According to The Washington Post, a teenager who was caught up in a sexting investigation has sued a Virginia prosecutor for civil rights violations. While the police were investigating sexting between two teenagers in 2014 they obtained a warrant to force the teenager to enable law enforcement to take photos of his genitalia. Fortunately, the public was notified of this ridiculous situation and the teenager was not required to take a photo of his erect penis for evidence.
This request created a major public uproar. It sounded like those requesting the photos had been fans of the the 1980's movie Porky's when physical education teacher Ms. Balbricker asked the high school principal if he would sanction a penis (tallywacker) lineup of several students so she could identify which student stuck his penis through a peep hole in the girl's bathroom. Ms. Balbricker claimed that she could identify the offending student's penis because it contained a distinctive mole. In the movie, the request for the penis line up was denied.
The detective who handled the case killed himself last year after being accused of molesting two young boys so this raises further doubts regarding the motive for photos of the teenager's erect penis.I initially wrote about the case in 2014 and stated, "My hope is that prosecutors and judges across the country realize that this is the wrong way to deal with sexting by teenagers."
The bottom line is that teenagers should be provided more education about these issues instead of outright punishment for these types of situations.
Copyright 2016 by Bradley S. Shear, Esq. All rights reserved.
Showing posts with label Social Media and Student Athletes. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Social Media and Student Athletes. Show all posts
Friday, May 27, 2016
Saturday, April 5, 2014
Facebook Insult About Islam May Lead To Execution in Iran
Be careful about what you say online. For example, if you are a United Kingdom resident and post allegedly derogatory messages about Iran and/or Islam and then visit Iran you may be detained by the Iranian authorities. This appears to have happened to a British resident recently.
According to The Independent, a British woman allegedly posted derogatory comments about Iran's government and Islam on Facebook. It appears that as soon as she landed in Shiraz, Iran to visit family she arrested and was taken to Tehran and charged with "gathering and participation with intent to commit crime against national security" and "insulting Islamic sanctities". These charges may lead to her execution.
This set of facts leads me to believe that Iran is social media monitoring every negative comment online about its government and when it has the opportunity to arrest the alleged speakers it does.
The bottom line is that sometimes it is best to have anonymity online. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously for a reason and that reason was to express political opinions without fear of retribution. Therefore, before making online political comments about certain issues anonymity may be best.
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
According to The Independent, a British woman allegedly posted derogatory comments about Iran's government and Islam on Facebook. It appears that as soon as she landed in Shiraz, Iran to visit family she arrested and was taken to Tehran and charged with "gathering and participation with intent to commit crime against national security" and "insulting Islamic sanctities". These charges may lead to her execution.
This set of facts leads me to believe that Iran is social media monitoring every negative comment online about its government and when it has the opportunity to arrest the alleged speakers it does.
The bottom line is that sometimes it is best to have anonymity online. The Federalist Papers were published anonymously for a reason and that reason was to express political opinions without fear of retribution. Therefore, before making online political comments about certain issues anonymity may be best.
Copyright 2014 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, August 29, 2013
New Jersey Bans NCAA Social Media Monitoring Companies
New Jersey Governor Chris Christie proclaimed that New Jersey employees have an expectation of privacy in the digital age when he signed A2878 into law earlier today. New Jersey has joined the growing number of states that are protecting the personal digital privacy of their employees and students. At least 13 states have enacted similar laws and 36 states along with Congress have introduced bills to protect
NCAA schools, students, employers, employees, etc... from companies that are selling social media monitoring legal liability
time bombs.
Some social media monitoring companies may claim they are a "leader" in social media monitoring and/or in "educating" student-athletes. Does the NSA claim they are monitoring personal digital accounts to educate? No. Therefore, any claim by Varsity Monitor, UDiligence, Fieldhouse Media, etc...that they are monitoring to "educate" is absolute *&%%&*$%.
Varsity Monitor, UDiligence, and Fieldhouse Media each sell social media monitoring services that NCAA schools in at least 13 states may not utilize to track the personal digital accounts of their coaches and/or student-athletes. Schools deploying the social media monitoring services of these companies may be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, and/or may be sued for violating their student's first and/or fourth amendment rights, and/or may lose millions of dollars in federal funding.
According to Deadspin, Varsity Monitor may have some troubling ethical and legal problems to address. The Courier Journal reported that Varsity Monitor's Centrix Social service was caught last year monitoring University of Kentucky student-athletes for using the terms "Arab" or "Muslim" online. Why did Sam Carnahan, the owner of Varsity Monitor allow this to occur?
