Slashdot Mirror
Court Rules Parents May Be Liable For What Their Kids Post On Facebook
schwit1 writes Parents can be held liable for what their kids post on Facebook, a Georgia appellate court ruled in a decision that lawyers said marked a legal precedent on the issue of parental responsibility over their children's online activity. The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that the parents of a seventh-grade student may be negligent for failing to get their son to delete a fake Facebook profile that allegedly defamed a female classmate.
If your kids happen to make money, parents control that money until they are 18. They should also suffer the liability as well. You can't have one without the other. Either children are responsible or they are not.
If the remarks were truly defamatory, then couldn't the girl or her parents simply get Facebook to delete the fake profile?
If I can be modded down for being a troll, can I be modded up for being an orc, or a balrog?
If my kid shatters my neighbors window with a bad swing I'm liable, why shouldn't I be liable for wrongdoing of my kid in cyberspace?
On Slashdot, clearly you can, or your last post would not have appeared. Being a peer-moderated system, approval only gets you modded up or down, but slashdot doesn't delete bad comments like yours, and neither does Facebook.
That is all.
But shouldn't this be Facebook's responsibility? I mean, yes the parents should have some culpability, but ultimately, if a profile was created to defame someone, Facebook should be responsible for deleting it.
Please make children's accounts only if a parent account approves. Make all posts by children accounts subject to approval by parent accounts before they are seen by anyone other than child and parent. Oh, and don't allow parents to be fake accounts made by children. Otherwise, no kids on Facebook (per parental rule, not FB rule).
When parents insist on parental controls being added to things like Facebook, they become responsible for what their kids do. When you have control, you're responsible for when it goes wrong.
They want parents to take some responsibility for their children?
-1 is for unpopular speech, deleted is for things that can't be said in public.
If your kids happen to make money, parents control that money until they are 18. They should also suffer the liability as well.
You can't have one without the other. Either children are responsible or they are not.
You have it wrong.
The page was created on a school computer while the school was acting in loco parentis for the child. If anyone should be held responsible *instead of the child, whose fault it is*, it would be the school, with "contribution to the delinquency of a minor" by the "friend" who helped them create the page.
At worst, the parents are guilty of "contributory negligence" for not being software engineers.
In the link it says they only deleted it after they filed the lawsuit.
The parents were notified of the defamation and took no action to close the FB account, which remained available for another 11 months. The parents were held directly liable for failing to act once notified, not for what was posted on the fake FB account.
It's all in the PDF of the decision linked in the summary above, if you're not too lazy to read it.
"I believe in Karma. That means I can do bad things to people all day long and I assume they deserve it." : Dogbert
You can't say anything on Slashdot without everyones approval. Mod away bitches.
What? I'm called an idiot, and other nasty names by a lot of people.
That just shows that I'm very often right.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
If you are going to make me liable for something then I has to be something under my control. Short of tying my kids up in chains and never letting them do anything there is no way for me do absolutely guarantee that they will never do anything which causes liability. Not only would I refuse to do that it would be illegal and society does not want parents to do that: kids have to learn to control their own behaviour and that means giving them the freedom to do things wrong.
Parents have to be responsible but not necessarily liable. If we are taking reasonable measures to supervise our kids online including giving them guidance on how to behave as well as punishing them when they do not then I believe we have fulfilled our responsibility as parents and should not be held liable if one of them disobeys us and libels someone while we are not watching.
On the other hand if parents completely ignores their kids, provide no guidance or consequences then by all means find them negligent and hence liable through their act of negligence...but making parents automatically liable for their kids actions under all circumstances is unfair and encourages poor parenting since if means that you can't risk letting them fail. Indeed the only way to be sure would be to ban them from access the net: does society really want that?
I for one am not surprised that the former USSR state of Georgia, now a sovereign Communist Nation, thinks that. ... oh ... wait
The US State of Georgia.
Oh my fracking God!
Are they insane?
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
In the UK that equates to a 12 year old.
The minimum age for a Facebook account is 13. It's right there, in their terms and conditions.
Parental fail.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
Slippery slope. That's all.
Facebook *does* retroactively censor, and not for maintaining moral standards. Most of the time it's politically motivated. Two examples: I am aware of a page, and I have not only made Facebook and CEOP aware, I have also made the police aware. Said page advertises children for sale in the UK. Said page is still up after four YEARS. I created a page to raise awareness of missing endangered children in the UK, my page was not only deleted after three weeks, it was expunged from the database (I have the notification from the facebook online safety team) and I had three visits: one from Kent police, one from Sussex police and one from the Metropolitan police, all threatening to arrest and hold me on unspecified charges if I ever pulled such a stunt again.
