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.

Comments

Why not? When you have kids..

[saloomy]

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.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Culture20]

The internet isn't some zone that is free from libel and slander laws just because "it's on a computer."

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

I guess you have never been victim of libel on the internet. I see no difference between publishing false statement that are damaging to a person's reputation in a newspaper or on the internet; they are both libel. Why do you think posts on the internet should be exempt?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[The New Guy 2.0]

There's such a thing as illegal speech. You can't post libel or slander on the Internet. You have a right to say anything true, but you don't have permission say bad things about a person or company that aren't true.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Anonymous Coward]

Then this comment shouldn't be liable if it spews hate specifically towards you or otherwise reveals information obtained about you that threatens your safety, health, well-being, or livelihood, should it?

Of course not. Are you some sort of fucking retard? Kill yourself.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[taustin]

You are, in fact, saying libel and slander laws (which specifically sanction the person who speaks or writes them) are bullshit.

Which is to say, you're go stupid you have no idea what you're saying.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[saloomy]

So if I post a stock trade on the internet, am I not liable if it looses money? What if I repeat on the internet what someone has said IRL? What if it wasn't on the internet, but on some other network, or on a cell phone that traverses the internet using a VOIP backend or even better still, just a land line? If a terrorist posts a command to others to attack some entity, is he not liable because it was on the internet? Where does liability start?

To impose that whatever happens "on the internet" is not real and shouldn't count is just plain unrealistic. What you say should count, you said it! I think you should be free to say it anonymously as well, and be free of "backtracking" that comment to you. But if you connect yourself to the comment, then absolutely you should be liable. Why are you so against personal responsibility? People are responsible for their actions. Plain and simple, and thats a good thing. If you post a great work of art on the internet, you are entitled to its copyright, so you are reaping the rewards from that work, and you can't have benefit on one hand and reject liability on the other. By great work of art, imagine your photography, a game you made, or some other product.

Is it ridiculous to state that tangible harm was done because of said comment? Maybe. If so, prove it. We have a mechanism for managing the relationships between people and the harm they might inflict with their actions. That's why we have courts. Its a good thing, and a good system.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[sumdumass]

There is a principle in most states that place limits and in some cases indemnify parents from some acts committed by children due to the fact that children are thinking creature capable of acting on their own will. It's sort of like school, you can teach them all day long but will they learn and will they put what they learned to use or will they attempt something they have not even learned yet.

In some cases, your kid may be the only one liable for the broken window.

But this case isn't exactly like that. It was a defamation case over a fake facebook profile and it wasn't the fact that it existed that made the parents liable. It was that it remained up for 11 months and viewable after the parents were contacted and the two students behind it was suspended from school as well as disciplined by their own parents.

This is more sort of more like if your kid kept swinging balls into the neighbors window for 11 months after being told he broke it the first time.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[The New Guy 2.0]

So if I post a stock trade on the internet, am I not liable if it looses money?So if I post a stock trade on the internet, am I not liable if it looses money?

If you say "I think this is going up..." you're playing along with sites like Fool.com and MotifInvensting.com where users share ideas, but aren't liable if it doesn't work.

If you shout "This is going up!" and then sell into the sea of users following you, then that's "pump and dump" and you get banned by the FTC.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

*sigh* I've already replied to this nonsense too many times. You people have the wrong guy.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[The New Guy 2.0]

Uhm, kids who make money try to keep it away from their parents unless they have a really good relationship with them. I still haven't been able to enjoy the money I made from the CBS Latenight News.

Re: Why not? When you have kids..

[Anonymous Coward]

I just told my 11 year old son about this and he replied, "get ready to go to jail"

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Em Adespoton]

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.

That reminds me: I need to LLC my kids.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Anonymous Coward]

So, when I start publishing about how you're a pedo, and now you can't get a job because of it, you're cool with it, right?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Anonymous Coward]

fustakrakich is a convicted repeated child rapist who has never expressed remorse or guilt for his crimes. This is fact.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

By the followers, even if by fear, that's the only way it can grow. Without them, nothing happens. It could hardly be more simple.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[PopeRatzo]

That's OK, as long as you don't post his credit card information.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[PopeRatzo]

Well, now that's just not true. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are absolute. Not one. They were not intended to be absolute, either, according to the Founders. Every single one has exceptions.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

I am just glad that most countries disagree with you. Libel and slander has been in Common Law for centuries and I doubt it will ever change.

Sanction the believers who act, not the preacher who speaks.

How do you sanction someone who decides not to vote for a candidate due to the lies posted about the candidate? How about the people who shun the citizen due to the lies making him out to be a pedophile? Most time the actions of the believers are not sanctionable but they still harm the person libeled.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

Quite simply, my beef is with the morons who would believe you. To you yourself, the only proper response would be crafty verbal one. I might need to hire a writer for such a purpose...

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

I would rather have a functioning 1st amendment than slander and libel laws. I think having slander and libel laws, especially in the 21st century, attempts and fails miserably to create a environment where public information can/should be trusted by virtue of the fact that it is published.

I would much rather have a society where every piece of published information is treated with healthy skepticism, and freedom of speech is more than just some lofty ideal.

If no one expects information found on the internet to be true, then people will be far less likely to be harmed when it turns out to be false. Also we can save our society a lot of waste by avoiding all the unnecessary slander and libel litigation and instead have all these would-be lawyers doing something more productive with their lives.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Anonymous Coward]

According to fustakrakich, it's fine if I post his/her credit card info, as long as I don't charge anything to it.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

If everyone was called a pedo on the internet at some point, then we might be able to finally convince people that things on the internet aren't true. There are only about 7 billion people on the internet, it shouldn't take a computer more than a few hours to call every person in the world a pedo.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

There isn't a difference. Libel laws are stupid in general.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[epyT-R]

That's right. Words != action... The word 'hate' has been appropriated way too much to justify witchhunts. If your safety is threatened, call the police. People need to stop equating every little bullshit insult as 'threatening hate speech'. They also need to learn the concept of hyperbole.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

You need to look up the difference between normative and descriptive claims.

There is also such a thing as the 1st amendment of the constitution.

It is our job as members of society to decide if it is more important to have the right of freedom of speech, or the right to never have anything false (as determined by someone) published about you.

Saying "it's illegal" is not an argument for whether it *should be* illegal. That is for us as members of society to decide through public discourse, social pressure, and voting.

I can say "Libel laws are illegal according to the constitution", but it really doesn't mean anything until it is interpreted by courts in that way.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[plover]

According to him, it's the fault of the believer for being so stupid as to trust a random web site claiming he's a pedo. But given how many people believe "it must be true, I read it on the Internet, and they can't publish anything on the Internet that isn't true", I don't think arguing with a potential employer is a winning strategy for a job seeker.

While I haven't really considered where I'd fall on the line of how much the slander and libel laws abridge the right to free speech, the case law itself is well established. To establish a defamation claim, most states require the plaintiff prove four elements: the defendant made a defamatory communication to a third party, the statement was false, the defendant was at fault in communicating it, and the plaintiff suffered harm. The courts have established that sending an email to someone else meets the publication requirement, as does posting on a web site. The plaintiff is supposed to only recover actual or compensatory damages commensurate with the harm suffered. Punitive damages may be awarded if the act was wanton, malicious, reckless, or in willful disregard for another's rights. And in the case of libel, the plaintiff may not have to prove harm.

He may or may not like the law and how it's been interpreted, but either way he's obligated to follow it. If it's that important to him, he can run for office and try to change it.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Anonymous Coward]

So essentially you're saying you're a total idiot. By your crude (non-)logic Stalin, Hitler, Saddam, Pol Pot, Mugabe, Bin Laden and the likes of them are all innocent angels guilty of no crime, because they certainly didn't act out any physical crimes themselves.

I hope you're just a troll, because otherwise your stupidity is so enormous it physically hurts other people by mere exposure to it.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

It must be nice to never be effected by the statements of others. Libelous statements can effect carriers, political office, social interactions, etc. Why should someone be able to publish lies about someone else? Please note the difference between a negative opinion and a lie. For example, "I think he is an idiot" is an opinion while "He diddle small children" is a lie if he didn't actually do it.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Bengie]

Even if not libel, it falls under harassment. As long as the target audience is people "near" the person being harassed, it's harassment. It's the intent that makes this more of an issue. Intent to harass is not hard to show, most people understand when it's happening.

What I don't get is why was defendant not asked to take down the site and instead just gets huge charges without a chance to "take back". Or at least this is what I'm getting the feeling happened. I'm not really sure if the child or parents were properly asked to take down the page.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Bengie]

You can't blame the sheeple, you have to blame the Shepard. People are stupid and have no control over what they do, but a person can be held liable.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

That's bullshit. Words do nothing. And I don't care if a story sounds *plausible* to the believer, he would still be the moron to chase down.

It's not the pen, it's the man's conscious that decides what happens with the sword. You're only trying to pass blame, you are saying "the devil made me do it" is a valid excuse, and fuck that.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

I think having slander and libel laws, especially in the 21st century, attempts and fails miserably to create a environment where public information can/should be trusted by virtue of the fact that it is published.

Too bad that is not the objective of libel and slander laws. The objective is to create a deterrence for posting those lies.

If no one expects information found on the internet to be true, then people will be far less likely to be harmed when it turns out to be false.

Notice that you said "far less likely to be harmed" which means that some people will be harmed by these lies. How do those people get compensation for that harm?

Also we can save our society a lot of waste by avoiding all the unnecessary slander and libel litigation and instead have all these would-be lawyers doing something more productive with their lives.

Without libel and slander laws such lies will become much more commonplace. There will be much more time wasted trying to counter the lies than is ever taken up in libel/slander suites.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

That is absolute BS. A gun and the bullets are physical objects, capable of causing real harm. Words can do no such thing, never, impossible, unless they can trigger a robot.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Is "He *is* an idiot" an opinion? Or is it a statement able to be factually verified and proven false and libelous?

is "I think he diddle's small children" just an opinion?

Is there anything truly gained by forcing people to premise every potentially libelous statement with an "I think" or an "I heard someone else say" in order to avoid litigation?

Is it worth giving up the right to freedom of speech for something so much worse?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

In this particular issue, the kids who posted this page had already been suspended for a few days, the school and the parents all knew about this FB page for 11 months! It would be one thing if the page had only been up a little while, and no one knew about it. But it was up for almost a whole year AFTER the whole incident had come out in public. The page was identity theft, making the "user" look like a slut, very racist, made her look "fat" via some app. The school gave the kids two days in-school suspension, but refused to tell the victim's parents who it was even though they knew. 11 months where two sets of parents AND the school administration knew what was happening but just...ignored it? Why the perp's parents didn't force them to take it down either means the parents endorsed the page or their SO absent that, even though their kids got in trouble for a FB page, didn't care enough to do anything about it for almost a whole year.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

No that wouldn't matter either. The bank is (or most definitely should be held) responsible for its security, whether the info is posted or not. You all have this whole thing so backwards, and I'm going to take the hits for it. Belief in the propaganda is so thick..

Bleh, fuck it... waddami gonna do?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Zak3056]

Well, now that's just not true. None of the amendments in the Bill of Rights are absolute. Not one. They were not intended to be absolute, either, according to the Founders. Every single one has exceptions.

The constitution, as written, is a whitelist of things the government is allowed to do. The bill of rights is a list of examples of things it is not allowed to do. This suggestion that there are exceptions has no basis in the text of either one. I'll never understand how some people can read, "congress shall make no law," "shall not be infringed," "no person shall be deprived of life liberty or property without due process of law," and other similar statements and come up with "this isn't absolute."

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

Is there anything truly gained by forcing people to premise every potentially libelous statement with an "I think" or an "I heard someone else say" in order to avoid litigation?

Such premises may not even protect the speaker. What is or is not a libelous statement is worked out in the courts. Whether someone wsays "I think he is an idiot" or "he is an idiot" both are generally accepted as opinion. On the other hand, if the statement was "he has an IQ of 50" would be libelous if it was not true.

Is it worth giving up the right to freedom of speech for something so much worse?

Again, that is a false dilemma. Freedom of speech with reasonable limitations is very far from no freedom od speech. It is definitely worth giving up the right to publish lies so that there can be recourse for people harmed by them.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[linuxrocks123]

So, your system would have people able to say anything, and then you read someone's mind to figure out he didn't hire you, or didn't invite you to his party, or stopped being your friend because he thought you're a pedo, and then you sue all those people. Meaning you're making EVERYTHING a protected class for the purposes of hiring and killing freedom of association while you're at it. That sounds like a much more restrictive world to me than the current one, which just has, "don't spread nasty lies about people" as the prohibition.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Too bad that is not the objective of libel and slander laws. The objective is to create a deterrence for posting those lies.

Too bad that is not the actual/only effect of libel and slander laws. The actual effect is more time and effort wasted on litigation and a chilling effect on freedom of speech because even if you are right, there is a chance the judge/jury may not reach that same conclusion, and it's safer to just keep your mouth shut. Especially when the person you are accused of slandering or libeling is providing the judge's livelihood.

Notice that you said "far less likely to be harmed" which means that some people will be harmed by these lies. How do those people get compensation for that harm?

Of course I noticed it. I said it intentionally. You are making an assumption that everyone is entitled to be compensated for being harmed. I do not agree that this the right or even feasible. How am I compensated form the harm caused to me when I am dumped by a girlfriend? How am I compensated for the harm caused to me when my favorite sports team lost the big game? It is not possible or desirable to compensate every instance of harm caused to someone.

Maybe one day when we are actually capable of providing this service of compensating every bit of harm down to a hurt feeling, we can talk about deciding whether we actually want it. Until then I don't think it's fair to advertise libel and slander laws as solutions to people being harmed. People will be harmed with or without them.

