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
did facebook force her to sign up?
Irrelevant, since the crap wasn't posted on her account.
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.
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.
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 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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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?
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.
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
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
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