9/11/2001, the 1st Amendment, and Social Media

Today marks the 9th anniversary of September 11, 2001. On September 11, 2001, at least 19 terrorists attacked the United States without any provocation. Nine years ago, I was living several blocks away from the World Trade Center and I witnessed first hand the tragedy and aftermath of this cowardly attack against our country. Due to the destruction that was caused, I became displaced from my home.

To my generation, Sept. 11th means what December 7th meant to my grandfather's generation. As President Roosevelt stated during a joint session of Congress on December 8, 1941, December 7, 1941 is a date that will live in infamy. President Bush's first official address post the September 11, 2001 attacks summed up our country's initial reaction to this act of cowardice.

In the United States, the 1st Amendment protects against most free speech. An open forum to discuss ideas is the cornerstone of a democratic society. Voltaire is credited by some with saying, "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it." This mentality was one of the inspirations of our Constitution and Bill of Rights.

In the Social Media Age, people have to be very careful about what they say and do because every action or reaction has the potential to become a news story that may change international perception in a New York minute. For example, the controversy surrounding the proposal to build a mosque in the former Burlington Coat Factory building near the site of the World Trade Center in Lower Manhattan has caused a firestorm not only in New York City but around the globe.

This story appeared to be only a local Lower Manhattan issue until President Obama commented on the subject. The President's comments were quickly carried via social media and traditional media around the globe and all of sudden it became an international issue where world leaders, political pundits, etc... offered their two cents. The on/off again plan to create a bonfire to burn hundreds of copies of Islam's holy book, the Koran by Florida preacher Terry Jones is another example of how the mainstream media and social media may shape international opinion.

The owners of the property in Lower Manhattan that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory have a legal right to build a mosque if they abide by all local zoning laws. In addition, Terry Jones has the legal right to burn the Koran assuming he does so in a manner that does not break any local Florida laws against creating bonfires. The First Amendment protects ideas and opinions, regardless of their popularity.

However, just because both of these parties have a legal right to do these things that does not mean they should do it. Legal rights and moral rights are two different things and unfortunately the media generally distorts these issues to create stories that will generate more eyeballs for their coverage and in turn more advertising dollars that strengthen their bottom line.

The media, politicians, military personnel, and businesses need to rethink their public relations strategy in the Social Media Age because in many instances social media fuels media coverage and this enables a story to become a much larger event than it ever should have become. I bet that Andy Warhol would love the Social Media Age because now everyone has the opportunity to get their "15 Minutes" of fame very easily. According to the Washington Post, Terry Jones' publicity plan started with a tweet. Now Terry Jones is a household name. This is another example of the power of social media.

As of this writing, Terry Jones has stated he will not hold a bonfire to burn hundreds of copies of the Koran. In turn, the owners of the building that formerly housed a Burlington Coat Factory in Lower Manhattan should rethink their position and look to build their mosque several blocks further away from the World Trade Center site. Even though both of these parties have a legal right to do what they have publicly stated they want to do, following through with their plans will only increase tensions on each side that may lead to unanticipated consequences that may have a domino affect. It is now time to allow each party to save face so each may proclaim they have made their point.

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

How Do You Solve A Problem Like Maria (Juror Facebooking)?

I was invited to speak at the University of Baltimore's Lunch Time Law Series on February 22, 2010 to discuss entertainment and social media law. The Lunch Time Law Series is a great program that invites members of the legal community to discuss current trends in the law.

During the program, the State v. Dixon case was brought up. I previously blogged about this case on December 30,2009, and on January 15, 2010. In this case, five jurors communicated with each other outside of the courtroom via Facebook. The defense team found out about this after a verdict had been entered but before sentencing. Whether this activity constituted juror misconduct enough to warrant Dixon a new trial was never decided because a settlement was reached. Therefore, the Maryland legal community is still trying to figure out how best to avoid this problem in the future.

In my opinion, the temptation to access the Internet and social media sites is too great. Over the past several years, more and more people are ditching their landlines for smartphones, which allow quick and easy access to the Internet. Therefore, the courts have to put rules in place to safeguard the integrity of the jury system.

There are several different ways to do this. The first is to sequester all jurors, which frankly is impractical for many reasons, including, cost, and inconvenience.

The second possible solution would be to require prospective jurors to list all of their social media accounts on the juror questionnaire, including for example, Twitter name and password, and Facebook userid and password. This would enable court staff and the legal parties to not only screen for juror bias, but also to ensure that the impaneled jurors are not discussing the case in violation of court admonishments. In my opinion, this would intrude on a prospective juror’s right to privacy. The U.S. Constitution does not expressly protect one’s right to privacy. However, I believe it is inherent and forcing people to turn over this information may make people more inclined than they already are to try to avoid jury duty.

A third option, and the one that I believe is most viable is to require jurors sign a form stating that they agree not to discuss their case in any medium, including social media while they are impaneled. The form would include possible legal penalties if they disobey the directive.

On September 10, 2009, I blogged about how the San Francisco Court System is handling this issue.The U.S. Federal Courts recently weighed in on this problem and their response was to put forth a new model set of jury instructions: http://www.uscourts.gov/newsroom/2010/DIR10-018.pdf

Suggested jury instructions and admonishments for disobeying the rules are not enough. Real consequences are needed to take away the temptation to surf, post, blog, podcast, etc...There are no easy answers to "solving a problem like Maria (Juror Facebook)." However, a 21st century solution that addresses these issues and anticipates future challenges is needed. To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com

Copyright 2010 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court To Hear Potentially Groundbreaking Social Media Law Case

The U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to hear a Federal appeals court case from California that may lay the groundwork for determining whether an employee has an expectation of privacy when sending a personal text message and other personal communication from a work computer or other work issued property in the Social Media Age. The case, City of Ontario, California, et al., Petitioners v. Jeff Quon, et al. (No. 08-1332) may enable the Supreme Court to determine when and if an employer has the right to monitor any of the following personal accounts accessed at work: a personal email account, a Facebook account, or a Twitter feed.

