about their experiences, you will have a chance at helping them.
Both of my children know they can talk to me. One is an adult now and the other one will soon be an adult. Both have _always_ been able to talk to me and as a consequence, they have both have had a much easier childhood than I had. They have had no extreme problems that they felt they could not solve.
"Someone needs to talk to the tree of liberty about its ghoulish drinking problem." by ohnocitizen
Leaving aside the international question, even in the US contracts entered into by a minor are considered invalid. Facebook does nothing to try to actively restrict access to legal adults even according to US law. There is nothing legally that Facebook can do to enforce an invalid contract such as their AUP. That is the angle the Italians are taking and to me it seems a valid one.
Wrong.
1) Contracts with minors are valid. Minors can just say "lolnope" at any point before becoming an adult and bail on the contract.
2) What "US Law" are you referring to that Facebook is supposed to adhere to? There is no law saying that minors can't enter into contracts, there is no legal requirement for an age-gate, and there would be no legal obligation for Facebook to follow any such laws if they existed when dealing with non-US citizens, as they are not covered by those laws.
3) There is nothing Facebook can do to enforce a contract that doesn't exist, you're right. That also means they have no obligation to enforce a contract that doesn't exist. They do not have to police content to ensure that depressed kids with useless parents don't kill themselves. Italy has absolutely no jurisdiction over facebook.com .
I defy anyone to explain how Italy has any jurisdiction over facebook.com . The only thing Italy can do is shut down any local facebook offices, try to block access to facebook.com within their borders, and otherwise cry about it.
They can seize facebook.it and shut down any facebook offices within their borders.
How's that going to affect facebook.com or Facebook, the US-based company? (Hint - it won't.)
They can also try to block access to Facebook.com within their borders. That's it. They have no other recourse. Facebook isn't beholden to their laws.
According to what you tell me, german, english, nigerian, chinese, russian, polish, australian, mexican and all the other countries' companies do not have to adhere to US law.
I have an awesome idea, then: They mirror companies the US has and then simply go there and shoot everyone in the US company and take over the then free business. Ah, no, wait. That means they all can do that here as well, no?
Your claim is outright ridiculous, as I have shown with my example: If you are active in a country and do business there (which FB clearly does in Italy) you are bound by the laws of the country. It is actually very simple.
If Facebook physically sends people into Italy to commit crimes, then Italy can arrest those people.
Italy can't do shit about Facebook in the US, nor can they do anything about facebook.com other than trying to block it within their borders.
They do not need to block Facebook. They will sue Facebook and as Facebook is doing business in their jurisdiction, Facebook will have to pay. There is no option. Or do you think that America will want to waive it's right to sue foreign businesses the to business in America?
They have one satellite office for ads. The best Italy can do is shut that office down.
Operating facebook.com doesn't mean facebook has to abide by Italian law.
In your fantasy world:
Every country where porn is banned could sue every porn site.
Canada could sue every site that doesn't have both an English and a French version.
Shitstain middle eastern countries could sue every site that posts a picture of Mohammad.
The world doesn't operate that way, thankfully.
Irrelevant. If Facebook wants to do business in EU, then Facebook will follow the EU rules. Period. Otherwise, a widespread ban. End Of Story.
facebook.com isn't doing business in the EU, it's simply accessible in the EU.
Oh, you mean those random offices scattered about that aren't really related to Facebook's main operations? Yeah, they can shut those down if they really wanted to. So what? facebook.com is the money maker. The EU couldn't shut that down even if they tried. Period. End Of Story.
How's about charging the parents with letting their kid go to a booze party and get shitfaced in the first place?
First, you aren't the messenger. You made sweeping statements about parenthood yourself. You didn't simply carry somebody else's message.
Second, while your statements aren't actually incorrect, they're generalized past the point of usefulness. There are situations in which your approach would work great, and others where they wouldn't. Without knowing anything about the girl's family, I can't say whether your approach would have worked there.
Third, it was fairly obvious that you aren't a parent, since almost everybody who makes sweeping romantic statements about raising children is. You do not know what you're talking about. Raising a child is not really what you'd expect, and I believe nobody makes an informed choice about having a first child.
Just because a 14-year-old gets drunk at a party doesn't mean she has bad parents. Part of growing up is making mistakes, and part of a parent's job is to let them (and try to make sure they don't suffer too much). If this were regular, I'd suspect bad parenting or a child that just can't be controlled, and I don't know how much of the latter is bad parenting and how much is the nature of the child. Similarly, while it's nice to think you'd know when your child needs support, teenagers will shut their parents out, and can do so quite effectively. As part of growing up, they have to establish their own identity, and need to separate from their parents. It's quite possible that the girl hid her feelings, didn't talk to her parents about this, and snapped at them when they tried to find out what was going on. Kids need to try handling things themselves, as practice for when they move out. Tragically, this can fail really badly, and teenagers don't have the best judgment of what they can and can't handle.
Recognize that every parent and child are unique, and every situation that comes up needs to be faced as it is, not what it's similar to.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
micromanagement is/will be destroying the Internet in the very near future.
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
It doesn't feel good?
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
Oh fuck off
The new right fascists are bilingual. They speak English and Bullshit.
I've rarely encountered a group so self-righteous as some non-parents, frankly. They don't know what they're talking about, but they're very happy to dish out blame or tell people what they'd be like as a parent. A parent, no matter how the child turned out, has some idea of the process and how it works. You don't. That's fine, and I don't know if you ever will have a kid, but at least have some humility here. You sound like a stereotypical slashdotter telling people what's wrong with their sex lives, frankly.
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Idiot. End Of Story. If FB does not follow the EU rules, then FB will disappear from inside EU.
And you man, need to open the globus, rotate it, and who knows, maybe god will jump down and will enlighten you about how many other countries there are...
People will do what they want and the tut tut ing of others is only an encoragement to some,so you stop minors joining face book well they'd then learn to forge birth certificates to say they are old enough but you will have conditioned a whole genaration to disrespect stupid laws ,most f us are sick to the back teeth of social engineers in government stopping us from doing things they are scared of but we think are fun like hang gliding white water rafting drug taking we know the risks its our choice but they never will admit we own our own lives .If I or any one else makes a bad decision we have to live with it .it has always happened and will always happen .SO let's just leave these blood sucking parracite lawyers out of ripping some easy cash off face book as we know who pays in the end .and guess what people will still comit suicide wether or not it was face book linked or just normal maliciouse gossip untill yuo can change people their will always be victims ,my sincere condolences to the parents with their unfortunate loss.
I agree completely. It was Facebook fault the little girls parents let her run around and get drunk. It was Facebooks fault the little jackals took video of the little girl puking. It's Facebooks fault the parents lost complete control over their kids.
When you sign the contract and say you are 18 or over, does that not breach the contract, implied or otherwise?
Does Slashdot have a system for removing hate speech?
Does it have a system for reporting hate speech?
Does it have a reputation for removing hate speech?
FB has all three. If FB had no such system it could have easily claimed common carrier status, but it regularly does.