According to Time Magazine, UDiligence was monetizing the personal photographs of the student-athletes it was monitoring to advertise its services until it was confronted about this troubling practice. Unfortunately, UDiligence's founder Kevin Long only removed the offending photos from his UDiligence web site but not another one of his company web sites (I have screen shots if he claims otherwise). This demonstrates that schools, student-athletes, and sports related entities should think long and hard before trusting any entity that Mr. Long owns or controls.
The most troubling service may be Fieldhouse Media because it appears to be trying to differentiate itself as having less invasive tactics than the other companies. NCAA athletic departments should not be fooled. It appears that in order for Fieldhouse Media's social media monitoring service to properly work student-athletes need to at least authenticate their social media username(s). Arkansas, California, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and New Mexico have generally banned schools from being able to ask a student to verify this information.
Fieldhouse Media's Kevin DeShazo's business practices appear to raise serious ethical questions. For example, last year Mr. DeShazo created a press release announcing his social media monitoring service that quoted me without my cooperation. Did Mr. DeShazo ask for my permission to be quoted in a press release designed to sell his social media monitoring services? No. Why is Mr. DeShazo trying to associate my reputation with a practice that I along with lawyers and risk professional from around the country believe may create tremendous legal and financial risks?
If you perform due diligence on Mr. DeShazo you may find some issues that warrant further explanation. For example, according to his publicly available LinkedIn Profile from last year it states that before he started his social media monitoring firm he had no verifiable social media or NCAA compliance/advisory experience. Interestingly, according to his recent publicly available LinkedIn Profile it now claims that prior to starting his social media monitoring company he was working for a social media marketing firm. If Mr. DeShazo was actually working for a social media marketing company before he started his social media consulting firm why wasn't it listed previously? Why has Mr. DeShazo recently claimed he launched Fieldhouse Media in 2010 (I have screen shots if this is denied) which conflicts with his LinkedIn Profile claims and the information on file with the Oklahoma Secretary of State?
In 2001, George O'Leary, Notre Dame's head football coach resigned five days after being hired because of "inaccuracies" in his published biography. In other words, Mr. O'Leary was caught intentionally misleading NCAA athletic departments about his background. After George O'Leary, Jayson Blair was caught creating a web of lies and was terminated from the New York Times, and then James Frey, the author of "A Million Little Pieces" was caught lying to Oprah.
Anyone that approaches schools to sell services to track personal social media accounts is selling a legal liability time bomb. If a school hires a social media monitoring firm to track the personal digital content of their students or employees and it misses an indication that there may be a crime committed it may cost the school more than $100 million dollars. For proof, just review the Penn State emails regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter. Does a school want to be on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability because it was utilizing a social media monitoring service to track personal digital accounts?
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Some social media monitoring companies may claim they are a "leader" in social media monitoring and/or in "educating" student-athletes. Does the NSA claim they are monitoring personal digital accounts to educate? No. Therefore, any claim by Varsity Monitor, UDiligence, Fieldhouse Media, etc...that they are monitoring to "educate" is absolute *&%%&*$%.
Varsity Monitor, UDiligence, and Fieldhouse Media each sell social media monitoring services that NCAA schools in at least 13 states may not utilize to track the personal digital accounts of their coaches and/or student-athletes. Schools deploying the social media monitoring services of these companies may be fined hundreds of thousands of dollars, and/or may be sued for violating their student's first and/or fourth amendment rights, and/or may lose millions of dollars in federal funding.
According to Deadspin, Varsity Monitor may have some troubling ethical and legal problems to address. The Courier Journal reported that Varsity Monitor's Centrix Social service was caught last year monitoring University of Kentucky student-athletes for using the terms "Arab" or "Muslim" online. Why did Sam Carnahan, the owner of Varsity Monitor allow this to occur?
According to Time Magazine, UDiligence was monetizing the personal photographs of the student-athletes it was monitoring to advertise its services until it was confronted about this troubling practice. Unfortunately, UDiligence's founder Kevin Long only removed the offending photos from his UDiligence web site but not another one of his company web sites (I have screen shots if he claims otherwise). This demonstrates that schools, student-athletes, and sports related entities should think long and hard before trusting any entity that Mr. Long owns or controls.