So I asked myself, why would a social network pull a page intended to offer a conduit for parents searching for their missing/abducted children? Asked then answered: those children are victims of the aforementioned trafficking network - that just happens to be run by a private company which operates with Government sanction and police protection. I have screenshots of Google search results and the pages themselves of examples of children I am personally aware of having been abducted on entirely specious grounds ("risk of future emotional harm") and subsequently sold. It isn't just one or two children either. It's THOUSANDS.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
The unauthorized profile and page remained accessible to Facebook users until Facebook officials deactivated the account on April 21, 2012,, not long after the Bostons filed their lawsuit on April 3, 2012 [3]. During the 11 months the unauthorized profile and page could be viewed, the Athearns made no attempt to view the unauthorized page, and they took no action to determine the content of te false, profane, and ethnically offensive information that Dustin was charged with electronically distributing. They did not attempt to learn to whom Dustin had distributed the false and offensive information or whether the distribution was ongoing. They did not tell Dustin to delete the page. Furthermore, they made no attempt to determine whether the false and offensive information Dustin was charged with distributing could be corrected, deleted, or retracted.
[...]
[3] Indeed, Facebook's records showed that, months after Dustin's principal notified the Athearns that Dustin had been disciplined for creating the unauthorized account, the fake persona continued to extend or accept requests to become Facebook Friends with additional users and that other users viewed and posted on the unauthorized page until the day before Facebook deactivated the account.
From the court's discussion of the legality of the lower court's grant of summary judgement in favor of the Athearns:
Under Georgia law, liability for the tort of a minor child is not imputed to the child's parents merely on the basis of the parent-child relationship. Parents may be held directly liable, however, for their own negligence in failing to supervise or control their child with regard to conduct which poses an unreasonable risk of harming others.
Since the parents knew for almost a year that their child had posted (no kidding, chase the link) grossly offensive, defamatory, libelous information and admit they not only did nothing, at all, ever, to even so much as look at it, they didn't even tell the kid to take it down, the appeals court's reversed the summary judgement in their favor, because it seems apparent that a jury might find them negligent for that.
As always, all IMO. Insert "I think" everywhere grammatically possible.
You are attempting to insinuate that kids all kids are out slandering people all the time, which is wrong. You are further attempting to claim that all cases of insults are libel, which is also wrong. Worse, you are attempting to imply that all parents have complete control over their children's internet access at all times, which is the biggest thing wrong with backing TFAs position.
Sometimes, people need to be told to "F off!". Very often, a person complaining about something has a valid reason to complain (even if it hurts someone's feelings to hear). Lastly, since we now mandate that in all public schools kids access the internet all the time parents can not legally control or monitor their children's internet access and activity.
If you want to put supervisors on the hook for children's activity then make it fair. If a post considered illegal happened during school hours, the teacher and other members of the school who mandate internet access are on the hook. If a kid goes to the public library and posts something illegal, the Librarian is on the hook. If they visit the Police station and use a guest computer and post something, the officer in charge is on the hook.
I'm guessing that you will argue against real accountability, and of course the public outcry from fair accountability would end the discussion.
Haven't parents always been liable for the actions of their children? I've always figured I was. If my kids made some mess they couldn't clean up, I knew I was on the hook for it. I suppose I shouldn't speak in the past tense, because I still have two who aren't yet legal adults.
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
If I had kids I'd block Facebook at home immediately!
Yet another blow to personal responsibility.
This story reminds me of these rednecks who had their 15 seconds of fame: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ejGGwq4qTmE
Now this country is allowing parents to sue each other over things like this? Those crazy Democrats are at it again!
So you can hold the parents accountable for a kid breaking windows with a slingshot, but deny the parent the ability to take away the slingshot. Yes, that is a correct analogy. That analogy demonstrates that you are mentally deficient and should never, ever, speak in public. In fact burn your voter registration card because you are too delusional to cast a ballot.
"Eltern haften für Ihre Kinder" => "Parents are liable for their Children"
Is a sign that is used around construction sites in Germany. I have seen it all my life but it basically is complete bullshit.
There are a LOT of cases where children may damage the property of others but the parents will not have to pay.