Without libel and slander laws such lies will become much more commonplace.

I agree.

There will be much more time wasted trying to counter the lies than is ever taken up in libel/slander suites.

You don't need to waste time countering lies that lack validity in the first place.

If I posted a nasty lie about you in slashdot, you might try to track me down for libel. But you would probably just assume that no one gives a shit about what some random person said in the slashdot comment section. And that's the way it should be. We should treat every claim made from an unreliable source as unreliable. We would all be better off if this was the expectation.

We could create a society where every time you dumped someone, there was a court that would determine how much each person was harmed by the break up and award money to the appropriate party and their attorney. The fact that we do not have this system does not mean that we don't care about people's feelings when they get dumped. It does not mean we condone jerks who dump people for stupid reasons. It just means that we don;t think courts are an effective mechanism to right those wrongs. We have decided collectively that we are better off with anarchy in this specific area.

All I am saying is that I think we are better off without lawyers and courts battling over whether certain things people said were true or not. I am not saying no one was ever harmed by something someone said.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Whether someone wsays "I think he is an idiot" or "he is an idiot" both are generally accepted as opinion.

Not only is it generally accepted as opinion, whether it *should be* accepted as an opinion is also an opinion.

On the other hand, if the statement was "he has an IQ of 50" would be libelous if it was not true.

Or maybe it's not libelous if it was a joke, or a quote of what someone else said, or a myriad of other subjectively assessed reasons.

Again, that is a false dilemma [wikipedia.org]. Freedom of speech with reasonable limitations is very far from no freedom od speech. It is definitely worth giving up the right to publish lies so that there can be recourse for people harmed by them.

I know what a false dilemma is, and what I am doing is clearly not that. I am acknowledging the "third" option that you are proposing but I am arguing that it actually falls into one of the other 2 categories.

According to wikipedia a flase dilemma is

a type of informal fallacy that involves a situation in which only limited alternatives are considered, when in fact there is at least one additional option.

I have considered and specifically acknowledged the option you presented and presented my own argument of why it is not really an option distinct from the 2 I presented.

You're with us or you're against us.

is a false dilemma because you can be neither.

You're with us or you're not with us.

is a true dilemma because you can't be neither.

Presenting only 2 options is not a false dilemma if the 2 options actually provides full coverage for all the possible options.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

Or maybe it's not libelous if it was a joke, or a quote of what someone else said, or a myriad of other subjectively assessed reasons.

All of which would be worked out through precedents and the courts.
You presented two options; Complete free speech or something "so much worse" than free speech. I say that there is a third option; limited free speech which in my opinion is better than completely free speech as it limits the damage caused by lies. Since it does not fall in the category of "so much worse" and it is not completely free speech it does is not covered by your two choices therefore you presented a false dilemma.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[PopeRatzo]

This suggestion that there are exceptions has no basis in the text of either one.

The Founding Fathers loved exceptions. Remember,

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness

...except you black guys over there, and you Native Americans over there, and you women over there, just shut up and get back in the kitchen. Oh, and only people with money get to vote. God bless America.

"Self-evident truths" my ass.

Seriously, you can find a lot of the ratification debates on the Internet if you care to ever learn a little bit about the founding of this great nation. It's pretty clear that the whole Bill of Rights thing was a stop-gap to get a handful of slave-owners to ratify the Constitution, or the whole thing would fall apart. They meant the entire damn Constitution to be a first draft, maybe to last a decade at most, and then get replaced by something that made sense and wasn't so full of holes. It wasn't supposed to become some kind of civic holy scripture.

The very first Supreme Court established exceptions to the Bill of Rights. Congress "shall make no law" infringing your rights, as long as you behave. And guess what happened. People didn't behave. Somebody started shooting up the town when they got drunk and all of a sudden laws to keep guns out of irresponsible hands were made. People libeled other people and instead of letting them go down to the river to shoot it out in a duel, libel laws were created to infringe on that First Amendment. And even the very first Supreme Court, guys who not only hung with the Founding Fathers, but who were Founding Fathers themselves said, "Well, of course. Because some people don't know how to fucking behave."

What part of "two hundred plus years of precedent" is so hard to understand?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

Sorry but the world is not as black and whit as you seem to want it to be. I said nothing about harm caused by a breakup. What about losing a job or an election? What about creating a target for ridicule by other children at school? Some harm does not merit compensation. Some does. The difference is determined by legal precident and the courts.

We have decided collectively that we are better off with anarchy in this specific area.

We have also decided collectivly through Common Law precidents, that we are not better off with anarchy on the areas of libel and slander.

By the way your "create a society where every time you dumped someone" argument is a straw man as I never said all harm needs to be compensated.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[PopeRatzo]

So you don't believe that speech is an action? It's somehow divorced from human behavior to such an extent that it has no effect on other people?

If your rights extend only to the nose of the other person, don't they also extend only to the ears and the eyes?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

The effect is what the person provides. Is everybody going to react the same way to the same words? No. If I can ignore "bad" words, you can too. If you can't, then the problem is yours, not the guy who says them. His problem is related, but the power of his words come from you, the believer. Your reaction is your own responsibility, not his. All this shit is more than adequately documented. All those nasty folks of the last century got their power from the people who followed them. Our world is built by us, not the charismatic we follow, and then try to blame. The same rules must apply on all levels. And don't buy your next RV from Crazy Eddie. As far as offense to the ears, the only issue is the decibel level. The content is nothing, as long as everyone remains in tune, well, preferably. It's a matter of esthetics. And as a compromise, I'll wear a mask if I offend your eyes :-)

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[taustin]

Did Twitter kick you out again?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[AK Marc]

Lying to harm someone is an act (speech) that causes harm.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[AK Marc]

But lying for personal gain is "legal" in their dystopia. So pump and dump should be legal, as all fraud would be legal.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[AK Marc]

So fraud should be legal. Contracts should be illegal. Promising something is words, you should have the freedom to promise anything you want in exchange for money, and not be held liable for those promises, right?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Anonymous Coward]

Calling people names is not libel or slander.
Insulting them is not libel or slander.
Voicing a negative opinion on them is not libel or slander

Deliberately telling lies about them that has a negative impact on their life is libel or slander.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TapeCutter]

Meh - everyone gets their CC number posted sooner or later, millions of them are swapped by petty criminals everyday.That's one of the reasons why banks give you a new one every few years.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

Sorry sir, you need to point out a single one in the 1st amendment. Not what the courts say, what the statue says. Read it word for word, and find me the exception, anything at all, even an allowance for one.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TapeCutter]

Ask your parents what they think of your ideas.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Pfhorrest]

That's the Declaration of Independence you're quoting, which was not authored by precisely the same people, not subject to the approval of the same people, as those who wrote and ratified the Constitution, which was written 11 years later and wasn't even a document of the same type. Jefferson and those he presumed to speak for may well really have found it self-evident that all men were created equal, at least self-evident enough to pronounce the fact to the British while effectively declaring war against them. But that's a far cry from convincing a continental convention of representatives of legislatures of thirteen recently-sovereign states, legislatures elected by and representing, in part, wealthy land- and slave-owners, to enshrine such principle in the nigh-immutible supreme law of the lands in which said electorate lived.

In other words, it's one thing for a small handful of people to profess principles to their enemies; it's another thing entirely to get whole societies to agree to bind themselves to those principles. The fact that the professed principles of the founders were immediately ignored says nothing about the intent of those founders, and everything about our collective disrespect for principle in general when the rubber hits the road.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Geeky]

Sounds like a job for Wowbagger the Infinitely Prolonged

.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakarkich]

Is it okay to impersonate somebody and make them look bad? I, fustakrakich, thinks it's just nigga-ass-fucking awesome.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[bloodhawk]

free speech has NEVER meant freedom from consequences, it merely means the government will not try to regulate what you say, you are perfectly free to make libelous comments online, just their will potentially be consequences. libel laws do NOT limit freedom of speech.

Re: Why not? When you have kids..

[bloodhawk]

I am not the AC, but ummmm you did just bite. A troll exists to illicit a reaction, you gave him one and thus rewarded his post.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[bloodhawk]

obviously you have never been the victim of libel which can be devastating. My friend lost his entire business over one disgruntled customer who was more than two months overdue on payment for work completed, so he handed the bill over to debt collectors, the person then started a campaign to discredit his business, within a few months the decline in business was enough to send him bankrupt, he lost his business and his house. Sadly for him even libel laws were not enough to save him as while he was easily able to prove the guy was telling lies in court, the guy had no money so he never got a cent of the court victory. without libel laws the damage done to people and businesses would explode, as it is if you are a person with not much to lose you can get away with doing a lot of damage for very little consequences.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[AmiMoJo]

In the UK this concept extends to animals too. If your dog causes damage you are liable because you are deemed to control the dog. If your cat destroys something, as they often enjoy doing, you can't be held accountable as cats are considered free spirits and impossible to control.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[mwvdlee]

This isn't mere libel.
This is a case of one person impersonating another.
Not parodying, but with the intent of making the world believe he is that person.
This is a case of identity theft.
There are no freedom-of-speech conflicts here.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[PopeRatzo]

That's the Declaration of Independence you're quoting, which was not authored by precisely the same people,

They may not have all been the same authors (but mostly) but they definitely signed on to it.

it's another thing entirely to get whole societies to agree to bind themselves to those principles.

They didn't get "whole societies" to agree to bind themselves. They got a relative handful of wealthy white men to agree to bind themselves. Everybody else was along for the ride.

There was no public referendum to ratify.

The fact that the professed principles of the founders were immediately ignored says nothing about the intent of those founders,

Except that those respective founders were the ones who immediately ignored those principles. It says everything about their intent, which was counter-revolutionary. They were setting themselves up as an aristocracy.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[PopeRatzo]

Not all bad words can be ignored.

Let's say a young women is raped and killed. I bear false witness and tell the police that I saw you rape and kill her. Even without going to court, I've gotten you arrested. I convince thirty friends to also say they saw you rape and kill her. We all tell our stories repeatedly to the grief-stricken father who then beats you half to death.

None of us did anything but use speech. Of course, it's the father who would be liable for your injuries, but would you really say that we weren't complicit by taking advantage of a man's grief in order to see you injured?

Remember, libel laws are civil laws, not criminal. They indicate culpability in damages, not the commission of a crime.

Not all bad words can be ignored. And bad words, on their own can do real damage.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[cellocgw]

And we can do it without any fear of retribution. "PEDO" now means "person of excellent demeanor online" (by which I mean "I just made that piece of BS up") .

Who would ever confuse 'PEDO' and 'pedo'?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[tbannist]

That's bullshit. Words do nothing. And I don't care if a story sounds *plausible* to the believer, he would still be the moron to chase down.

So, it's perfectly ok for me to promise to pay money to the first person to murder your "child-raping" ass? Only the person who actually murders you should face any kind of criminal charges?

It's not the pen, it's the man's conscious that decides what happens with the sword.

I don't think anyone is saying that the person who commits the crime should be absolved of the blame because someone else told him to do it. They saying the guy who order other people murdered should not be allowed to walk free while his flunkies go to jail for the crimes he ordered. It's like you too ignorant to have ever heard of the mafia and organized crime.

You're only trying to pass blame, you are saying "the devil made me do it" is a valid excuse, and fuck that.

Actually it's opposite of that, they're saying we should lock up both the "pawn" and "the devil".

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

Yes

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

The law says what it says quite explicitly. I cannot account for bad reading comprehension by a corrupt judge.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

And dig... You even come with your own moderator... That's cool...

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Whether your third option falls into the category of "so much worse" is the crux of what we are debating.

So no it is not a false dilemma. Your 3rd option was acknowledged, and my argument is that it actually belongs in one of the other 2 categories I presented.

My argument is essentially that freedom of speech should not be considered freedom of speech if it has exceptions for slander and libel which are clearly speech.

This is not a false dilemma regardless of whether I am right or wrong.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[plover]

Civil disobedience is an option, but it generally requires popular support. When Rosa Parks refused to sit in the back of the bus, there were a lot of people who agreed that it was an unjust law, and supported her. If he tries that with libel and slander laws, he'll likely find that most people would rather not be lied to, they would not like granting random strangers the freedom to post photoshopped pictures of them smoking crack and costing them their jobs, and ultimately would not support repealing the law.

The Supreme Court has found many cases of unprotected speech, including threats, extortion, incitement, and this goes way back. They have long held that freedom of speech is not absolute.

Now, the laws regarding intentional infliction of emotional distress are new, and are pretty awful. There are other laws that could used to prosecute harassment, and so I can see those eventually being challenged. But libel and slander? Those go all the way back to English law, and at least as of today, they help keep a civil society.

So when I suggested he run for office, that was really my way of saying "go away, and spend your time fruitlessly in pursuit of this nonsense."

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

What about losing a job or an election?

If maintaining a particular job or winning an election were a right, I would say this is a pretty good reason to try to rectify a situation that lead to someone losing that right.

What about creating a target for ridicule by other children at school?

I think part of the job of raising children to be adults is to make them mature enough not to ridicule others simply based on a suggestion.

Some harm does not merit compensation. Some does.

I agree

The difference is determined by legal precident and the courts.

This seems to be an argument that "This is the right way to do things because it is the way it is currently done". I am arguing what we *should* be doing which is independent of precedent.

We have also decided collectivly through Common Law precidents, that we are not better off with anarchy on the areas of libel and slander.

Yes we have. My claim is a normative one. I am saying we *should* treat slander and libel the same as we treat hurt feelings when people are dumped (i.e. with anarchy).

By the way your "create a society where every time you dumped someone" argument is a straw man [wikipedia.org] as I never said all harm needs to be compensated.

It is not a straw man. It is just an example I was suing to illustrate my point. I was not suggesting that your argument is reduced to the "dumping example".