The most troubling service may be Fieldhouse Media because it appears to be trying to differentiate itself as having less invasive tactics than the other companies. NCAA athletic departments should not be fooled. It appears that in order for Fieldhouse Media's social media monitoring service to properly work student-athletes need to at least authenticate their social media username(s). Arkansas, California, Delaware, Illinois, Michigan, New Jersey, and New Mexico have generally banned schools from being able to ask a student to verify this information.
Fieldhouse Media's Kevin DeShazo's business practices appear to raise serious ethical questions. For example, last year Mr. DeShazo created a press release announcing his social media monitoring service that quoted me without my cooperation. Did Mr. DeShazo ask for my permission to be quoted in a press release designed to sell his social media monitoring services? No. Why is Mr. DeShazo trying to associate my reputation with a practice that I along with lawyers and risk professional from around the country believe may create tremendous legal and financial risks?
If you perform due diligence on Mr. DeShazo you may find some issues that warrant further explanation. For example, according to his publicly available LinkedIn Profile from last year it states that before he started his social media monitoring firm he had no verifiable social media or NCAA compliance/advisory experience. Interestingly, according to his recent publicly available LinkedIn Profile it now claims that prior to starting his social media monitoring company he was working for a social media marketing firm. If Mr. DeShazo was actually working for a social media marketing company before he started his social media consulting firm why wasn't it listed previously? Why has Mr. DeShazo recently claimed he launched Fieldhouse Media in 2010 (I have screen shots if this is denied) which conflicts with his LinkedIn Profile claims and the information on file with the Oklahoma Secretary of State?
In 2001, George O'Leary, Notre Dame's head football coach resigned five days after being hired because of "inaccuracies" in his published biography. In other words, Mr. O'Leary was caught intentionally misleading NCAA athletic departments about his background. After George O'Leary, Jayson Blair was caught creating a web of lies and was terminated from the New York Times, and then James Frey, the author of "A Million Little Pieces" was caught lying to Oprah.
Anyone that approaches schools to sell services to track personal social media accounts is selling a legal liability time bomb. If a school hires a social media monitoring firm to track the personal digital content of their students or employees and it misses an indication that there may be a crime committed it may cost the school more than $100 million dollars. For proof, just review the Penn State emails regarding the Jerry Sandusky matter. Does a school want to be on the hook for tens or hundreds of millions of dollars in legal liability because it was utilizing a social media monitoring service to track personal digital accounts?
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, August 13, 2013
CA School District Lodi Implements Unconstitutional Student Social Media Policy
Colleges and high schools across the country are implementing unconstitutional social media policies that are requiring state legislatures, Congress, and the courts to show them the error of their ways. For example, Utah State and Northwestern University implemented clearly unconstitutional social media policies directed at their student-athletes. Due to these policies, Utah and Illinois enacted legislation banning these schools' social media policies.
The Lodi Unified School District in California recently enacted a student social media policy that infringes on the 1st amendment rights of those who participate in extracurricular activities. This new policy covers student-athletes, student newspaper reporters, band members, chess club members, the glee club, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender club, etc... The policy clearly violates the First Amendment. As Tinker v. Des Moines states, "students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
In addition to violating the First Amendment, this new policy violates California Education Code Section 48907 that protects students' free speech rights in California. The bottom line is that K-12 schools and post-secondary schools must be more aware of the policies that their administrators are implementing to ensure they don't create tremendous legal liability.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
The Lodi Unified School District in California recently enacted a student social media policy that infringes on the 1st amendment rights of those who participate in extracurricular activities. This new policy covers student-athletes, student newspaper reporters, band members, chess club members, the glee club, the lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender club, etc... The policy clearly violates the First Amendment. As Tinker v. Des Moines states, "students do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate."
In addition to violating the First Amendment, this new policy violates California Education Code Section 48907 that protects students' free speech rights in California. The bottom line is that K-12 schools and post-secondary schools must be more aware of the policies that their administrators are implementing to ensure they don't create tremendous legal liability.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Tuesday, April 9, 2013
Utah Bans Student-Athlete Social Media Monitoring Firms
Utah recently became the latest state to enact legislation that bans schools from deploying social media monitoring firms that require students verify their social media user names and/or passwords. Utah joins Delaware, California, Michigan, and New Jersey in protecting their schools, students, and taxpayers from social media snake oil salesmen who are selling legal liability time bombs.