Police sergeant Jeff Quon sued the City of Ontario, CA for violating his workplace privacy rights. Quon claimed that the City conducted a constitutionally banned unreasonable search by reviewing his text messages, despite those messages being sent from a city owned and paid for pager account. Notwithstanding Quon's claim, the trial court ruled that the City of Ontario had not violated his privacy. Quon successfully appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals, 9th Circuit which reversed the trial court's decision. The City of Ontario has since appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court claiming that Quon did not have an expectation of privacy in his communications.

Interestingly, Quon signed a form that acknowledged that his personal communications on his work-issued electronic devices would not be private. Despite signing the form, he utilized a work issued pager to send non-work related messages, including messages that some have deemed sexually explicit.

In general, an employer has the right to monitor any electronic communications accessed via employer owned equipment. Internet and Social Media Law is still evolving and the courts have begun to recognize there may be a distinction when an employee accesses personal email and social media accounts utilizing an employer's property.

In my opinion, the Supreme Court should reverse the 9th Circuit's ruling and find for the City of Ontario because an employer needs to be able to review any electronic communication that is sent via an employer owned account. Email, text messaging, and pagers have been commonly used in the workplace for more than 15 years and employees know or should know that they have no expectation of privacy when sending messages through an employer owned account. An employee should only have an expectation of privacy when communicating on his or her own personal computer, personal cell phone, or personal smartphone.

The case is scheduled to be argued in Spring 2010 with a Summer 2010 decision likely.

Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.

Social Media Has Forever Tarnished Tiger Woods' Image

Tiger Woods is the most popular and recognizable professional athlete on the planet and the highest paid athlete and pitchman. However, his purported "transgressions" during the past several years that have recently come to light and his response or initial lack thereof to the rumors concerning his extracurricular activities may have permanently tarnished his marketability.

Tiger's image has been very tightly controlled for many years and he has allowed his great skills on the golf greens to do most of his talking. Tiger's car accident over the Thanksgiving holiday weekend combined with published reports that he has been unfaithful to his wife have forever changed his image. From a legal perspective, Tiger's refusal to speak with police or provide a statement regarding the accident was his best move. However, from a public relations perspective Tiger's initial silence concerning the car accident and his alleged "transgressions" have created a feeding frenzy throughout the social media world.

Everybody makes mistakes. Our country is very forgiving and in the past when our heroes have fallen down and they have worked to repair the damage, the public has accepted them with open arms. A prime example of this is how former President Bill Clinton has bounced back since the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Even though President Clinton had to deal with the 24 hour news cycle, cable news, and the Internet (albeit a much less robust one than we have today), he did not have to deal with the power of social media.

Social media has changed the game. Due to a multitude of news websites, blogs, podcasts, etc... there is no escaping a story. Unfortunately, Tiger's handlers still do not understand the power of social media and how to respond to legal issues that they encounter in the Social Media Age. This is evidenced by Tiger's 11/29/2009 statement concerning his car accident and his 12/02/2009 comments regarding his personal indiscretions. Neither statement provides a clear explanation of what has truly happened, which the public and many of Tiger's fans and supporters want.

From a legal perspective, the less said about a legal matter the better. However, from a public relations standpoint, it is usually advisable to defuse a story by getting out in front of it by either acknowledging it or providing evidence to debunk it. An excellent example of successful public relations is how Meredith Baxter, aka Elyse Keaton of Family Ties fame handled the story concerning her sexuality. Ms. Baxter had been seen on a lesbian cruise and immediate questions concerning her sexuality were raised. Ms. Baxter got wind that a tabloid was going to "out" her so she went on The Today Show to out herself and take control of her story. Ms. Baxter's proactiveness destroyed the sensationalism of the story.

A second example of how to successfully handle a sex scandal is the way late night talk show host David Letterman reacted during his recent sex scandal. Mr. Letterman admitted the sexual affairs on his show. In general, Mr. Letterman has so far come out relatively unscathed. The only criticism of the manner in which this scandal has been handled is that CBS has refused to post Mr. Letterman's admission on CBS.com and it has used its legal muscle to force Youtube.com to remove it on the basis of copyright infringement. Despite these actions, unauthorized copies of Mr. Letterman's public apology are easy to find on the Internet.

In contrast, Tiger has tried to ignore his current situation and it appeared that he hoped it would all blow over. There is a good possibility that it will no longer be in the news cycle in a couple of weeks. However, social media will keep it alive on the Internet. If Tiger would have come clean a few days ago and went on camera and stated something along the lines that he was upset when he left his house and this caused his car accident and that he has been unfaithful to his wife and he is sorry for the pain he caused the story would be over. However, refusing to come clean early in the news cycle of the story has only fueled the fire and allowed for tabloid fodder. The longer Tiger waits to come clean, the more he tarnishes his well-crafted image.

Therefore, due to the power of social media it is important to hire a legal and public relations team that understands the legal, business, and public relations consequences of each possible course of action. In my opinion, Tiger needs to reevaluate his legal and public relations strategy to incorporate the new reality of the Social Media Age.

Copyright 2009 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.