I think you need to chillax on the logical fallacy accusations a little bit.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

If maintaining a particular job or winning an election were a right, I would say this is a pretty good reason to try to rectify a situation that lead to someone losing that right.

Libel/slander laws are the means to rectify the situation. Having a court rule that a defendant lied is very powerful in clearing a plaintiff's name.

I think part of the job of raising children to be adults is to make them mature enough not to ridicule others simply based on a suggestion.

That would be nice but that is not what laws are meant for. There will always be people who do not follow acceptable behaviour and there needs to be legal consequences.

I am saying we *should* treat slander and libel the same as we treat hurt feelings when people are dumped (i.e. with anarchy).

We disagree as hurt feelings when people are dumped are very different than libel/slander. It is similar to the difference between someone shoving someone causing no physical harm and murder.

It is not a straw man. It is just an example I was suing to illustrate my point.

It does not illustrate your point as it is completely different than the situation we are talking about and therefore a straw man

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

No I have never been a victim of libel. I suspect if I was, I would probably be more biased on the subject.

Should we let the families of victims of murder get a free pass to revenge kill whoever they suspect was responsible (i.e. outside the justice system) ?

Do you say no? Clearly you have never had a family member murdered. If you did, you would understand. You would also be biased to the point of not caring about the damage to society caused by allowing this degradation of the justice system.

without libel laws the damage done to people and businesses would explode, as it is if you are a person with not much to lose you can get away with doing a lot of damage for very little consequences.

It sounds like you are also arguing that even with libel laws a person can get away with doing a lot of damage for very little consequences.

What I am arguing is that libel laws inherently legitimize the claims the libelous people. We are more likely to believe the random claims of people when there is an expectation that libel is being stopped. The worst scenario is when people think it is being prevented and in reality it isn't. What I am saying is that if people have the proper expectations (that there is lots of lies out there), then people will not use unsubstantiated claims to stop using a business.

As an example. If lots of businesses on yelp have 5 stars, you can reasonably use the "I only use 5 star businesses". If we changed yelp so that a single negative review meant you got 0 stars, you would not be able to use this criteria anymore, because every business would have 0 stars.

I'm not advocating that we try to give every business 0 stars. But what I think *would* be a good thing is if peoples' expectations were adjusted such that unsubstantiated libelous claims were simply ignored rather than litigated.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

Yet you think throwing a burning flag at someone should not be allowed under freedom of speech. You have now defined three categoires, Comlpere free speech, Free speech without throwing burning flags, and "so much worse". By you own admission there are more than 2 categories of free speech. Your line is different than mine and different than every Common Law based society.

My argument is essentially that freedom of speech should not be considered freedom of speech if it has exceptions for slander and libel which are clearly speech.

You have stated your opinion quite clearly but you have not stated why. Calling it "much worse" is not a reason; it is another opinion.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Libel/slander laws are the means to rectify the situation. Having a court rule that a defendant lied is very powerful in clearing a plaintiff's name.

descriptive vs. normative

That would be nice but that is not what laws are meant for. There will always be people who do not follow acceptable behaviour and there needs to be legal consequences.

What I am saying is that *speech* should always be legal (i.e. it should be acceptable according to the law). Whether it should be acceptable in a social sense is another issue.

We disagree as hurt feelings when people are dumped are very different than libel/slander. It is similar to the difference between someone shoving someone causing no physical harm and murder.

The reason you are free to dump people is because we believe in the right to free association. If someone doesn't want to be your girlfriend anymore that is her right. It doesn't matter from a legal sense that your feelings were hurt because the right of free association is a higher priority.

It's not an issue of severity. Some people are so hurt by being dumped that they may commit suicide. This is a very severe outcome. Even in severe outcomes like suicide, dumping someone is not a crime. The issue is that protecting rights should be a higher priority than mitigating harm. Preserving the right to freedom of association should be a higher priority than mitigating the harm of dumping someone even if they are so hurt that they commit suicide.

It does not illustrate your point as it is completely different than the situation we are talking about and therefore a straw man

A straw man is a misrepresentation of an opponents argument. At no point did I make a claim of what your argument is. I think you really need to learn more about logical fallacies if you are going to invoke them so frivolously.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yet you think throwing a burning flag at someone should not be allowed under freedom of speech.

I am saying that throwing a burning flag at someone is not *just* speech. It is also assaulting someone.

If you slander or libel someone, it is *just* speech. If you slander someone while firing a gun at them, it is more than just speech.

By you own admission there are more than 2 categories of free speech.

Yes there are 2 categories of policies on freedom of speech. IF you are assaulting someone as part of your freedom of expression, it has just crossed a line of being limited to speech. Now it is speech *and* assault.

You have stated your opinion quite clearly but you have not stated why. Calling it "much worse" is not a reason; it is another opinion.

It is a reason (albeit an unsubstantiated one according to you) *and* an opinion. Preventing something because not preventing it will be "much worse" is a reason. Making a value judgement that something is indeed "much worse" is an opinion that is contingent upon ones values. For someone who does not value freedom, losing it would not be worse at all.

Re: Why not? When you have kids..

[LinuxLuver]

I'm responsible for my childrens welfare. I'm not responsible for what they do because I cannot know everything they do without being the sort of insanely controlling parent who shouldn't have children anyway. Sure, I am control their bank account. That's easy. I'm actually controlling the bank, not the child. Anyone who had ever let a child walk to the corner store to buy milk knows you can't know what they do once out of sight. Making parents liable for that is just nuts. It's an impossible situation. It's like making you responsible for what I'm going to do next. Just as arbitrary and dumb as that.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

What I am saying is that *speech* should always be legal

You have already contradicted yourself by saying that throwing a burning flag at someone is speech that should not be protected. Your "always" does not fly even with you.

It doesn't matter from a legal sense that your feelings were hurt because the right of free association is a higher priority.

In the case of libel/slander a person's right not to be publicly maligned overrides the lair's right to freedom of speech. Yes it does not say there is a right not to be maligned in the constitution but you should look at the Ninth Amendment. All rights are not enumerated in the Constitution.

I think you really need to learn more about logical fallacies if you are going to invoke them so frivolously.

Sorry, you are correct it is not a straw man but a false equivelance as there is no equivalence between libel/slander and dumping someone. The former is a public act of deception while the latter is exercising the right of freedom of association.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

Why is it much worse? You must have a reason for that opinion. The only one I can seem to see is that the principle of free speech is more important than the real harm done by people who spread lies about other people. Sorry but some times principles need to be tempered by reality.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

You have already contradicted yourself by saying that throwing a burning flag at someone is speech that should not be protected. Your "always" does not fly even with you.

Actually I said the opposite of that

I said throwing a burning flag at someone crosses the line of being *just* speech.

In the case of libel/slander a person's right not to be publicly maligned overrides the lair's right to freedom of speech.

I agree that slander and libel laws *do* in fact do that. I am arguing that they *shouldn't* do that.

Sorry, you are correct it is not a straw man but a false equivelance [wikipedia.org] as there is no equivalence between libel/slander and dumping someone.

I am not equating them. They are definitely not equal. It was an analogy. If I say "running a corporation is like running a lemonade stand", it's just an analogy, it is not equating those 2 things in every respect. It only draws a similarity in one respect.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

So when I say not having true freedom of speech is much worse, that is a value judgement that I am making about the value of freedom in general and the freedom of speech specifically.

So for me to be able to apply my reasoning to you, I would have to have some idea of whether we share any of the same values for freedom. Maybe we do, maybe we don't.

If for example, you did not value freedom (I'm not saying you don't), then my reasoning would not apply to you at all, because you do not share the same values.

So to help me cut right to the chase, if you do value freedom of speech, what is the benefit that you see in it? For example, do you see a benefit in allowing the KKK to have freedom of speech? Do you see a benefit to allowing flag burning? Do you you think the only benefit to freedom of speech is in a political context?, etc.

The only one I can seem to see is that the principle of free speech is more important than the real harm done by people who spread lies about other people.

So given that you have said this, do you think that the KKK should be stripped of their freedom of speech given that their speech is hateful and harms others? Should whether speech harms others be the benchmark of whether it is permissible? (i.e. should we have the "freedom of harmless speech" instead?)

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

It only draws a similarity in one respect.

There is no significant similarity between breaking up and libel/slander. Since there is nothing significantly similar using breaking up as an argument in a free speech discussion is not valid.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[Hognoxious]

In the UK this concept extends to animals too. If your dog causes damage you are liable because you are deemed to control the dog.

Why do you keep spouting off about a country you know nothing about?

It's clearly not the case. If your fucking sheep are on my lawn they can get chewed to fuck - as indeed can you - and you can just eat shit.

Don't DeVry teach the 1971 dogs act in their England and Wales Law for Fucktards couse? That's your sole legal qualification, right?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

For example, do you see a benefit in allowing the KKK to have freedom of speech?

Yes, up to the point that they incite violence, hate and/or discrimination based on protected attributes such as race, religion, sexual preference, etc.

Do you see a benefit to allowing flag burning?

Yes as it does not cause significant harm to others.

should we have the "freedom of harmless speech" instead?

Yet again, the world is not as black and white as you seem to want it to be. There is a third option other than "completely free speech" and freedom of harmless speech". I would rephrase your statement to the following;

freedom of speech that does not cause significant harm to others

Considering there are very few categories that fall into "speech that causes significant harm to others", the definition if which had been refined over centuries of Common Law, I see that as a workable option. You don't and seeing you presenting only two option is getting tiresome. To you "completely free speech" is the only definition for "free speech". I disagree. Again you are hung up on a principle rather than reality.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

There is no significant similarity between breaking up and libel/slander.

The similarity is that it is harmful to people.

Since there is nothing significantly similar using breaking up as an argument in a free speech discussion is not valid.

In the sense that some speech is harmful to people and currently the court system is used to rectify those situations, it is conceivable that a court system could be used to also rectify instances where people were harmed in other situations (like relationships).

You simply saying "they're different" is not enough. You need to explain what the rationale is for rectifying some harm and not others.

Why is the harm caused by slander and libel worth allowing litigation, and not the harm created by a hurtful breakup?

Re: Why not? When you have kids..

[saloomy]

I'm responsible for my childrens welfare. I'm not responsible for what they do because I cannot know everything they do without being the sort of insanely controlling parent who shouldn't have children anyway. Sure, I am control their bank account. That's easy. I'm actually controlling the bank, not the child. Anyone who had ever let a child walk to the corner store to buy milk knows you can't know what they do once out of sight. Making parents liable for that is just nuts. It's an impossible situation. It's like making you responsible for what I'm going to do next. Just as arbitrary and dumb as that.

So are you suggesting the children should be liable themselves? The state? Any adult within a few hundred feet? When a child hurts someone, who should then be liable is the question? When an adult hurts someone, they are either sued in civil court for compensation / damage relief; or tried by the state in criminal court.

Are you suggesting that the child be tried as an adult? Shared liability with the parents (both serve 1/2 time or something like that) or should the state be sending out checks every time a child causes injury to a third party?

The reason I say that parents should be liable is because you have to ask yourself: Who made the decision? The parents made a decision to have a child in the first place. Surely as we can tell, the child didn't decide to be conceived. The parents made the decision, so they should be responsible for the consequences of that decision. And in the state's case, they don't reap the rewards if the child does something productive or successful, potential benefit is under the control of the parents, of course; and so it should be. As well as the risks associated. You can not take all the rewards, and assume none of the risks in anything. Otherwise, why not have 100 children, blame the state for the 99 that don't make it successful, and claim the one who goes on Disney and becomes economically profitable? The child itself can't be responsible for making the decision because it can not understand all the consequences that go into making that decision, it is a child. Just like a computer can not understand that you are using it to write a nefarious program, and so the computer itself is not liable. That would be a silly notion. The entity making the decision has to be liable. Since the last decision made by an entity with responsibility is the parents, the judge was correct, they are the one's responsible. Neither the school, nor the state, nor the victims are in control of the child, can not discipline or punish the child, and so have no control themselves. How can this be anyone else's responsibility but the parent?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yes, up to the point that they incite violence, hate and/or discrimination based on protected attributes such as race, religion, sexual preference, etc.

So if some KKK person writes a book saying "We should start a race war", you think this book should be banned and/or the person who wrote it should be punished for a crime?

What about people who try to incite violence, hate, and/or discrimination based on non-protected attributes like height and socio-economic status?

Yes as it does not cause significant harm to others.

What if someone was very very very hurt emotionally by seeing the flag of the country they love burning? Is it that flag burning *does* not cause significant harm or that it *shouldn't* cause significant harm to a reasonable person?

freedom of speech that does not cause significant harm to others

So lets say you uncover that a "family values" politician has an extra-marital affair. Exposing that affair (i.e. using speech) would certainly cause this politician significant harm. We will likely lose his job.

I suspect that causing significant harm is not exactly what you are going for, and what is missing from this equation is the idea of causing unjust harm. Exposing a hypocritical politician certainly causes harm, but the harm caused is just.

Also you cannot necessarily predict nor control how much harm speech will cause to every person that may hear it. A person burning a flag has no control over whether this merely irritates some republicans, or causes a 95 year old war WW2 veteran to cry himself to sleep for the next week.

You don't and seeing you presenting only two option is getting tiresome. To you "completely free speech" is the only definition for "free speech".

Why does it matter to you what it is called? So let's say we call what we have "partial freedom of speech" or "limited freedom of speech". Even if you convinced me that unfettered freedom of speech was a bad thing, I don't think we should call what we have freedom of speech, given that there really is some speech that is not free.

I disagree.

clearly

Again you are hung up on a principle rather than reality.

The reality is that we could get rid of slander and libel laws, and this would not be catastrophic at all. They are not essential to a functioning society. My argument is that they do more harm than good. Maybe I'm wrong, but this is not a revolutionary or extreme idea.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

The similarity is that it is harmful to people.