The Utah legislation appears to have been prompted because of a Time Magazine article that discussed the student-athlete social media policy of one Utah school. This academic institution appeared to require student-athletes sign a social media policy that stated, "To the extent that any federal, state, or local law prohibits the Athletic Department from accessing my social networking accounts, I hereby waive any and all such rights and protections." According to constitutional law expert Professor Phil Closius, this student-athlete social media policy was "clearly suspect". Under Utah's new law (H.B. 100), this policy is not just clearly suspect but against the law.
What does Utah's new law along with similar laws across the country mean for schools? In short, academic institutions need to re-examine their student-athlete social media policies and education programs to ensure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. Athletic departments need to understand that social media is not just a public relations issue but a serious legal matter that requires the counsel of social media law experts who understand college athletics and NCAA compliance. Drafting and implementing improper student-athlete social media policies may create millions of dollars in legal liability.
Consultants who sell "student-athlete social media monitoring services" to athletic departments are selling legal liability time bombs. Deadspin has already exposed several companies as having no connection to college athletics before starting their "social media monitoring firms". Some companies that are approaching colleges appear to be making material misrepresentations to market their services. For example, how does someone transition from being a health care recruiter to a social media student-athlete compliance and education consultant overnight?
The bottom line is that states across the country are banning schools from being able to deploy firms to monitor and archive their students' personal digital content. These laws may cumulatively save schools around the United States hundreds of millions of dollars in monitoring, legal, compliance, and insurance costs.
In order for social media monitoring services to properly function students must at least verify their social media user names. Absent student verification these services are unable properly work. Furthermore, athletic departments should not be fooled into believing these services are compliant with all state and/or federal laws. In general, these companies also claim their services are educational tools while others claim they want to protect the online reputation of schools and/or students. Has anyone asked those who are approaching schools for their teaching credentials?
It appears that the founders of these companies have no verifiable experience that would lend any credibility to their claims. Consultants who are marketing student-athlete social media monitoring services to athletic departments do not understand social media, NCAA compliance, public policy, or the law; and they apparently care more about making a sale than protecting schools and student-athletes.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
The Utah legislation appears to have been prompted because of a Time Magazine article that discussed the student-athlete social media policy of one Utah school. This academic institution appeared to require student-athletes sign a social media policy that stated, "To the extent that any federal, state, or local law prohibits the Athletic Department from accessing my social networking accounts, I hereby waive any and all such rights and protections." According to constitutional law expert Professor Phil Closius, this student-athlete social media policy was "clearly suspect". Under Utah's new law (H.B. 100), this policy is not just clearly suspect but against the law.
What does Utah's new law along with similar laws across the country mean for schools? In short, academic institutions need to re-examine their student-athlete social media policies and education programs to ensure compliance with all applicable state and federal laws. Athletic departments need to understand that social media is not just a public relations issue but a serious legal matter that requires the counsel of social media law experts who understand college athletics and NCAA compliance. Drafting and implementing improper student-athlete social media policies may create millions of dollars in legal liability.
Consultants who sell "student-athlete social media monitoring services" to athletic departments are selling legal liability time bombs. Deadspin has already exposed several companies as having no connection to college athletics before starting their "social media monitoring firms". Some companies that are approaching colleges appear to be making material misrepresentations to market their services. For example, how does someone transition from being a health care recruiter to a social media student-athlete compliance and education consultant overnight?
The bottom line is that states across the country are banning schools from being able to deploy firms to monitor and archive their students' personal digital content. These laws may cumulatively save schools around the United States hundreds of millions of dollars in monitoring, legal, compliance, and insurance costs.
In order for social media monitoring services to properly function students must at least verify their social media user names. Absent student verification these services are unable properly work. Furthermore, athletic departments should not be fooled into believing these services are compliant with all state and/or federal laws. In general, these companies also claim their services are educational tools while others claim they want to protect the online reputation of schools and/or students. Has anyone asked those who are approaching schools for their teaching credentials?
It appears that the founders of these companies have no verifiable experience that would lend any credibility to their claims. Consultants who are marketing student-athlete social media monitoring services to athletic departments do not understand social media, NCAA compliance, public policy, or the law; and they apparently care more about making a sale than protecting schools and student-athletes.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2013 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Thursday, September 6, 2012
10 tips to determine if a sports social media consultant is a fraud
In the past couple of years, multiple consulting companies have suddenly appeared on the scene to claim they are sports social media experts, gurus, leaders, trainers, etc... These firms are pitching colleges and universities to hire them to monitor their student-athletes' Tweets, Facebook posts, YouTube videos, and/or to "educate" student-athletes, coaches, administrators, etc... about social media matters.
