The Jerry Sandusky sex abuse scandal at Penn State was horrific. More than 2 dozen young men were molested by former Penn State football coach Sandusky. Their lives were forever changed because it appears that some members of the Penn State community tried to cover up the situation instead of stepping in to help those abused.
Last year, a jury found Sandusky guilty of 45 charges of sexual abuse and he will most likely spend the rest of his life in prison. The fallout from the matter has included numerous lawsuits against Penn State. Earlier today, Penn State announced that it had agreed to pay almost $60 million dollars to 26 plaintiffs who alleged they were molested by Sandusky.
It was also recently disclosed that Penn State has so far spent more than $50 million dollars in legal fees and fines defending its conduct in this matter and the university still owes $48 million dollars of a $60 million dollar fine to the NCAA. While it is too soon to speculate on the overall economic loss to the entire Penn State community, this cost may reach hundreds of millions of dollars. While we may never be able to fully measure the precise human toll this scandal has caused, we can put a ball park figure on the economic toll so far and it appears to be north of $150 million dollars ($60 million dollars in settlements, $50 million dollars in legal fees/fines, etc.., $48 million dollars over the next 4 years in NCAA fines).
Strong eye witness testimony at trial that Sandusky was a sexual abuser appears to have swayed the jury. Interestingly, there was not much evidence that appeared to demonstrate that Penn State knew or should have known that they were allowing a child molester to roam free throughout its football facilities. The main evidence that appears to prove Penn State officials turned a blind eye to Sandusky's illegal activities was a handful of emails more than ten years old.
On November 10, 2011, I warned that the Sandusky scandal may cost Penn State more than $100 million dollars. On June 30, 2012, I wrote, "[d]igital evidence from eleven years ago may be the smoking gun that
demonstrates that Penn State knew about Sandusky but intentionally did
nothing to stop Sandusky...." On July 23, 2012, I stated, "[i]t appears that this scandal may end up costing Penn State closer to $150-$200 million dollars now that the NCAA has taken unprecedented action.
Many of the social media monitoring companies that approach schools lie about their founder's background/experience and/or monetize the personal student data they are collecting. Schools that engage these social media monitoring companies may be on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability if they continue to engage these companies.
The Obannon vs. NCAA case demonstrates that schools are very vulnerable to legal liability issues regarding a student-athletes' image and likeness rights. The Obannon case along with the Penn State sex abuse scandal should put schools and the NCAA on notice that once they are aware of an issue but do not act to properly resolve it they may be liable for tens or hundreds of millions (or more) of dollars in damages.
Schools that utilize social media monitoring services to track their student-athletes' and/or employees' personal digital activities are treading on thin ice. Engaging these companies may not only lead to lawsuits, but to punative damage settlements that are designed to deter this behavior in the future. Does every school need to experience a major scandal before realizing the legal liability issues inherent with digital evidence?
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Monday, October 28, 2013
Wednesday, October 23, 2013
White House Twitter Critic Fired Over Tweets
A Twitter Critic of the White House was recently unmasked and fired from his Obama administration job. According to the Daily Beast, Jofi Joseph, a member of in the National Security Staff was terminated from his position after he was caught as the person behind the Twitter handle @natsecwonk.
In the past, those who wanted to criticize the President and/or his staff would reach out to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post or another reporter and the information would end up in the newspaper and/or in a book. However, now it appears that internal administration critics are going directly to the public via Twitter and/or other digital platforms.
At first glance, it doesn't appear that Mr. Joseph released top secret material in his Tweets. Anonymous digital postings are usually not very reliable. However, Mr. Joseph's unmasking and termination has now provided some credibility to the anonymous Tweets that previously were not given much weight by those outside the administration. According to Mr. Joseph's comments to Politico, "[w]hat started out as an intended parody account of DC culture developed over time into a series of inappropriate and mean-spirited comments."
Why is the Obama administration spending tremendous resources hunting down Twitter critics? The administration has been actively targeting journalists and their sources for some time. How did the White House actually unmask its Twitter critic? Did the White House ask for and receive Twitter's assistance? Does the administration realize that silencing a Twitter critic has made the matter worse because of the Streisand Effect? Since the Tweets in question appear to be just inappropriate and mean-spirited why should the administration care?