I don't know who makes these retarded laws.
http://www.focus.de/finanzen/r...
* 2014 and Slashdot has problems with Umlauts - why do I still come here? .... keep focusing on your fucking Beta UI!
Everyone who buys Wild Hunt will receive 16 specially prepared DLCs absolutely for free, regardless of platform.
I have mod points but unfortunately I've already posted.
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
While the kid is at school, the school is the parents for the child, legally.
This is not true, at least where I live (California). They have to get permission for the smallest thing. I have to jump through hoops to get my daughter's inhaler stored at the Nurse's office (doctors letter, signed, verified) just because she could become asthmatic when heavily exercising. They have to get all sorts permission just to share the kids personal information with the doctor. They need parental consent forms for field trips... the list goes on and on.
School most definitely doesn't have anything near limited power of attorney, much less full parental discretionary powers.
Make sure everyone's vote counts: Verified Voting
'Parents can be held liable'
'The Georgia Court of Appeals ruled that the parents of a seventh-grade student may be negligent'
Pffft, no precedent.
At one hundred yards, volley fire, present...
See also, radio broadcasts in Rwanda.
Robots my arse.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Yet another blow to personal responsibility.
No, this is another blow to people who want to evade personal responsibility. You are supposed to be responsible for the actions of your children, because it's your job to teach them right from wrong. Most people plunk their kids down in front of the idiot box and then are surprised when they become idiots, but you can't be surprised by your child's development unless you are failing as a parent. Kids don't automatically become alienated from their parents. I know several people who always had great relationships with their parents. Guess what? They're the parents who really cared about their kids, really put time and energy and effort into their upbringing. Didn't lie to them left and right just for convenience's sake. It's really not a complicated recipe, first you have your shit together and then you have kids and then you don't fill their minds with bullshit. Then they turn out OK, except for the one in ten thousand (or whatever) that's a genetic something-path.
Some of you had parents like that and are wondering what all the fuss is about, how this happens. Or perhaps a mentor who helped you out. The rest of us had to work it out for ourselves, and some of us got it badly wrong. And it was our parents' responsibility to help us get it right. Most of us will spend the rest of our lives impaired to some extent by our parents' selfish need to procreate when they knew, in most cases, that they were unprepared. You can tell that it's most of us by how most of us act.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
Georgia is like Texas with a political and legal history that is beyond ignorant and insane. Frankly Georgia should not be allowed to have laws of its own or a court system or cops of their own. In cases like Georgia and Texas federal agencies should be in total control. These states have proven that they can not be self governing. Portions of Florida exhibit similar mind numbing legal practices.
I find it ironic that no one else has posted about how there were two people who made the page. It was the other girl (as noted in the court report list in the article) who created the email account that was used for this Facebook page. With that in mind, the boy *could* have disabled the page but the other girl could have reactivated it at any time.
The parents suing the boy, have not sued the girl. We have no idea if the Boy was actually doing the posting or not, it could have been the other girl. Facebook keeps all the login information, perhaps they should be served with a court order to turn it over.
What I see here, is that the girl this was all posted about, her parents want the BOY to pay, while ignoring the other girl. That in itself opens up a very nice counter suit for discrimination and harassment. It was also noted that other people were posting statements, beyond just this fake user, which would allow for another counter suit about how this boy is being made an example.
Its also of note, they are trying to *claim* that this facebook profile is *property*, yet the agreement states you own nothing you put on facebook. So under those assumptions, should the girls parents not sue facebook?
This is why the COPA and other laws like it are bad. People under 13 cannot sign up for email or such, yet at 13 they can and there is no parental controls built in such as a second login that only the parents have, where they can see all email sent and received. While at home, my kids are tracked, and things like Facebook are blocked. Their cell phones have the carrier controls on them so I at least know who they talk to, though not the content. IF as parents are are responsible for the kids online actions, but the creators of these services do not have better parental controls, then the laws need to say that until your 18 (or emancipated) and can PROVE IT along with a signed contract, you cannot use these services. What is a 13 year old calls someone in an online game a NOOB and the other kid cries. Are we now liable for that? What if they create a Facebook page at school on the school computer and harass a kid, are parents liable for that? Its a slippery slope, one that will lead to 1984 or worse.......