To claim one is a sports social media consultant the barrier to entry is very low. From looking at the lack of credentials from most of those selling themselves as social media experts it appears that the only tools needed are: Internet and phone access, and a Slideshare account. With these three things you can create a free or low cost website and/or a free blog, open a free Twitter account, and create social media presentations based upon the work of others. Some of these "self anointed social media experts" may also buy a software package or create an application to track the online activities of student-athletes that may create tremendous legal problems for the schools that utilize these programs.
To claim one is a sports social media consultant the barrier to entry is very low. From looking at the lack of credentials from most of those selling themselves as social media experts it appears that the only tools needed are: Internet and phone access, and a Slideshare account. With these three things you can create a free or low cost website and/or a free blog, open a free Twitter account, and create social media presentations based upon the work of others. Some of these "self anointed social media experts" may also buy a software package or create an application to track the online activities of student-athletes that may create tremendous legal problems for the schools that utilize these programs.
The Tweets, blog posts, and presentations of these self-called experts may appear to indicate that these consultants are the real McCoy. However, once due diligence is performed on these "social media experts" it becomes evident that almost none of them have any bona fide credentials or knowledge that demonstrates they should be advising NCAA schools, student-athletes, coaches, administrators, etc... on social media and/or any issues pertaining to college athletics.
To ensure that NCAA schools do not fall victim to these self-anointed experts who do not have the best interests of schools, athletic departments, and student-athletes in mind, below is a list of characteristics to help determine if a self described NCAA social media consultant, expert, guru, trainer, leader, etc... is a fraud:
1) The consultant advises schools to buy his social media monitoring software to track and/or archive student-athletes' password and/or non-password protected online activity.
2) The consultant advises schools to request or require students to register their social media user names and/or passwords with athletic departments and/or third parties.
5) The consultant incorrectly predicted how the NCAA's social media monitoring allegation against the University of North Carolina would be resolved.
6) The consultant follows more people on his professional Twitter account than are following him back.
7) The consultant's social media credentials appear too good to be true which may indicate social media credential fraud.
8) The consultant claims that schools that utilize his social media monitoring program will not be violating any current/future laws or creating the potential for tremendous legal liability.
9) The consultant has no verifiable professional social media experience prior to 2011.
To ensure that NCAA schools do not fall victim to these self-anointed experts who do not have the best interests of schools, athletic departments, and student-athletes in mind, below is a list of characteristics to help determine if a self described NCAA social media consultant, expert, guru, trainer, leader, etc... is a fraud:
1) The consultant advises schools to buy his social media monitoring software to track and/or archive student-athletes' password and/or non-password protected online activity.
2) The consultant advises schools to request or require students to register their social media user names and/or passwords with athletic departments and/or third parties.
3) The consultant advises schools to request or require that student-athletes Facebook Friend schools and/or third parties.
4) The consultant has no verifiable professional social media and/or sports experience before starting his sports social media consulting company.
5) The consultant incorrectly predicted how the NCAA's social media monitoring allegation against the University of North Carolina would be resolved.
6) The consultant follows more people on his professional Twitter account than are following him back.
7) The consultant's social media credentials appear too good to be true which may indicate social media credential fraud.
8) The consultant claims that schools that utilize his social media monitoring program will not be violating any current/future laws or creating the potential for tremendous legal liability.
9) The consultant has no verifiable professional social media experience prior to 2011.
10) The consultant has public Twitter conversations that may be better suited via direct message and/or another more discreet format.
If a social media consultant approaches an NCAA institution and has more than one of these characteristics it most likely indicates that the consultant is not the expert, leader, guru, etc... that he claims to be but a fraud whose advice may put the safety of a university and/or its students at risk and may create tremendous legal liability for universities, coaches, athletic department administrators, and/or student-athletes.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
If a social media consultant approaches an NCAA institution and has more than one of these characteristics it most likely indicates that the consultant is not the expert, leader, guru, etc... that he claims to be but a fraud whose advice may put the safety of a university and/or its students at risk and may create tremendous legal liability for universities, coaches, athletic department administrators, and/or student-athletes.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC All rights reserved.