It is similar but not similar enough to be treated in the same way.

You simply saying "they're different" is not enough.

I didn't say "different" I said "significantly different". Dropping qualifiers does not help your cause.

Why is the harm caused by slander and libel worth allowing litigation, and not the harm created by a hurtful breakup?

Because the harm on those two situations is significantly different. Just like being accidentally pushed is treated differently than being deliberately punched in the face. The former is considered an accident and legal while the latter could be battery and illegal. Both time the person was physically contacted but he harm is significantly different and therefore the law is significantly different.

Again, the world is not black and white.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

They are not essential to a functioning society.

Considering that most countries have a law against libel/slander that is an opinion not widely held at all.

Maybe I'm wrong, but this is not a revolutionary or extreme idea.

I think the idea that anyone can say anything they want anywhere they want regardless of the truth, harm or motivation behind the speech is an extreme idea. Yet another point we disagree on.

My argument is that they do more harm than good.

What harm is caused by restricting the spread of lies?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

It is similar but not similar enough to be treated in the same way.

I didn't say "different" I said "significantly different". Dropping qualifiers does not help your cause.

So the goal is not to simply claim 2 things are "not similar enough", or "different" or "significantly different". You are supposed to present a way to objectively measure whether something is "similar enough" or "significantly different", and a rationale for that using that metric.

Because the harm on those two situations is significantly different. Just like being accidentally pushed is treated differently than being deliberately punched in the face.

Now you are making 2 specific distinctions of level of intent (intentional vs. accidental) and severity of consequences (i.e. being pushed vs. being punched in the face).

The former is considered an accident and legal while the latter could be battery and illegal. Both time the person was physically contacted but he harm is significantly different and therefore the law is significantly different.

So in the case of slander and libel, usually no one is physically hurt. They are hurt in a non-physical ways.

What if the hurt caused during a break up was severe and intentional. Let's say someone intentionally waited until their partner's parent died to break up with them in a very cruel way, and this emotional damage was far greater than someone slandering them.

Again, the world is not black and white.

I never claimed the world is black and white. But you seem to want to treat all cases of hurt feelings during a breakup as not worthy of rectification. If the world is not black and white, shouldn't some cases be considered?

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Considering that most countries have a law against libel/slander that is an opinion not widely held at all.

Existence is not evidence of necessity. Most countries have flags. That doesn't mean flags are essential for a functioning society.

I think the idea that anyone can say anything they want anywhere they want regardless of the truth, harm or motivation behind the speech is an extreme idea. Yet another point we disagree on.

I guess it was extreme in the 18th century.

What harm is caused by restricting the spread of lies?

I think restricting the spread of lies would be a good thing if we could do it without any negative unintended consequences. But I am not opposed to restricting the spread of lies. What I am opposed to is laws that restrict freedom of speech, because I know these sorts of laws have unintended negative consequences.

Look at the journalists in imprisoned in Egypt for "spreading lies". These sorts of laws are easily abused. And if you compare all the harm caused by libel and slander, and all the harm caused by abuse of laws restricting the spread of lies, I don;t think there would be any contest.

The real question is "what is the remedy for lies?". Your answer seems to be litigation and punishment. My answer is that the remedy is the truth. If somebody is spreading lies, then the remedy is shining light on the lies and calling people out for the liars they are.

It's too easy to conceal the truth really is when people can be turned into criminals for "lying".

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

You are supposed to present a way to objectively measure whether something is "similar enough" or "significantly different", and a rationale for that using that metric.

1. Measure: The statement is a lie. Rationale; Lies about a person are the killer of truth and knowledge and should be quashed everywhere.
2. Measure: The intent was to harm the target. Rationale; Intentionally harming someone else should be discourages.
Please take both together.

But you seem to want to treat all cases of hurt feelings during a breakup as not worthy of rectification.

There might be but there has not been enough incidents in the past where it has caused a significant enough problem to make laws against it. On the other hand libel/slander has cause quite a lot of damage and therefore laws were written.
Where I see you black and white issue is that you see free speech as absolute or nothing. Sorry but that is not the case.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

Anti-discrimination laws already take care of the latter.

Sorry but being a pedophile is not class protected from discrimination by law.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

Look at the journalists in imprisoned in Egypt for "spreading lies". These sorts of laws are easily abused.

Almost every law can be easily abused.

And if you compare all the harm caused by libel and slander, and all the harm caused by abuse of laws restricting the spread of lies, I don;t think there would be any contest.

That may be your understanding but that is yet another point on which we disagree.

If somebody is spreading lies, then the remedy is shining light on the lies and calling people out for the liars they are.

If the lair has enough money and can plaster the lies in enough places the lie will drown out the truth.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

1. Measure: The statement is a lie. Rationale; Lies about a person are the killer of truth and knowledge and should be quashed everywhere. 2. Measure: The intent was to harm the target. Rationale; Intentionally harming someone else should be discourages. Please take both together.

Thanks for that, but it is actually not what I asked at all. I was asking for a metric of how you would determine whether something (i.e. like lying, hurting people's feelings, etc) could be objectively measured for whether they reach the level of requiring legal rectification. You seem very selective of which kinds of harm are worthy of this and which are not and I was hoping to find out if you had a rationale for deciding.

There might be but there has not been enough incidents in the past where it has caused a significant enough problem to make laws against it. On the other hand libel/slander has cause quite a lot of damage and therefore laws were written.

Someone decided to make voter ID laws. Using your logic one might assume voter fraud was a big enough problem that laws were required to fix them. This assumption would be false. It turns out laws are made for a variety of reasons, some are well intentioned, some are not. Many, even well intentioned ones, actually turn out to have negative consequences.

The fact that a law exists is not a good argument that it *should* or *shouldn't* exist.

Where I see you black and white issue is that you see free speech as absolute or nothing. Sorry but that is not the case.

You seem to think libel and slander are black and white, whats the difference? Let me guess, it's a "significant difference".

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

Almost every law can be easily abused.

This is an oversimplification. One of the reasons freedom of speech is important is because it makes breaking other laws much more difficult. It makes abuse of power more obvious when people are being imprisoned for "lying" when lying is not even illegal.

If the lair has enough money and can plaster the lies in enough places the lie will drown out the truth.

If a plaintiff has enough money to hire better lawyers and convince enough jurors, he can get anyone convicted for libel and slander.

Did you think that verdict was unfair? Maybe you're a liar too. You'd better keep your mouth shut if you know whats good for you.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[fustakrakich]

Oh put a cork in it. You goddamn people aren't even listening. See? You are proving right now how easy it is to dismiss words as you do mine. Well, do the same damn thing for any other rumor you hear about someone else, otherwise you're the asshole.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

I was asking for a metric of how you would determine whether something (i.e. like lying, hurting people's feelings, etc) could be objectively measured for whether they reach the level of requiring legal rectification.

If something can be objectively measured it becomes black and white. As I said, libel/slander is not black and white which is why we rely on judges, juries and precedents.

Using your logic one might assume voter fraud was a big enough problem that laws were required to fix them.

No I would not make that assumption. There might be a connection between lack of an identity card and voter fraud but I would have to be shown the evidence before I made a decision. There is a direct connection between libel and the harm caused by libel as has been shown many times in the past. There are thousands of examples of how people's lives have been ruined by lies.

The fact that a law exists is not a good argument that it *should* or *shouldn't* exist.

The fact that there is significant harm caused by an action is a good argument that a law should exist.

You seem to think libel and slander are black and white, whats the difference?

They are black and white as libel is published and slander is spoken. Even libel/slander as a law is not black and white. For example, in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell it was found that the lies were so outlandish that a reasonable person would not believe them. Libel/slander is a very grey area.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

he can get anyone convicted for libel and slander.

from this article

Between 1992 and August 2004, 41 criminal defamation cases were brought to court in the United States, among which six defendants were convicted. From 1965 to 2004, 16 cases ended in final conviction, among which nine resulted in jail sentences (average sentence, 173 days). Other criminal cases resulted in fines (average fine, $1,700), probation (average of 547 days), community service (on average 120 hours), or writing a letter of apology.

Considering the low number I think you are a bit off. It is very difficult to be thrown in jail for libel/slander but that does not mean that the laws should not exist.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[TsuruchiBrian]

If something can be objectively measured it becomes black and white. As I said, libel/slander is not black and white which is why we rely on judges, juries and precedents.

Once again I think you are missing what it is I am actually asking.

I am not asking for an objective metric for how to determine whether something constitutes libel/slander. I am asking you how you decide whether something *should be* illegal. It is not the job of a judge nor a jury to decide what *should* be illegal. Obviously you have decided that slander and libel *should be* illegal. What I am asking is, how you arrived at that conclusion. You've said it is because it causes harm, and I gave an example of other things that cause harm, and you've said that's "significantly different". So how do you decide?

No I would not make that assumption.

Well you seemed to be making the argument that the existence of a libel/slander laws implies the need for them.

The fact that there is significant harm caused by an action is a good argument that a law should exist.

There are some occasions where slander and libel do not cause significant harm. Should those specific instances still be illegal? There are instances when people are significantly harmed by being dumped. Should those specific instances of being dumped be illegal? Or should we just treat all dumping as a black and white thing (i.e. never illegal to dump someone no matter how much harm there is)?

They are black and white as libel is published and slander is spoken

I was not asking for the difference between libel and slander. I was asking for the difference between treating libel/slander in a black and white fashion vs. free speech in a black and white fashion.

For example, in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell [wikipedia.org] it was found that the lies were so outlandish that a reasonable person would not believe them. Libel/slander is a very grey area.

Well I said I would not protect throwing burning flags at people under freedom of speech, so there is grey area for what I advocate as well.

Re:Why not? When you have kids..

[jklovanc]

Obviously you have decided that slander and libel *should be* illegal. What I am asking is, how you arrived at that conclusion. You've said it is because it causes harm, and I gave an example of other things that cause harm, and you've said that's "significantly different". So how do you decide?

I said it is because libel/slander causes significant harm and the need for the law therefore black and white. There are sufficient numbers of cases where spreading lies has cause sufficient harm to justify those laws. I agree that "sufficient number of cases" and "sufficient harm" are subjective but I believe that they are sufficient.

Well you seemed to be making the argument that the existence of a libel/slander laws implies the need for them.

No I am stating that the existence of such laws for so long in so many places is evidence that many people, the ones who created the laws and have not overtirned them, agree that they are necessary.

There are some occasions where slander and libel do not cause significant harm. Should those specific instances still be illegal?

Considering that significant harm is in the definition of what is libel/slander it is impossible to have libel/slander without significant harm.

I was asking for the difference between treating libel/slander in a black and white fashion vs. free speech in a black and white fashion.

Neither should be treated as back and white as I have shown in the case of Hustler Magazine v. Falwell. The need for libel/slander laws is black and white but the application of those laws, much like the application of freedom of speech, is much less so.

I don't get it.

[BitterOak]

If the remarks were truly defamatory, then couldn't the girl or her parents simply get Facebook to delete the fake profile?

Re:I don't get it.

[saloomy]

Why would posting defamatory remarks make the profile fake, or warrant its deletion? Also, just because you can delete something doesn't mean no harm was inflicted. Granted, it limits the extent, but if you post something derogatory, and cause pain and suffering (or for example in a worst case scenario: suicide), deleting it only limits the damage, it doesn't undo that damage.

Re:I don't get it.

[BarbaraHudson]

If you read either the article or the judgment, Facebook refused when the girl's parents contacted them. They said that only the original creator of the account could delete it.

Another reason for friends not to encourage friends to use facebook. Just like the banks were "too big to fail", facebook is "too big to act responsibly."

Re:I don't get it.

[gatfirls]

It doesn't say when they did, just that they did and that it was taken down.

" It wasn’t deleted until Facebook deactivated the account at the urging of the girl’s parents, "

I have a feeling the parents are rich lawyer types.

Re:I don't get it.

[The New Guy 2.0]

Judges sometimes have trouble getting their rulings enforced. If a judge local to Facebook says "Uh, you can't make me pull that..." the judge local to the complaining person has to demand the password holder of the account pull it.

Re:I don't get it.

[Cramer]

Facebook does exactly what they should. They won't delete a damned thing based on your word. Serve them a court order and you'll get a lot further.

Re:I don't get it.

[BitterOak]

If you read either the article or the judgment, Facebook refused when the girl's parents contacted them. They said that only the original creator of the account could delete it.

Then Facebook is lying, cause they delete fake profiles all the time. If Facebook knew they were hosting defamatory content and didn't subsequently take steps to delete it, then it is Facebook that should be sued here, not the parents of the kid who created the fake page. For all we know, the kid may have forgotten the password!

Re:I don't get it.

[BarbaraHudson]

Facebook does exactly what they should. They won't delete a damned thing based on your word. Serve them a court order and you'll get a lot further.

Try reading their terms of service

section 3.6

You will not bully, intimidate, or harass any user.

and section 3.10

You will not use Facebook to do anything unlawful, misleading, malicious, or discriminatory.

and 4.1

You will not provide any false personal information on Facebook, or create an account for anyone other than yourself without permission.

and 4.7

You will keep your contact information accurate and up-to-date.

and 4.8 (the account was created by one student, then shared with another)

You will not share your password (or in the case of developers, your secret key), let anyone else access your account, or do anything else that might jeopardize the security of your account.

and 4.9 (see above)

You will not transfer your account (including any Page or application you administer) to anyone without first getting our written permission.

Facebook deletes accounts all the time without being required to be served a court order. Or did you forget this?

Facebook just doesn't want to set a high-profile precedent that they have a duty to actually enforce some of their ToS when it's a child being victimized. But what can you expect from anti-social media?