Mishandling and/or leaking classified documents and/or information may be a crime depending upon the circumstances. If Mr. Joseph's digital activities violated any laws he should be prosecuted like anyone else. However, posting negative Tweets about those in the government is not a crime. In a democracy, this is called exercising our freedom of speech rights. Last week, I spoke to a group of international government officials who wanted to know what to do when someone anonymously mocks them online. My response was to "get some thicker skin".
While there may be some potential First Amendment, employee/employer, and national security legal issues to address once all of the facts have come to light, at the end of the day this is about a person who happens to be a government employee Tweeting anonymously about his personal observations and/or thoughts about the inner workings of the government. Nothing more.
President Obama is the first President to become elected because of social media and his administration has utilized multiple digital platforms to convey his message directly to the entire world without a media filter. Its time for some members of the President's inner circle to get some thicker skin and realize they are the first administration to govern in the Social Media Age. The administration's "Twitter critic mole hunt" raises more questions than it answers.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
In the past, those who wanted to criticize the President and/or his staff would reach out to Bob Woodward of the Washington Post or another reporter and the information would end up in the newspaper and/or in a book. However, now it appears that internal administration critics are going directly to the public via Twitter and/or other digital platforms.
At first glance, it doesn't appear that Mr. Joseph released top secret material in his Tweets. Anonymous digital postings are usually not very reliable. However, Mr. Joseph's unmasking and termination has now provided some credibility to the anonymous Tweets that previously were not given much weight by those outside the administration. According to Mr. Joseph's comments to Politico, "[w]hat started out as an intended parody account of DC culture developed over time into a series of inappropriate and mean-spirited comments."
Why is the Obama administration spending tremendous resources hunting down Twitter critics? The administration has been actively targeting journalists and their sources for some time. How did the White House actually unmask its Twitter critic? Did the White House ask for and receive Twitter's assistance? Does the administration realize that silencing a Twitter critic has made the matter worse because of the Streisand Effect? Since the Tweets in question appear to be just inappropriate and mean-spirited why should the administration care?
Mishandling and/or leaking classified documents and/or information may be a crime depending upon the circumstances. If Mr. Joseph's digital activities violated any laws he should be prosecuted like anyone else. However, posting negative Tweets about those in the government is not a crime. In a democracy, this is called exercising our freedom of speech rights. Last week, I spoke to a group of international government officials who wanted to know what to do when someone anonymously mocks them online. My response was to "get some thicker skin".
While there may be some potential First Amendment, employee/employer, and national security legal issues to address once all of the facts have come to light, at the end of the day this is about a person who happens to be a government employee Tweeting anonymously about his personal observations and/or thoughts about the inner workings of the government. Nothing more.
President Obama is the first President to become elected because of social media and his administration has utilized multiple digital platforms to convey his message directly to the entire world without a media filter. Its time for some members of the President's inner circle to get some thicker skin and realize they are the first administration to govern in the Social Media Age. The administration's "Twitter critic mole hunt" raises more questions than it answers.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, October 22, 2013
Facebook criticized for ending ban on beheading videos
Facebook has recently announced that it will end its ban on beheading videos. Within hours after announcing that it was lifting its ban, it was criticized for its new policy. This change caused such an uproar that even British Prime Minister mentioned his dismay about it.
Facebook is a private entity and if you want to utilize its platform you need to play by its rules. It creates policies to drive as much traffic to its web site as possible. The more users/eyeballs the more advertising dollars. The more advertising dollars it generates the more profits that may be sent to its stockholders. Facebook is not in the privacy and censorship business but in the digital monetization business.
Parents and politicians need to understand that Facebook was not created as a sanitary place for kids to "hang out". Facebook was created by Mark Zuckerberg to encourage Harvard college students to meet and interact with other college students to do "grown up things". The sooner people realize this the better.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Facebook is a private entity and if you want to utilize its platform you need to play by its rules. It creates policies to drive as much traffic to its web site as possible. The more users/eyeballs the more advertising dollars. The more advertising dollars it generates the more profits that may be sent to its stockholders. Facebook is not in the privacy and censorship business but in the digital monetization business.
Parents and politicians need to understand that Facebook was not created as a sanitary place for kids to "hang out". Facebook was created by Mark Zuckerberg to encourage Harvard college students to meet and interact with other college students to do "grown up things". The sooner people realize this the better.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Friday, October 11, 2013
Will Facebook's New Timeline Policy Assist Cyber bullies, Stalkers, and Murderers?