Just my two coppers
spoiled parents will not be of much help with their spoiled kids
...as simple as it is to get one's hands on a computer and internet access, parents should similarly be equipped with the tools and knowledge to be able to better manage their children's online business. Slashparents, I'm sure, don't have an issue with such things (think worst-case heavy-handed approach with keyloggers, parental filtering, logging, webcam capturing ... we're equipped and capable of knowing every online move). But muggleparents just aren't.
There's the concern, too, that if your 7th-grade kid is defaming someone on Facebook, then you've already failed this 13-year old with poor parenting choices during his formative years, and the impact that parent-driven punitive measures would have at that point in his life are minimal, compared to if the courts got involved and punished the kid for you.
References, links, screenshots and so on, or I'm calling shenanigans on this. Furthermore, you failed to mention what the NSPCC had to say about it when you contacted them with evidence. You did contact them with evidence, didn't you?
action"...
It says this:
"... ruled that the parents of a seventh-grade student may be negligent for failing to get their son to delete a fake Facebook profile."
That means that parents may be liable for not enforcing that their child remove the fake profile after the court asked them to. It does not mean that they are liable for the profile in the first place.
Summary is scaremongering.
to answer your last question: no, because they're implicated. To expand on that you'd have to read this, which also explains the other bit: https://www.academia.edu/57099...
[ABSTRACT]:
Freedom of Information Act 2000 requests made between October 2011 and May 2012 reveal that the majority of Local Authorities in England and Wales do not conform or abide by the Vienna Convention on Consular Relations 1963. Most have neither policy nor practice with due regard to the basic tenet of s.37 of the Convention: the receiving State’s duty to inform relevant sending state Consuls regarding their foreign children that have been removed from parents in UK care proceedings. The UK signed the Convention in 1964. Signatories have the following duty, without exception, under Article 37 (b) of the Vienna Convention of Consular Relations 1963: Article 37 (b):
“If the relevant information is available to the competent authorities of the receiving State, such authorities shall have the duty:
-
to inform the competent consular post without delay of any case where the appointment of a guardian or trustee appears to be in the interests of a minor or other person lacking full capacity who is a national of the sending State.”
Nothing in the Convention states that adherence to Article 5 (h) is to be interpreted so as to exclude obligations under Article 37 (b).
Article 5 (h):
“safeguarding, within the limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State, the interests of minors and other persons lacking full capacity who are nationals of the sending State, particularly where any guardianship or trusteeship is required with respect to such persons;”
There appears to be no domestic law or Convention signatory limitation obviating UK any of the UK authorities involved with removing and caring for foreign children from informing the sending states of their parents under legislative "limits imposed by the laws and regulations of the receiving State” Art.5(h) above.
The usual pattern appears to be that the UK local authority does not inform the relevant Consul once a foreign child is taken into care and judiciary refuse to uphold the same duty to the child and other States Parties to the Convention when the omission is raised in court. Other involved agencies, such as the Police, CAFCASS, Foreign and Commonwealth Office and Ministeries and regulators, also have no regard to their respective duties as State bodies under the Convention.
The practice is widespread, with foreign children stealthily processed with the full knowledge and consent of current and previous Presidents of the Family Division - alongside Lord Justice Thorpe who currently heads UK International Family Law. The dilemma for parents of what appears to be the unlawful removal of children is compounded when subsequent statutory safeguards and processes are ignored by both local authority and judiciary. For example, interim care orders are routinely renewed by post without written consent of the parents. Recent changes to law obviate previous duty to hold monthly interim hearings before care order renewal, making lawful practices previously unlawful. Those hearings now need only be applied for only when affected parents can produce evidence of ‘change’ to the circumstances claimed as justification for the removal of their. Few of the local authorities fully particularise their claims. Police have been known to assist local authorities with unlawful removals, including immediately after birth by forceful restraint and assault of the mother and at least one case where the baby was actually cut out of the mother (Pacchieri), enabled by the presentation of false court documentation to hospitals (MANY example cases of this kind exist). Most removals effectively amount to kidnap.
[END ABSTRACT]:
The report details admission by local authorities of the abduction of well over three thousand children of foreign nationals between 2007 and 2012. THAT IS WHAT THEY ADMIT TO.
Political debates have me rolling my eyes so much I think I got optical whiplash. I should sue. - Foamy The Squirrel
If the post occurred during the school day, first in loco perentis mean that it's acutely the school that is fully responsible?
Parents are responsible for nearly ALL of their children's actions. There is nothing new hear at all.
I suppose that if you grew up in Indonesia like Obama you may not have known that.