Re:I don't get it.

[BarbaraHudson]

The kids continued to use the account right up until the day it was finally deleted, so they had the password. The parents were properly sued because they were negligent in not providing proper supervision of their children's conduct for months after being so informed. But I agree, Facebook has liability as well.

Re:I don't get it.

[Bengie]

That was not my experience. Had someone harassing my wife. The police told her to lock down her FB account so other people can't see. That stopped the first wave, but then her friends started getting hit with stuff, so my wife would see the posts. Reported it to the police, they forwarded it to FB, posts were pulled hours later.

From what we were told by the police, FB found the real account of the person who was creating fake accounts and warned them to stop or be banned. Problem solved, no judge involved.

The police told us this was pretty standard stuff. Unfortunately, the person harassing my wife was in another state, otherwise they would have been arrested. The officer did call the person, we knew their phone number, and told them any further harassment would result in a warrant for their arrest in our state. Something a person who was a nurse that worked with children would not want. Crazy person I tell ya.

Re:I don't get it.

[BarbaraHudson]

Simple - take away any smartphones, remove their access from any computers, and inform other parents that you've taken these measures. If there's a court order mandating same, you can also tell other parents and the school that if they give access to the net, they will be charged with knowingly violating a court order.

Internet access isn't a basic right.

Re:Facebook needs to be like Slashdot

[saloomy]

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.

Why is the school involved?

[gatfirls]

That is all.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[Greyfox]

Be...cause the kid's parents are negligent?

Re:Why is the school involved?

[BarbaraHudson]

The school was involved because two students got together and said "Who do we hate them most" from among their classmates. The postings affected another classmate, the target of the posts. The to students invited all the other classmates, the teachers, etc., to be friends of the fake profile, which claimed that the libeled student was sexually promiscuous, racist, a druggie, and on medication for mental illnesses, all to hurt the target of their hate. In other words, this affected a lot of the school for an extended period (11 months).

Re:Why is the school involved?

[gatfirls]

Was any of this done on school grounds or using school equipment? From what I read it was all done at their homes.

The school has absolutely no business mediating online shenanigans, or really anything at all that happens off school grounds that don't directly affect the school. That's a massive slippery slope and them compelling him to make a statement is now a legal problem for him and his parents.

We have courts and police for this stuff. Schools need to be focused on what happens on school grounds.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[Ol Olsoc]

Be...cause the kid's parents are negligent?

Are they always? Or now do we get another layer of lawyers involved?

I've known bad seed children who were raised by very good parents. Seems like you would have ot prove the parents are negligent.

Or in anther case, I worked with a guy who had raised several foster children, and adopted some special needs children. He's a great guy, and loves these kids as his own.

I know it isn't popular among the "punish as many people as possible" set, but most of those children turned out wonderfully - a couple are highly paid professionals, and just great people, and one in particular is, sad to say, a criminal.

So in your world, this guy is a criminal? Despite completely consistent raising methods and serious success with everyone else? You know nowt about people and how they turn out.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[jklovanc]

Schools are involved because they are less intrusive than juvenile court. Mediation between families by a neutral school official can be very helpful. Many of these issues can be kept out of the courts unless the parents are negligent.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[jklovanc]

The school has absolutely no business mediating online shenanigans, or really anything at all that happens off school grounds that don't directly affect the school.

It probably started on the school ground where the children met and will continue on the school grounds where the children will interact every day.

We have courts and police for this stuff. Schools need to be focused on what happens on school grounds.

Do you really want a 7th grader hauled off to juvenile court for posting a Facebook page when it can much more easily be solved within the school? A school's job is education and educating a student that online bullying is withing that purview. The schools are focusing on what happens on school grounds as Facebook bullying leads directly to school grounds bullying.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[BarbaraHudson]

The picture used was taken at school. This was how they were originally able to identify the perps.

This also ended up involving school staff not directly involved with the students in question, as the perps sent out invites to everyone they could.

We have courts and police for this stuff. Schools need to be focused on what happens on school grounds.

So the school should ignore that drug dealer hanging just outside the gates? Or students who complain about abuse in the home? Or kids who show up at school hungry or without winter clothing? Or kids who are being shaken down for their lunch money on the way to school by other students?

Re:Why is the school involved?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I think by freaking out over this, it legitimizes the idea that people should be hurt by things posted on facebook. It's like when a baby trips and falls, but it doesn't start crying until the parents freak out and alert the baby that it should be scared and in pain.

I have been called worse things when I was in school. What difference does it make that it is on the internet? Why not just make more fake pages of every student to make everyone even? Or better yet we can work to teach kids that they live in a world where sometimes people will say nasty things about them. Having freedom of speech kind of sucks sometimes, but it's better than living in North Korea.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[BarbaraHudson]

Please read the actual judgment. This goes far beyond name-calling. If this had been done by adults, they'd be facing criminal charges.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[jklovanc]

Having freedom of speech kind of sucks sometimes, but it's better than living in North Korea.

In terms of logic that statement is a false dilemma. You propose that that are only two choices; complete lack of free speech or completely unfettered free speech. That is not true. There is a third option which is the one that is generally followed by most countries. That is where speech is free except in a few well defined categories. Libel and slander are two such categories.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I wouldn't say it's "far beyond namecalling". Getting beaten up in an alley is far beyond namecalling. Having a defamatory website made about you is just an extreme form of namecalling.

I don't doubt that people might face criminal charges for similar things. I am saying that nobody *should* face criminal charges for speech, whether it's protesting at military funerals, or wearing a Ku Klux Klan outfit, or burning a flag, or calling a high school girl a whore on the internet.

I am not condoning any of this behavior. I am saying that the correct way to combat this kind of behavior is not to shutdown freedom of speech, but rather to use more speech to publicly shame people who deserve it. That's what free societies do.

We don't form lynch mobs and kill bad people even when they really deserve it. Free societies provide due process to even the worst people. We also provide freedom of speech to the worst speech. One of the prices of living in a free society is that someone might same something really mean about you and hurt your feelings. You have the right to say mean things back or ignore them. This might suck in high school, but it's nice when you want to criticize the president as an adult and not end up in a torture chamber.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I am not presenting a false dilemma. I am presenting a true dilemma.

Either we have unfettered freedom of speech, or we do not. This is true.

There is a third option which is the one that is generally followed by most countries

This "third" option is really just the 2nd option. When you have the right to say things that the government has deemed acceptable, you really don't have freedom of speech. The right to popular speech doesn't need to be protected.

China has a democracy. Everyone can vote for any candidate they want except in a few well defined categories. The communist party does get to approve or deny all the candidates, and they do frequently deny well defined categories of bad people from being on the ballot. Non-communist party members are in such categories.

Unfettered freedom of speech *is* freedom of speech. Just like how unfettered democracy *is* democracy.

And yes many countries do have slander and libel laws. I am saying that these laws do degrade the freedom of speech to "the freedom of non-libelous and non-slanderous speech as determined by an authority figure".

I am also not saying that speech is never bad. I am saying that the "cure" for bad speech of degrading freedom of speech is worse than the disease.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[BarbaraHudson]

How about identity theft and impersonation? Your argument shields both those acts as "free speech", even though this is exactly what happened.

I am not condoning any of this behavior. I am saying that the correct way to combat this kind of behavior is not to shutdown freedom of speech, but rather to use more speech to publicly shame people who deserve it. That's what free societies do.

That's what societies do with adults. Children are a whole different ballgame. First, because they are children, they do not have the same ability to stand up for their rights, second because they do not have the legal competence to make such decisions themselves.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[TsuruchiBrian]

How about identity theft and impersonation? Your argument shields both those acts as "free speech", even though this is exactly what happened.

I think you actually need to be engaged in something like fraud in order to be in trouble for identity theft. If you are just "impersonating" someone to defame them, I don't think treating it as identity theft is in the spirit of what those laws were intended to stop.

I think the correct course of action was to lobby facebook to take down the page, and when they don't, then apply social pressure to try to force them to do it. It is in their interest to take down fake pages created by mean high school dick heads. I think publicly shaming the kid that did this and his parents is also appropriate (and protected by the 1st amendment).

Why is making an exception to freedom of speech to punish this kid or his parents so bad? I think it's hard to articulate concretely. Would it be so bad if we formed a mob and wore masks and beat the shit out of this kid to teach him a lesson? I don't think it would be the end of the world. But as a society we do lose something intangible when we don't uphold our own principles, and we do gain something when we are able to hold ourselves to a very high standard.

That's what societies do with adults. Children are a whole different ballgame. First, because they are children, they do not have the same ability to stand up for their rights, second because they do not have the legal competence to make such decisions themselves.

That's what parents are for. I think the parents of the bullied girl did an admirable good job advocating for their child. But they were working with the tools they had. I'm saying we should take away suspension of freedom of speech as a tool for victims of defamation and instead give them other tools that are not as harmful to the rest of society.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[linuxrocks123]

The US does libel and slander pretty well. For instance, if you're slandering/libeling a public figure, the burden of proof the public figure bears is higher than if you're talking about some random dude. The libeled individual has to prove the statement is false. There are cases of abuse, such as where someone gets sued by a rich person just to harass. It's not perfect. But I think anti-SLAPP laws are a better fix for that than saying, "it's perfectly okay to spread vicious lies about anyone you want."

It's true that popular speech doesn't need protection. But it's one thing to say, "I think people are a bunch of savages, and they should all be locked up!" It's another thing to say, "This particular person is a pedophile, raped my wife, and tortures animals for fun!" One of these things is stupid, but rightly protected speech. The other is harassment of a particular individual. There's a difference.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[jklovanc]

Either we have unfettered freedom of speech, or we do not. This is true.

You are correct but where does it say "unfettered freedom of speech" in the US Constitution? As far as I can tell it just says "free speech". It also says "freedom of association" when most conditions of parole state that the parolee can not associate with known criminals. All rights have limits. Also, since this is a civil suit not a criminal suit, where does it say one is free from liability for the damage caused by that speech.

The right to popular speech doesn't need to be protected.

That is correct but the right to lie and cause damage to someone else is not, and should not be, protected.

I am saying that these laws do degrade the freedom of speech to "the freedom of non-libelous and non-slanderous speech as determined by hundreds of years of Common Law and a large number of judges and elected officials".

FTFY. Libel and slander laws have been around for a very long time and there is plenty of case law to define exactly what it is and is not.

I am also not saying that speech is never bad. I am saying that the "cure" for bad speech of degrading freedom of speech is worse than the disease.

That is your opinion and, thankfully, an opinion held only by a few.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[linuxrocks123]

Damnit Slashdot!

Corrected post is here.

The US does libel and slander pretty well. For instance, if you're slandering/libeling a public figure, the burden of proof the public figure bears is higher than if you're talking about some random dude. The libeled individual has to prove the statement is false. There are cases of abuse, such as where someone gets sued by a rich person just to harass. It's not perfect. But I think anti-SLAPP laws are a better fix for that than saying, "it's perfectly okay to spread vicious lies about anyone you want."

It's true that popular speech doesn't need protection. But it's one thing to say, "I think <insert race or gender or hair color here> people are a bunch of savages, and they should all be locked up!" It's another thing to say, "This particular <insert race or gender or hair color here> person is a pedophile, raped my wife, and tortures animals for fun!" One of these things is stupid, but rightly protected speech. The other is harassment of a particular individual. There's a difference.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[BarbaraHudson]

The Department of Justice disagrees.

The short answer is that identity theft is a crime. Identity theft and identity fraud are terms used to refer to all types of crime in which someone wrongfully obtains and uses another person's personal data in some way that involves fraud or deception, typically for economic gain.

"fraud OR deception". There was definitely deception involved here. That it wasn't for economic gain is irrelevant. "typically" as opposed to a necessary ingredient of the crime.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[TsuruchiBrian]

Why are they both not harassment? Why is lying about a person harassment and lying about a group just a stupid opinion?

I would propose that the reason this is the case is simply that there is a natural inclination in our society towards skepticism about claims made of a group and a natural inclination towards belief when it comes to claims about an individual.

What I am suggesting is that rather than making laws that help to preserve these inclinations, we should be working towards modifying society's expectations. It may seem hard to do that, and it probably is depending on how you attempt it. I think one easy way would be to simply start protecting slander and libel as freedom of speech. Now lots of people will be making false claims, and there will be a natural reaction to start treating all claims (of groups AND individuals) as stupid opinions rather than as a credible claims.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[TsuruchiBrian]

You are correct but where does it say "unfettered freedom of speech" in the US Constitution? As far as I can tell it just says "free speech"

The argument I am making is that "freedom of speech" implies "unfettered freedom of speech", because if it didn't than whether a country has freedom of speech is subjective. Even Iran has freedom of speech. You can say all the nice things you want about the Ayatollah. It's not unfettered freedom of speech, that doesn't mean it's not free speech.

It also says "freedom of association" when most conditions of parole state that the parolee can not associate with known criminals.

You lose your rights when you commit a crime. You no longer have the right to bear arms or freely go as you please when you are in prison. You also do not have the right to free association in prison. A person on parole is still serving his time for a crime, and as such does not have all his/her rights yet. Parole is a granting of more rights than would be granted otherwise, not a restriction of rights on a free person. You have the right to refuse to agree to abstain from associating with criminals, and serve out the rest of your sentence in prison.

Once your parole is over, you absolutely have a right to associate with whoever you want, even known criminals.

All rights have limits.

I would agree with that. I would say that the freedom of speech covers all forms of expression like flag burning. The limit would be that it does not cover throwing burning flags at other people. So yes all rights have limits, I am disagreeing with you over what the appropriate limit is.

FTFY. Libel and slander laws have been around for a very long time and there is plenty of case law to define exactly what it is and is not.

