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.''
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
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
So, I can sue the planet for letting offensive information propagate through its atmospheric medium?
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
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.
It is already done. Example: YOUTUBE. If Google is capable of doing it.....
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!
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.
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.
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."
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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
'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.
How is Facebook operating in Italy?
Perhaps by having a sales office in Milan?
Blank until
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.
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?
Of course not. However, if I decided to locate offices on those countries then yes I would expect to have study their laws and comply with them.
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."
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
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/
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.
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.
Seriously, with the whole "smart gun" debate, and the political capital of child porn and underage sexting, I'm surprised camera companies aren't targets. The most basic thing would be a universal identifier embedded into pictures linking them to the source. Then there would be stuff like requiring an adult to copy pictures from a camera so underaged people can't send picture texts or upload pictures to the internet. Then we just need some algorithms that identify questionable images and automatically send them to the government for review before they can be transmitted anywhere. There would be some false positives, but those would be cleared up by the review staff.