Monday, July 23, 2012
NCAA Penn State sanctions prove schools should not social media monitor their students or employees
The Penn State Jerry Sandusky child sex abuse scandal is the worst scandal in the history of college athletics and has now drawn unprecedented NCAA sanctions. The sanctions were handed down by the NCAA because the evidence from the Freeh Report along with the criminal trial of former coach Jerry Sandusky indicated that "Penn State's leadership failed to value and uphold institutional integrity, breaching both the NCAA Constitution and Division I rules."
On November 10, 2011, I stated that, "between legal fees, settlements, judgments, possible fines etc... it is possible that this scandal may cost Penn State $100 million dollars or more. This does not factor in the damage to its reputation along with the loss of future economic opportunities." It appears that this scandal may end up costing Penn State closer to $150-$200 million dollars now that the NCAA has taken unprecedented action.
Digital evidence from more than ten years ago appears to have persuaded former FBI Director Louis Freeh that there was a systematic cover up regarding the Sandusky matter. The emails that the Freeh Report uncovered may have been the determining factor that led to the NCAA's sanctions against Penn State.
According to the NCAA's website, Penn State's sanctions include:
-$60 million fine. The NCAA imposes a $60 million fine, equivalent to the approximate average of one year's gross revenues from the Penn State football program, to be paid over a five-year period beginning in 2012 into an endowment for programs preventing child sexual abuse and/or assisting the victims of child sexual abuse.
-Four-year postseason ban. The NCAA imposes a four-year postseason ban on participation in postseason play in the sport of football, beginning with the 2012-2013 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2015-2016 academic year.
-Four-year reduction of grants-in-aid. For a period of four years commencing with the 2013-2014 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2016-2017 academic year.
-Five years of probation. The NCAA imposes this period of probation, which will include the appointment of an on-campus, independent Integrity Monitor and periodic reporting as detailed in the Corrective Component of this Consent Decree.
-Vacation of wins since 1998. The NCAA vacates all wins of the Penn State football team from 1998 to 2011.
-Waiver of transfer rules and grant-in-aid retention. Any entering or returning football student-athlete will be allowed to immediately transfer and will be eligible to immediately compete at the transfer institution, provided he is otherwise eligible.
-Individual penalties to be determined. The NCAA reserves the right to initiate a formal investigatory and disciplinary process and impose sanctions on individuals after the conclusion of any criminal proceedings related to any individual involved.
The Big Ten has also weighed in on the matter. According to The Patriot-News, Penn State will not be eligible to receive at least $13 million dollars in bowl revenue over the next four years. Therefore, Penn State will lose at least $73 million dollars in revenues related to the Sandusky matter before legal fees and expenses, civil settlements, judgements, etc... are factored into the entire cost of the situation.
This matter should be a warning to every NCAA institution. If a school employs a social media monitoring company to track its students and/or employees and it learns about a Tweet or post that may indicate illegal activity and the university does not immediately report it to the proper legal authorities it may be fined tens of millions of dollars by the NCAA.
The bottom line is that schools that listen to self-described experts/leaders/consultants, etc... who create fancy marketing materials and digital presentations that provide the false impression that they understand NCAA compliance, public policy, student education issues, and the law, may be in for a huge shock in the near future.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
On November 10, 2011, I stated that, "between legal fees, settlements, judgments, possible fines etc... it is possible that this scandal may cost Penn State $100 million dollars or more. This does not factor in the damage to its reputation along with the loss of future economic opportunities." It appears that this scandal may end up costing Penn State closer to $150-$200 million dollars now that the NCAA has taken unprecedented action.
Digital evidence from more than ten years ago appears to have persuaded former FBI Director Louis Freeh that there was a systematic cover up regarding the Sandusky matter. The emails that the Freeh Report uncovered may have been the determining factor that led to the NCAA's sanctions against Penn State.
According to the NCAA's website, Penn State's sanctions include:
-$60 million fine. The NCAA imposes a $60 million fine, equivalent to the approximate average of one year's gross revenues from the Penn State football program, to be paid over a five-year period beginning in 2012 into an endowment for programs preventing child sexual abuse and/or assisting the victims of child sexual abuse.
-Four-year postseason ban. The NCAA imposes a four-year postseason ban on participation in postseason play in the sport of football, beginning with the 2012-2013 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2015-2016 academic year.
-Four-year reduction of grants-in-aid. For a period of four years commencing with the 2013-2014 academic year and expiring at the conclusion of the 2016-2017 academic year.