We had a long history of slavery too, and plenty of case law regarding defining proper slavery practices. The fact that something has been around for a long time does not make it good.

That is your opinion and, thankfully, an opinion held only by a few.

This makes sense that you would feel this way. Under the system you advocate, all it would take is for a slight change in public opinion to drastically change how justice is administered.

I am advocating for a system based on the rule of law (rather than opinion), in which momentary changes in public opinion are not enough to change how justice is administered. It is only when public opinion is strong enough to change the law itself when it can affect the justice system.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[TsuruchiBrian]

So what protects Jon Stewart when he tries to impersonate a public figure and act like an idiot? It is the fact that it is unreasonable to thing that anyone was actually deceived into believing Jon Stewart was actually the person he was impersonating.

It would depend whether a reasonable person would be deceived into thinking this facebook page was really created by the person it is claims to be created by. If it was clearly just making fun of the girl, it would not pass this test.

"fraud OR deception". There was definitely deception involved here. That it wasn't for economic gain is irrelevant. "typically" as opposed to a necessary ingredient of the crime.

I think the part where it says "typically for economic gain" is significant. I don't think it is meant to just be discarded, otherwise it wouldn't be there. I'm not a lawyer, but I think it is there to imply that some identity theft involves some kind of gain that doesn't necessarily need to be economic.

And really this is not crucial to the point I am making anyway. The general claim I am making is a normative one. (i.e. This is how it *should* be), not a descriptive claim (i.e. this is how things actually are). My feeling is still that identity theft laws are not meant to stop high school kids from mocking eachother on the internet.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[TangoMargarine]

This "third" option is really just the 2nd option.

While I sympathize with your sentiment, wouldn't that mean that free speech societies exist nowhere on earth? I would imagine every jurisdiction at least has a "fire in a crowded theater" clause. In which case, arguing one toe over the line disqualifies it as free speech means that free speech itself doesn't exist as a concept.

It's the same problem as "no true communism has ever existed." Maybe technically true, but just makes conversation more difficult.

If there's one thing I would really like to believe in, it's radically free speech. But as I get older, I have a harder and harder time finding things that I can label with absolutes.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[jklovanc]

The argument I am making is that "freedom of speech" implies "unfettered freedom of speech"

That is your opinion which I and many other disagree with.

So yes all rights have limits, I am disagreeing with you over what the appropriate limit is.

Then I guess we will have to agree to disagree as you have shown no valid reason why libel/slander should be allowed while throwing burning flags at others is not. Your line is different than mine and I doubt it will ever change.

We had a long history of slavery too, and plenty of case law regarding defining proper slavery practices. The fact that something has been around for a long time does not make it good.

That is another straw man. While slavery was common practice in the past laws have been passed to stop the practice. I was referring to common law to refute your idea that the definition of libel/slander is based on a single situation.

I am advocating for a system based on the rule of law (rather than opinion), in which momentary changes in public opinion are not enough to change how justice is administered.

This is where you ignore the precedent system used by our system of laws. Laws are not as black and white as you may think. They are interpreted by the courts and these interpretations become precedents. These precedents are then used in future similar cases. That is why rulings from courts like SCOTUS are so important because those rulings are the ultimate precedent. You really need to understand how the legal system works. It is not as variable as you seem to think.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[TsuruchiBrian]

While I sympathize with your sentiment, wouldn't that mean that free speech societies exist nowhere on earth? I would imagine every jurisdiction at least has a "fire in a crowded theater" clause. In which case, arguing one toe over the line disqualifies it as free speech means that free speech itself doesn't exist as a concept.

Here is the difference with yelling fire in a crowded movie theater. While yelling involves speech, it is also more than just speech. I have *said* fire in a crowded movie theater plenty of times. Penn and Teller actually *yell* "FIRE FIRE FIRE" in a crowded movie theater as part of their vegas act. The context matters in terms of actually presenting a credible claim that people's lives are in danger.

I think it is reasonable to criminalize endangering people's lives. I can't start shooting randomly into a crowd while reciting the Gettysburg address and expect the first amendment to protect me. In the same way that firing into a crowd while reciting a speech is not *just* speech, I think it can be argued that yelling fire in a crowded movie theater in a way that endangers people can be punishable.

That said, I think libel and slander clearly qualify as *just* speech in the sense that lying in general is speech. People who are victims of slander and libel are not in immediate danger. They have 1st amendment protections to combat libel and slander with speech of their own, or they can decide to slander or libel their accusers back.

It's the same problem as "no true communism has ever existed." Maybe technically true, but just makes conversation more difficult.

I think in many cases the claim "no true communism ever existed" helps conversations, and in many cases it hurts.

But I think the spirit of "communism" or "democracy" or "freedom of speech" is what is important. My argument is that "freedom of speech" means you cannot never be turned into a criminal for merely something you "said". But this does not for example include military selling secrets to Russia because in addition to "saying something" you may have also violated a sworn oath to not violate secrets you were entrusted with by the government (assuming you had legal access to those secrets).

I don;t think a good case exists for making an exception for slander and libel without making an exception for lying in general, and I don;t think we want to go down that road. I think it is good to have lying as protected speech for various reasons I won't go into if no one wants to hear it.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[BarbaraHudson]

Which is why we now have cyber-bullying laws. BTW, when you talk about Jon Stewart, his audience is adults. Far less vulnerable than a 13-year-old. If there were no qualitative difference, we'd be giving 13-year-olds the vote.

Re:Why is the school involved?

[TsuruchiBrian]

I agree that we do in fact have cyber bullying laws. That is a descriptive claim that I agree is true. Whether we *should* have cyber bullying laws is a normative claim.

BTW, when you talk about Jon Stewart, his audience is adults. Far less vulnerable than a 13-year-old. If there were no qualitative difference, we'd be giving 13-year-olds the vote.

When speech is public you don't have any control over who decides to listen. It is a bit impractical to hold people responsible for who listens to their speech and/or determine who ones intended audience is, because this involves assessing intentions (mental states), which for now, are only accessible to the person who has them.

The problem with making laws that are open to interpretation, is that the more you do it, the more likely these laws are to be abused. We have a long history of trying and often failing to ensure that people have equality under the law (now codified in the 14th amendment).

Responsibilty: It's bundled with control!

[The New Guy 2.0]

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.

Re:Responsibilty: It's bundled with control!

[Anonymous Coward]

You're responsible for your spawn until they are 18. If you can't deal with it, sterilize yourself.

Re:Responsibilty: It's bundled with control!

[The New Guy 2.0]

You're responsible for kids FOREVER. If you kill your kid on their 18th birthday, you go down for murder.

I'm part of the reason why Oran family kids survive... you can't announce you're going to kill your kid on their first birthday and get away with it on my watch.

Re:Responsibilty: It's bundled with control!

[TsuruchiBrian]

Whatever the responsibility of parents is, it should not depend at all with Facebook's (or any other random website's) policies.

Re:Facebook needs to be like Slashdot

[The New Guy 2.0]

-1 is for unpopular speech, deleted is for things that can't be said in public.

Re:Facebook, provide more parental controls

[The New Guy 2.0]

Kids need a private channel to communicate with other kids that their parents can't monitor. "Dating" is the process of trying to escape control to find out if the person on the other side of the table really wants to be with you more.

You have it wrong.

[tlambert]

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.

Re:You have it wrong.

[saloomy]

At worst, the parents are guilty of "contributory negligence" for not being software engineers.

Nonsense.

If your kid is in a park, grabs a rock, throws it at someone and causes harm, then you are responsible. Not the parks office, not the city, not the state, and not in the case of this incident, the school.

As a parent you are responsible for the actions of your kids in place of themselves since they are children. If you want to understand if the school should be blamed, ask yourself, would the school be blamed if the person was an adult? No. Of course not, that would be silly. The School had as much to do with the activity as the ISP serving the school. It isn't accepting full liability because you chose to exercise their facilities to perform your actions. Just like an ISP isn't responsible if you use their network to organize a murder (see Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act). The school is not liable, the person is. But, because the person is underage, the person's parents are responsible. Its as simple as that. You are responsible for your kids actions, you in place of them. Don't like it? Don't have kids. Having kids involves accepting responsibility for them. Its that simple.

So, no sir, you have it wrong.

Re:You have it wrong.

[tlambert]

If you want to understand if the school should be blamed, ask yourself, would the school be blamed if the person was an adult? No. Of course not, that would be silly. The School had as much to do with the activity as the ISP serving the school.

They didn't control access to the computers in such a way as to prevent this kind of usage by students. In the case of an adult in the same situation, the school is guilty of, at a bare minimum, presenting an attractive nuisance in the form of a computer that could be used for this.

But this is all hemming and hawing about "how can we blame someone other than the kid for the actions of the kid?", which is pretty stupid on the face of it. In any other bullying situation, such as assault and battery, you don't blame the parents; you send the kid to juvie, and they get to go to school there, with all of the other genetic sociopaths.

Re:You have it wrong.

[Mr.CRC]

You are advocating that one person should be liable for the actions of another person.

This is sloppy without clarifying how the different categories of criminal vs. civil liability should be handled.

Holding parents criminally liable is intractable because there is no certain way to control a child or any other person. I'm talking absolute control. Any law that holds you responsible for forces that you cannot control must be invalidated, or else societal disintegration will eventually result. Such inherent contradictions predictably lead to disaster.

Furthermore, there are also laws making it felony child abuse to employ nearly any sort of corporal punishment (not that I advocate that) and laws are interpreted so liberally that nearly any attempt to employ physical force to restrain, control, or restrict the behavior of a child may be interpreted as felony child abuse. So our society wants a person to be liable for the actions of a child, and also makes them criminally liable if they try to use force to discipline a child.

Also, as has been mentioned by others, children are legally mandated by the state to attend school. Parents cannot possibly control a child while they are at school. Yet they should be prosecuted if the child commits a crime while under state mandated separation from the parents?

This is all complete insanity. Of course, I only expect matters to get much, much worse...

Re:You have it wrong.

[rtb61]

False analogy. This is all about who takes initial responsibility for any action until alternate parties can be proven guilty. So with regards to an online account, it is always the account holder until the account holder can substantiate an alternate individual as the person who actually committed the act. In the case of a responsible authority, the one who provides unsupervised access is chiefly responsible, first up is the school and, next up of course is Facebook itself for failing to properly verify who the user was. The idea that parents should take responsibility for all the actions of the children is stupid, this would entail imprisonment of the children by parents to ensure the legal safety of the parents from all the potential harm caused by the children ie should the children play 'doctor' the parents could be held liable for child sexual abuse as they are liable for the play of the children.

Re:You have it wrong.

[AK Marc]

While the kid is at school, the school is the parents for the child, legally. This allows them to do things like obtain medical care in the case of a fall, but would also make any actions by the child that the parents are responsible for the school, as the school is legally the parent at that moment.

Re:You have it wrong.

[drinkypoo]

The page was created on a school computer while the school was acting in loco parentis for the child.

If your kid is in a park, grabs a rock, throws it at someone and causes harm, then you are responsible

A park does not claim In Loco Parentis authority over your children, either. If the school wants the authority, then they must take the responsibility — at least, for actions taken on school time, with school equipment.

You are responsible for your kids actions, you in place of them.

The school explicitly takes legal responsibility for your children when you drop them off, and claims near-parental levels of responsibility over them but then refuses to take responsibility for their actions while on campus. This is why we can't have nice things, like school without bullying. The school takes responsibility and then washes their hands of it immediately, and claims that it's the parents fault. But the school must take responsibility for the actions of students, because the parents aren't there and they are trusting the school to perform its responsibilities. One of those responsibilities is preventing bullying, and it's one which basically no school takes seriously. I was bullied by students and faculty alike, openly mocked by teachers for the results of my bullying-exacerbated depression such as being unable to focus on lessons in class.

Having kids involves accepting responsibility for them. Its that simple.

Yes, I agree. And operating a school should involve taking responsibility for the children under your charge. But that's not what they do. Instead, they wash their hands of responsibility for what happens on their watch. I use "watch" very loosely, because they're not actually interested in doing that part of their job.

So, no sir, you have it wrong.

Re:You have it wrong.

[drinkypoo]

In any other bullying situation, such as assault and battery, you don't blame the parents; you send the kid to juvie, and they get to go to school there, with all of the other genetic sociopaths.

For any other bullying situation, such as assault and battery, the perpetrators are jocks and they don't get punished at all, but the kid who got beat on gets told that he shouldn't do whatever he did to make them angry.

You're acting like schools do something about bullying, but that's complete bullshit. Only when there is a lawsuit do they give a fat flying fuck. And that's why we're hearing about this now. I was bullied from sixth grade on and literally nothing was ever done about it. I was consistently blamed for the bullying. Mental health is the last illness we consistently blame on the victim.

Re:You have it wrong.

[tlambert]

"They didn't control access to the computers in such a way as to prevent this kind of usage by students. In the case of an adult in the same situation, the school is guilty of, at a bare minimum, presenting an attractive nuisance in the form of a computer that could be used for this."

Absolutely fucking ridiculous.

No more ridiculous than blaming the parents, who were at work at the time, for what their kid was doing in the school.

It's interesting that the school, acting in loco parentis - "in place of the parent" isn't responsible, but the parents somehow are because they aren't remote mind-controlling their xyy asshole of an offspring.

Re:You have it wrong.

[AmiMoJo]

In the UK if a child assaults another the parents are not charged with assault. There have been cases where children murdered others and the parents were sanctioned by social services but not convicted of murder. They have some responsibility, especially if it can be shown that their actions contributed to the crime, but they are not substitutes for the child in the eyes of the law.

Is it different in the US?

Re:You have it wrong.

[jimbolauski]

If your kid is in a park, grabs a rock, throws it at someone and causes harm, then you are responsible. Not the parks office, not the city, not the state, and not in the case of this incident, the school.