Facebook's recent decision to eliminate the ability for users to hide from a Timeline search may be a boon to Cyber bullies, stalkers, murders, etc.. who utilize Facebook to harm others. As Forbes noted earlier this year, "the new tool will make Facebook stalking much easier".
Facebook's business model is basically, "we built an online hang out for you to you play in, so go play; however, everything you do in our playroom is subject to our rules and we may change them at anytime so we can better monetize your digital activities." This philosophy is made crystal clear in Facebook's terms and conditions.
Facebook is currently being used by murderers, rapists, criminals, etc.. to commit unlawful acts. For example, a model was killed last year after her stalker lured her to her death utilizing Facebook. In 2010, a rapist used Facebook to create a fake profile so he stalk an ex-girlfriend. Earlier this year, a murderer connected with his victim through Facebook to kidnap and kill a teenager.
The bottom line is that Facebook should do more to protect its users' privacy. This policy change may be perceived as one that does not protect the privacy of its users. Perception becomes reality. One simple way for users to perceive that Facebook still cares about its users' privacy is to enable users to be able to hide from a Timeline search.
While Facebook has generally been immune from defections due to its privacy policies could this be the tipping point that changes its users' perception about the social network?
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Facebook's business model is basically, "we built an online hang out for you to you play in, so go play; however, everything you do in our playroom is subject to our rules and we may change them at anytime so we can better monetize your digital activities." This philosophy is made crystal clear in Facebook's terms and conditions.
Facebook is currently being used by murderers, rapists, criminals, etc.. to commit unlawful acts. For example, a model was killed last year after her stalker lured her to her death utilizing Facebook. In 2010, a rapist used Facebook to create a fake profile so he stalk an ex-girlfriend. Earlier this year, a murderer connected with his victim through Facebook to kidnap and kill a teenager.
The bottom line is that Facebook should do more to protect its users' privacy. This policy change may be perceived as one that does not protect the privacy of its users. Perception becomes reality. One simple way for users to perceive that Facebook still cares about its users' privacy is to enable users to be able to hide from a Timeline search.
While Facebook has generally been immune from defections due to its privacy policies could this be the tipping point that changes its users' perception about the social network?
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Wednesday, October 2, 2013
Court: Fake Social Media Profiles Of Teachers By Students Ok
In the Social Media Age, the old adage that "sticks and stones can break my bones, but names can never harm me" is more important than ever. In a recent case, an assistant middle school principal sued 5 students and their parents because the students allegedly created fake social media profiles of him that were not flattering.
The assistant middle school principal claimed that the students violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The court dismissed one of the students from the lawsuit and it would not surprise me if the court dismisses the rest of the plaintiff's claims soon. While the plaintiff may have a stronger case suing under another theory, I believe the students and their parents have a strong First Amendment defense that may defeat most if not all potential claims.
Last year, North Carolina enacted a law that makes it unlawful for students to:
While North Carolina's law has good intentions, I would find it hard to believe that it does not violate the First Amendment. It would not surprise me if a federal court eventually rules that this law is unconstitutional.
The bottom line is that schools need to do a better job of educating their students, teachers, and administrators about digital issues.
The assistant middle school principal claimed that the students violated the federal Computer Fraud and Abuse Act. The court dismissed one of the students from the lawsuit and it would not surprise me if the court dismisses the rest of the plaintiff's claims soon. While the plaintiff may have a stronger case suing under another theory, I believe the students and their parents have a strong First Amendment defense that may defeat most if not all potential claims.
Last year, North Carolina enacted a law that makes it unlawful for students to:
Use a computer or computer network to do any of the following:
(1) With the
intent to intimidate or torment a school employee, do any of the following:
a. Build a fake
profile or Web site.
b. Post or
encourage others to post on the Internet private, personal, or sexual
information pertaining to a school employee.
c. Post a real or
doctored image of the school employee on the Internet.
While North Carolina's law has good intentions, I would find it hard to believe that it does not violate the First Amendment. It would not surprise me if a federal court eventually rules that this law is unconstitutional.
The bottom line is that schools need to do a better job of educating their students, teachers, and administrators about digital issues.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)