When the child is at the park they are the responsibility of of the person taking care of them, the parents. When the child is at school they are the responsibility of the school. The school gave the kid access to Facebook, the school did not monitor the child's activity. How would a parent be able to monitor their kids online activity at school?

Re:You have it wrong.

[anyGould]

No more ridiculous than blaming the parents, who were at work at the time, for what their kid was doing in the school.

Except that the school *did* tell the parents. (Probably while telling them that their kid is suspended.) And the parents grounded their little bundle-of-joy for a week, so obviously they agree at some level that their kid's a little shit.

Where they dropped the ball is that Little Timmy didn't have to go over to this kid's house and apologize to her face. Not to mention checking to make damned sure that the site was down. If Timmy had sprayed graffiti all over a house, you wouldn't ground him, but figure "nah, he doesn't need to actually clean it up", right?

Re:You have it wrong.

[tlambert]

Except that the school *did* tell the parents. (Probably while telling them that their kid is suspended.) And the parents grounded their little bundle-of-joy for a week, so obviously they agree at some level that their kid's a little shit.

Where they dropped the ball is that Little Timmy didn't have to go over to this kid's house and apologize to her face.

Ah yes. Making the asshole tormentor show up at her house to intimidate by his presence in person. That has generally fixed all my problems, knowing that the bully knows where I live, so as soon as the parents are not constantly riding herd on the little asshole, he and a couple of his friends can break into the house, shit on a plate, write a note, and leave it in the fridge.

Some people don't count as human beings, and despite the best efforts of their parents to program them to be human beings, the little psychopaths are unfixable. Yeah, that's also politically incorrect in this day and age where the fault is always external to the human exhibiting the bad behaviour.

Not to mention checking to make damned sure that the site was down. If Timmy had sprayed graffiti all over a house, you wouldn't ground him, but figure "nah, he doesn't need to actually clean it up", right?

You don't need to be computer literate to verify that paint is gone from a wall and/or painted over. You keep assuming that the parents are not only computer literate, that they are *more* computer literate than little Timmy, such that little Timmy couldn't pull a fast one on the old parents.

That's just not the case, in the majority of circumstances.

Re:About time......

[tlambert]

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?

What's a baseball? What's a bat? OK, smartass, what's a window?

Or are you going to hold the parents responsible for not being Vint Cerf?

Disregard

[gatfirls]

In the link it says they only deleted it after they filed the lawsuit.

The Actual Issue

[hduff]

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.

Re:The Actual Issue

[JonSchell]

And they shouldn't have been. It's up to the person who created the FB account to close it, or for FB to close it for them if the court ordered that.

Re:The Actual Issue

[BitterOak]

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.

And Facebook was notified of the defamation and took no action for 11 months. Why is Facebook not liable? After all, Facebook had the technical ability to delete the account; the parents did not. For all we know, the kid may have even forgotten the password.

Re:The Actual Issue

[Overzeetop]

If they are a minor, are they not subject to legal proceedings?

It has been generally held that, in civil matters, the parents and/or guardians are financially liable for damaged caused by a minor dependent.

Re:The Actual Issue

[Overzeetop]

I quoteth from the text:

"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."

citation: Assurance Co. of America v. Bell, 108 Ga. App. at 766-767 (4) (“A
parent may be guilty of primary negligence in failing to exercise reasonable care to
prevent a child under his control from creating an unreasonable risk of harm to third
persons, where he has knowledge of facts from which he should reasonably anticipate
that harm will otherwise result.

You'll have to look up the big words in the dictionary yourself, I don't have time to do all of your thinking for you.

Re:The Actual Issue

[msobkow]

Parents are and have always been responsible for the behaviour and expenses incurred by their children. If they go on a rampage of vandalism, the parents are responsible for the damages. If they steal a car and wreck it, the parents are responsible for the damages.

This is no different. The parents are being held responsible for the damages done by their children.

To hell with absentee parenting that lets children do whatever the hell they want with no restrictions or monitoring.

You bred your rug rats -- now bloody well take responsiblity for the results of your actions: raising and training your children!

Re:The Actual Issue

[TsuruchiBrian]

It should be Mark Zuckerburg's parents who should have to go to jail for not compelling him to delete the fake account when asked.

Re:The Actual Issue

[ihtoit]

this was a major issue in the Bulger case as well, the argument was that the two little bastards' parents should have stood trial for neglect, but because it was such a public murder (more to the fact that it was actually a murder, hence a capital crime, hence tripped the strict liability threshold), the two little bastards should be tried as adults. It ALMOST got scuppered as a murder trial because of some basic errors my the officer leading the investigation, in which case it would have ended up as a trial of the parents for neglect and a civil claim for damages by the Bulger family, in which case the two little bastards would've been out and who knows what else they might have gotten up to (one of them ended up back in jail after being paroled for kiddie fiddling).

Re:The Actual Issue

[ihtoit]

unlikely given that the account was still active and in use up to the day it was deleted.

Re:The Actual Issue

[Solandri]

These types of cases put Facebook between a rock and a hard place. You have to consider other possible scenarios under which such deletion requests might occur, not just the scenario in this case. What if the girl really had a Facebook page, and the culprits submitted a fake deletion request to Facebook? If FB took it down, then they'd be liable for wrongly disabling/deleting a legitimate account.

"But Facebook could do this only after receiving some sort of official notice!" What if the culprits were friends with an adult in the school administration or stole paper with the school's letterhead, and drafted an official-sounding letter requesting the deletion?

"But the court could have ordered Facebook to take it down!" Well, the court didn't.

Remember, if you create a method to delete/disable accounts, said method can and will be abused to send fake delete/disable requests. FB's policy probably just tries to keep things as simple as possible. Only the account creator can delete/disable it, unless they get a court order to do so. The only fault I can see on FB's part is that they need to make clear exactly what legal hoops you need to jump through to compel them to take down an account. I'm not sure the parents of the girl even knew that requesting the court to order FB to delete the account was even an option.

Re:The Actual Issue

[jimbolauski]

That law has little to do with this situation. The act was committed while he was in the care of the school, unless it can be shown that the boy told his parents he was going to make the fake account there is nothing there for the parents to be charged with. Now on to not deleting the account, the law requires parents to prevent actions of a child under their control, the law does not require parents to compel action of a child under their control.

Re:The Actual Issue

[ihtoit]

they're still capital crimes even if there is no death penalty.

Are you going to put your name to your bullshit or what?

Re:The Actual Issue

[clovis]

That law has little to do with this situation. The act was committed while he was in the care of the school, unless it can be shown that the boy told his parents he was going to make the fake account there is nothing there for the parents to be charged with. Now on to not deleting the account, the law requires parents to prevent actions of a child under their control, the law does not require parents to compel action of a child under their control.

Not true, what you said.
The FaceBook page was not created at school.
Like 99% the point of the court case was that it was done on the home computer and maintained from there.

CTRL-C/CTRL-V from the court order:
" In his written statement, Dustin stated:
In homeroom, Melissa and I decided to make a Facebook [page] under
someone’s name and she said, “Who do we hate in this room?” I said “I
don’t know, Alex Boston?” So we made up a username and a password
for it. We went home and made the Facebook [page]. I chose Alex
Boston because she followed me around and my friends did not like her
and told her to leave me alone. I went home and made Alex Boston’s
Facebook [page]. Melissa went home to her house and pretended to be
Alex. . . . I went home and posted on Alex’s [fake] Facebook [page for]
about 4 or 5 days. Melissa went and posted on it the same time. "

Re:The Actual Issue

[jimbolauski]

Even if he did make it at home the parents would have to have knowledge about his posting and did nothing to stop him from posting. The parents are being charged because they refused to compel action from their child and remove the page.

Re:About time......

[Ol Olsoc]

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?

Ar eyou willing to lose your job, your livlihood over something your underage child did? There are two major porponents of this sort of things:

Peopl ewho demand as much vendetta as possible.It's not enough to punish a child - let's throw th eparent's in jail too!. Might be cool to throw a few relatives in the hoosgow while we're at it. Thes bad parents are probably form bad extended families.

People without children

Because it is impossible to control what an underage child does at all times, and the best of people can have a bad seed offspring.

It does however, sound like an excellent method of getting people to decide that having children on the whole is a bad thing. Having children as a liability. Kind of like court enabled birth control by fear. You cant go to jail for something your child did if you don't have any children.

Re:Facebook needs to be like Slashdot

[Ol Olsoc]

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.

Responsibility yes, automatic liability no

[Roger W Moore]

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?

Re:Responsibility yes, automatic liability no

[gnasher719]

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.

If you read at least the summary, the parents weren't liable for their kids making a post (which kids can do since you can't control them permanently). The parents were liable for their kids not removing a post, which is something the parents should have been able to control.

Re:Responsibility yes, automatic liability no

[saloomy]

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?

Responsibility must mean liability. You can't claim to be responsible for something and then when it goes all wrong, stick your hands up in the air and say "not my fault!". If you are not liable and responsible, then you shouldn't have kids. They are under your control, thats what society has determined over generations to be the appropriate path to raising human beings.
Now, I do agree with you that they are not totally under your control. For example: you can not beat your kids, even if you believe that it is the best way to encourage the behavior out of them that would yield better results. You could say that the state prevented you from administering the discipline you believed would have corrected their behavior and sue the state. But if you need to be that strict with your kids, and feel you need to beat them, and don't have that option at your disposal (as we do not in the US, for obvious and good reasons), then you should be able to reach out to those limiting your choices, and limiting your liability, as they have limited your ability. Thats fair.

I acknowledge things are not that simple. But to say "I have responsibility, but limit my liability", I disagree. By having kids, you assumed that liability, and took the risk. If you are not able to judge, and assess those risks, then you shouldn't be having kids.

Re:Responsibility yes, automatic liability no

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

it wasn't just a "post", it was a whole fake profile complete with racial comments, sexual perversions, morphed photos, etc. Really it's identity theft and libel.

Re:Responsibility yes, automatic liability no

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

"You can't claim to be responsible for something and then when it goes all wrong, stick your hands up in the air and say "not my fault!"." Sure you can, but only if your in the government lol

Re:Responsibility yes, automatic liability no

[Roger W Moore]

If you are not able to judge, and assess those risks, then you shouldn't be having kids.

In that case nobody should ever have kids. You have no idea exactly how they will turn out: in extreme cases they can even have Tourette's syndrome which might cause them involuntarily to insult someone. Should the parent of such a child be liable for that? They would not be if they themselves had the condition!

What your propose is frankly insane, grossly unfair and will result in society endlessly suing itself. You sue the parents of the teenager who had a car accident, who then sue the government for agreeing that their offspring was allowed to drive, who then ban teenagers driving and in turn get sued by teenagers who have to lose their jobs due to a lack of public transit etc. etc. Hmmm....you aren't a lawyer without kids are you by any chance?

A parent's responsibility to their kids is to bring them up to be able to know right from wrong, how to behave and to correct them when they misbehave. It is not our responsibility to prevent them from ever misbehaving, indeed you cannot control a human being to the extent that they commit no wrong nor should you even try. Liability is typically limited to what you can control: car manufacturers are not liable for every injury in a car accident because they ultimately failed to make a car which kept the occupants safe under conditions outside their control. The same should apply to parents and kids...unless you want all cars fitted with a speed limiter set to 20 km/h covered with metre thick padding inside and out.

Re:Responsibility yes, automatic liability no

[drinkypoo]

If you are going to make me liable for something then I has to be something under my control.

You have control over whether or not you breed. So it is something under your control. The rest of your comment is thus invalidated. Take responsibility for your own reproductive system. If you don't, you're no better than a rat. Not a rabbit; they'll reabsorb unsustainable pregnancies. You're a lower form of life than that.

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.

That's not what this is about, and the world is a dumber place for you believing that it might be. This is about who is responsible for their actions. Don't want to be responsible? Don't make humans. That is an awesome responsibility, and one for which you are clearly not ready. We can tell since you can't control your reproductive system.

Parents have to be responsible but not necessarily liable.

Wow, here's a nickel, buy a dictionary kid. You can't be the former without being the latter.

On the other hand if parents completely ignores their kids, provide no guidance or consequences then by all means find them negligent

What if they provide shitty guidance? You don't have a right to breed people and then give them a shitty upbringing. No, I mean, you really don't. If they catch you doing it too badly, they will take your children away.

In short, you want a free pass for your shitty behavior, which is to say, making more shitty people who don't take responsibility for their actions. That makes you extra shitty.

Re:Responsibility yes, automatic liability no

[drinkypoo]

In that case nobody should ever have kids.

No, you should never have kids, because you are unwilling to take responsibility for the results of your actions. The end result of such a policy is a race to the bottom as the people who care the least about their responsibilities (like not breeding children they don't want to be responsible for) are the ones who will have the most offspring.

What your propose is frankly insane, grossly unfair

Waaaaah! I want to shit up the world and I don't want to be held accountable! WAaaaaaaah! What's grossly unfair is for the rest of us to be saddled with your fuckhead offspring that you did a shitty job raising. Under your model, there are no consequences for that, except to society.

A parent's responsibility to their kids is to bring them up to be able to know right from wrong, how to behave and to correct them when they misbehave.

Yeah, you just said a mouthful you didn't actually believe.

It is not our responsibility to prevent them from ever misbehaving,

Nope! Just until they reach legal majority. They're only your responsibility until then. Personally, I think that's a shame. You should be responsible for them until you die. Parenthood is a job that lasts a lifetime. If you're not willing to do it for the rest of your life, you shouldn't be making people. You clearly are insufficiently responsible.

Re: Responsibility yes, automatic liability no

[drinkypoo]

What? Do you seriously believe you can play parent to an adult?

The nature of the job changes as your child ages, but it does not end. The idea that it does is part of what is wrong with the western world today.

Re:Responsibility yes, automatic liability no

[Roger W Moore]

Waaaaah! I want to shit up the world and I don't want to be held accountable!

Ah, now it becomes clear. I'm sorry your parents are not properly looking after you and letting you loose on the internet without adult supervision. When you grow up hopefully you'll become mature enough to realize that your parents can't be responsible for you for your entire life and that at some point you have to grow up and take responsibility for yourself.

Indeed even by the time you reach ten you'll probably be able figure out the massive logical hole in your argument that parents should be responsible for their kids for life which is simply that even your parents had parents. Hence, if we accept your argument the first humans to evolve would be responsible for the entire human race and everyone else can just sit back and relax and never have to worry about taking responsibility for anything ever again.

Given your logical reasoning skills I'd also suggest that you stop trying to tell people what they really believe or think, unless it is something like "wow, this person is nuts": you'll probably come across as telepathic if you tell them they are thinking that.

Re:About time......

[jklovanc]

Nice rant, too bad it is off topic. The main point being that this is a civil suit and not a criminal case therefore the parents can not go to jail. Secondly the issue is not what the child did but what the parents failed to do.
In this instance the parents were told about the issue and did nothing about it. That is the negligence that they are responsible for. Notice that the judge specifically denied liability for the child creating the site as the parents had no control over that.

Not surprised at the Soviet State of Georgia

[WillAffleckUW]

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?

7th grade?

[ihtoit]

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.

Re:7th grade?

[vic-traill]

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.

Maybe the *kid* was failing. He could be 15 if he's been held back enough.

Re:7th grade?

[ledow]

In the UK:

The age of legal responsibility can be as low as 10. James Bulger's killers, for example. Held personally liable for their actions. This is the "old enough to know" law.

Contract-signing is 16. So a "contract" with Facebook is null and void as they never bothered to check they were over 16. Facebook should terminate the account as soon as they are made aware of it as they are providing service on a void contract.

Financial responsibility, parental responsibility to ensure they are in education, employment or training, and an awful lot of other responsibilities to a child last until they are 18.

In the US, it's a bit different. Hilariously, in the UK, you can legally be married, have sex, have children, drive a car, smoke, drink and sign a contract (hopefully not all at the same time) while still being under parental responsibility because you're not 18.

Sliding down the

[AndyKron]

Slippery slope. That's all.

Re:Facebook, provide more parental controls

[Stan92057]

Kids need a private channel to communicate with other kids that their parents can't monitor.

LOL its called turning 18

"Dating" is the process of trying to escape control to find out if the person on the other side of the table really wants to be with you more.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
are you like 5 years old or something?

Re:Facebook needs to be like Slashdot

[ihtoit]

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.

Summary is _grossly_ wrong.

[jthill]

Among the "undisputed facts"::

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.

Re:Summary is _grossly_ wrong.

[flopsquad]

Indeed. The GA Court of Appeals did not say that (quoting TFS) "Parents can be held liable for what their kids post on Facebook." What they did say is that the parents' 11 months of inaction, after they were given notice of their son's defamatory FB profile, could constitute negligence. A reasonable jury could possibly find that not telling your kid to take such content down was negligent, and it's a question for the jury. Thus the subject matter of this case is on the internet, but it's not really about the internet. The parents could be liable under the same theory if they knew their son was handing out flyers with this defamatory content and did nothing for 11 months.

For those less acquainted with the trial process in the US, this appeal by the plaintiff parents (of the defamed girl) was from the trial court's granting of summary judgment in favor of the defendant parents (of the defaming boy). This is type of motion usually happens before any of the actual "trial-y" kinds of things like impaneling a jury and witness testimony, and it's based only on each side's contentions and the undisputed facts that both parties have agreed on. The defendant parents essentially argued, "Based on all the facts we stipulated to, and looking at the plaintiffs' assertions in a light most favorable to them, they still can't win. Even if what they're arguing is 100% right, no reasonable jury could find against us. Judge, can you just end this thing now?"

Specifically, here, it appears they argued something like "The defamation occurred when junior posted that stuff, and we had no actual knowledge, nor reason to believe junior would do such a thing, until after the school told us--long after the defamatory act!" And the trial court judge said, roughly, "Yup, I'm not even going to let a jury hear this, no jury could find you liable for what your kid did. Parents aren't vicariously liable for their kids' torts, etc etc."

The appellate court said, in response, "Um, yeah fine, you're not on the hook for the acts that occurred before you knew. But after you knew, you did nothing to stop it or even inquire into it, and the defamation was ongoing that whole time. This is not an automatic slam dunk for you, defendants; you need to present your evidence and arguments to a jury."

Note that at the actual trial, the parents may be able to present a decent argument for why they didn't do anything (which behavior was very curious to me). Maybe the parents are luddites and they asked their son if he ripped all the bad pages out of the Facebooks and flushed them down the interweb tubes, and he said, "yeah sure." I don't know, but those are the kinds of factual arguments they'll have to make to a jury to explain why they let this go on so long after they knew.

Re:Facebook, provide more parental controls

[The New Guy 2.0]

You really don't understand what goes on at school... boy-girl teams get more power than any all-girl or all-boy team.

Re:About time......

[ihtoit]

physically harming someone puts the perpetrator squarely in the crosshairs of strict personal liability - which is a lot of cases ends up with the child being tried as an adult, particularly on capital offences. Vicarious liability is the usual result of neglectful parenting which results in claims for damages. You can have vicarious liability without strict personal liability, eg in the case of a broken window, or you can have strict personal liability on the part of the child without vicarious liability of the parent (ie a child in the care of the State absconding and murdering an old lady), or you can have both (ie a child in the care of his parents murdering his baby sister while the parents are out getting drunk).

Yawn

[swillden]

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.

Re:Yawn

[flopsquad]

That's entirely incorrect. In both the civil and criminal realms, there are only specific circumstances in which a parent is liable for a child's actions. States say it all different kinds of ways, with different age thresholds for a child's responsibility generally, but one formulation is "A parent is only liable for the tort or violent act of the child if that parent knew or had reason to know the child [had a history of doing X]/[presented a danger to because of condition X]/[was planning to do X]/[was actually in the act of doing X]."

As is the case here, the parent's initial defense was "We didn't have reason to know until it had already happened!" and the appeals court said "Yeah but you had actual knowledge of the ongoing defamatory act and a jury might find you had a duty to stop it."

But in general, no. In the US, if your always-peaceful child spazzes out and punches someone, or does some property damage, or shoots someone (with $notYourGun), you're not generally ("vicariously") liable (as an employer might be) in either civil or criminal law. Another example: you are not liable if they somehow manage to obtain a credit card in their own name and rack up debt, and neither are they (contract is voidable at the minor's will), which is why CC companies don't give credit cards to minors without mom or dad cosigning.

In the sense that sibling AC means, yes, you are "responsible" for raising your kids to not do shitty shit, and for disciplining them when they do. And most parents of conscience would take moral responsibility and pay for the broken window, apologize (and get junior to apologize) for the rude remarks he made to his teacher, or make sure the nasty FB page was taken down.

Gah!

[Aryden]

Yet another blow to personal responsibility.

Re:About time......

[cbhacking]

Am I willing to be held responsible for something my hypothetical kid(s) do? Yup. Of course, I don't have any kids right now... because I'm not so irresponsible as to have children that, at this point in my life, I'm not ready to care for. You seem to be struggling with this whole "responsibility" concept. My parents, my father in particular, did in fact get in some minor trouble for stuff I'd done. Minor trouble, because I hadn't done anything really terrible, but trouble nonetheless. He never blamed me for getting him in trouble, just for what I did (and he could be a really hypocritical asshole at times, according to my 15-year-old self, but in this instance it's nonetheless clear he didn't ever do anything worse to me than a minor guilt trip for the legal trouble he found himself in). You are responsible for your underage children, including for what they do while under your authority. It's part of the obligations you take on when you bring an immature creature into the world.

The rest of your post is meaningless bullshit. Parents don't go to jail when their kids egregiously break the law, they lose legal rights to those kids and end up beholden (usually financially) to make up for the kid's harm. The "as much vendetta as possible" bit is bullshit because the law *doesn't* punish the combination of child + parent more than it would punish an arbitrary adult who committed the same crime (in practice, it's very much the other way around); if your kid does something with a 10k fine attached, you (the legal guardian) are responsible for the fine, whether you take it out of the kid's piggybank or out of your own wallet being irrelevant in the eyes of the law (but you won't get fined *in addition to* your kid when they can't pay the fine).

The bit about "bad seed offspring" I hold to be false; the "best of people" would not be such bad parents that their child would have sufficient motivation to do such things, and even ordinary parents are responsible for controlling the opportunities their offspring have to cause serious harm. Remember, we're not talking about the kind of thing that can be fixed by returning the stolen merchandise with an apology... As for your last line, have you considered the fact that there are entirely too many really bad parents doing a piss-poor job of raising their children? I'm not talking about parents who tell their kids that evolution is a lie of Satan (though we could surely use fewer of those, too) but rather the parents who don't actually look after their children - maybe they didn't have enough money to have kids and have to work 16 hours a day, maybe they are addicts and don't care about anything except their next fix, maybe they spend all their time on Slashdot and never pay attention to anything without a screen, for all I know - and leave those children without any motivation *not* to go join a gang and maybe shoot some people...

Out of curiosity, do you also think that pet owners shouldn't be legally responsible for what their pets do? If you buy a bunch of Dobermans and leave them in your back yard with no training to speak of, are you saying you shouldn't be held responsible when they break down the fence and kill some passerby on the street? After all, you're raising dangerous animals in your home. Well, there is no animal more dangerous than homo sapiens. You want to raise one, make sure you can do it right because society will sure as hell hold you responsible if you screw up.

Eltern haften für Ihre Kinder

[Skylinux]

"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!

Re:Eltern haften für Ihre Kinder

[Nyder]

"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!

Not here in the USA, parent's are financially responsible for their children until they are 18. I know because I got emancipated when I was 17 because I had left home at 16 and my parents didn't want to be responsible for anything I did.

   

Re:Eltern haften für Ihre Kinder

[flopsquad]

Not here in the USA, parent's are financially responsible for their children until they are 18. I know because I got emancipated when I was 17 because I had left home at 16 and my parents didn't want to be responsible for anything I did.

That is, as I posted above, not correct.** Your sentence permits multiple meanings, however.

Parents are financially responsible for providing food/care/shelter/etc to (unemancipated) minor children. That may have been important in your situation. Simply moving away from home wouldn't magic away your parents' responsibility to provide for your well-being--you'd have to be self-sufficient and (probably) emancipated.

On the other hand, parents are not, in general, vicariously liable for just any old tort, crime, debt, or other shenanigan wrought by their children. It can happen, usually when a parent knew or had reason to know but failed to act to prevent the child from causing harm. In your case, living independently away from home, it would be very hard for a plaintiff to argue your parents had actual or constructive knowledge of anything, really. You didn't need to be emancipated for your parents to be legally clear of your hijinx.**

But either your folks didn't know that, or they played card #2 with their eyes on card #1.

**The general rule at common law is that acts of minor children are not imputed to parents. Various states have enacted various measures to hold parents liable for certain acts, e.g. those of which they had/should have had knowledge, negligent entrustment with a dangerous instrument, a child's willful and malicious conduct that results in grave injury or death (even then the liability is usually capped). If you grew up in Hawaii, my apologies, you are correct that your parents were liable for pretty much anything you did.

+1

[TapeCutter]

I have mod points but unfortunately I've already posted.

School != Parents, in any way shape or form

[rsborg]

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.

Re:School != Parents, in any way shape or form

[AK Marc]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I...

That you don't think they do a good job of it doesn't mean it doesn't apply.

fix bayonets

[Hognoxious]

A gun and the bullets are physical objects, capable of causing real harm. Words can do no such thing, never, impossible, unless they can trigger a robot.

At one hundred yards, volley fire, present...

See also, radio broadcasts in Rwanda.

Robots my arse.

Re:fix bayonets

[fustakrakich]

At one hundred yards, volley fire, present...

The guy who pulls the trigger is the one to blame....

And what about Radio Rwanda?

People followed, don't blame the leader for his success.

Re:fix bayonets

[Hognoxious]

The point, which you are dodging strenuously to avoid, is that from a practical POV it's easier to stop one person giving the order than hundreds carrying it out.

Re:fix bayonets

[fustakrakich]

No no no, that's EXACTLY my point. You want expediency, it doesn't matter if it's the wrong choice, you must do something. Believe me, I know the routine. Thank you for spelling it out so explicitly and succinctly. If I had said it, I would be accused of being simplistic, but it's not. It's the truth. It is the path of least resistance, but it can only produce very short term results because it completely fails to deal with the underlying problem, which nobody wants to even touch, because it demands too much introspection, *blame the other* is the way. Easier to knock out the lights and blind everybody. Poke their eyes out so they won't be tempted.

Bullshit

[drinkypoo]

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.

No Law At All

[JimSadler]

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.

That may be not of much help

[jataktravel]

spoiled parents will not be of much help with their spoiled kids

That's fine and all, but...

[peter.kingsbury]

...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.

Re:About time......

[TangoMargarine]

why shouldn't I be liable for wrongdoing of my kid in cyberspace?

People's crazy-loose definition of what constitutes wrongdoing online.

The story doesnt say "parents liable for childs...

[friesofdoom]

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.

Re:Facebook, provide more parental controls

[TangoMargarine]

Then you run into the problem of verifying age to keep *actual* pedophile predators out...which means you need Real ID.

Maybe the answer is this thing we used to have called Real Life instead of communicating with their friends online.

Re:Facebook needs to be like Slashdot

[ihtoit]

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.