-Five years of probation. The NCAA imposes this period of probation, which will include the appointment of an on-campus, independent Integrity Monitor and periodic reporting as detailed in the Corrective Component of this Consent Decree.
-Vacation of wins since 1998. The NCAA vacates all wins of the Penn State football team from 1998 to 2011.
-Waiver of transfer rules and grant-in-aid retention. Any entering or returning football student-athlete will be allowed to immediately transfer and will be eligible to immediately compete at the transfer institution, provided he is otherwise eligible.
-Individual penalties to be determined. The NCAA reserves the right to initiate a formal investigatory and disciplinary process and impose sanctions on individuals after the conclusion of any criminal proceedings related to any individual involved.
The Big Ten has also weighed in on the matter. According to The Patriot-News, Penn State will not be eligible to receive at least $13 million dollars in bowl revenue over the next four years. Therefore, Penn State will lose at least $73 million dollars in revenues related to the Sandusky matter before legal fees and expenses, civil settlements, judgements, etc... are factored into the entire cost of the situation.
This matter should be a warning to every NCAA institution. If a school employs a social media monitoring company to track its students and/or employees and it learns about a Tweet or post that may indicate illegal activity and the university does not immediately report it to the proper legal authorities it may be fined tens of millions of dollars by the NCAA.
The bottom line is that schools that listen to self-described experts/leaders/consultants, etc... who create fancy marketing materials and digital presentations that provide the false impression that they understand NCAA compliance, public policy, student education issues, and the law, may be in for a huge shock in the near future.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Thursday, July 12, 2012
Penn State Freeh Report on Sandusky proves NCAA schools should not social media monitor student athletes
"The Report of the Special Investigative Counsel Regarding the Actions of the Pennsylvania State University Related to the Child Sexual Abuse Committed by Gerald A. Sandusky" was released today. The author of the report, Louis Freeh stated, "the most powerful men at Penn State failed to take any steps for 14 years to protect the children who Sandusky victimized".
The report's findings are more troubling than imagined. The report and Louis Freeh's public statements after the report's release indicate that Penn State engaged in a massive cover up to protect its reputation. I believe the linchpin of these findings was the digital evidence. Since the investigators were unable to interview former Penn State President Graham Spanier, former Athletic Director Tim Curley, former Vice President Gary Schultz, and former head coach Joe Paterno after emails indicating a cover up may have occurred a reasonable person may conclude a cover up happened.
Without the emails that indicated that all four men were aware of Sandusky's criminal activities in 2001, it would have been difficult to conclude that a cover up occurred. However, the digital evidene appears to indicate that a cover up went from the head coach through the athletic director to the president of Penn State.
This scandal demonstrates that schools should not hire social media monitoring companies to follow their student-athletes' or their employees' social media accounts. With access or knowledge comes responsibility. Companies with names like UDiligence, Varsity Monitor, Jump Forward, etc... are trying to persuade schools that they need to monitor their student-athletes in the digital world in a manner that they don't do so in the real world. Some companies claim that because they only monitor public and not password protected student-athlete content their services are better for universities. Unfortunately, the people who run these social media monitoring companies don't understand social media, NCAA compliance, or the law.
Once a school has been put on notice that one of their student-athletes has committed a crime they must follow the Clery Act and report it. What happens if a school is social media monitoring a star student-athlete and becomes aware that the student has or may have committed a crime or an NCAA infraction before a big game? Will the school suspend the student for the game or allow the student to play?
The bottom line is that athletic directors who continue to listen to self-described social media consultants may be putting not only their programs, but also their schools, and themselves at risk for tremendous legal liability. Did Joe Paterno ever think that emails from 10+ years ago could destroy his reputation and create tremendous legal liability for Penn State and/or his family? Therefore, why would any coach or athletic director want to create more digital evidence that may be utilized against his program and/or himself in the future?
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, July 3, 2012
Delaware passes student-athlete social media privacy legislation
Delaware is the first state to pass student social media privacy legislation. While HB 309: An Act to Amend Title 14 of the Delaware Code Relating to Education was passed by both the Delaware General Assembly and Senate over the weekend, it still needs to be signed by Delaware's governor to become law.
Delaware's HB 309 utilized Maryland's SB 434 as a template. Maryland's SB 434 passed the Maryland Senate 46-0 but died at the end of the legislative session due to the logjam created when the legislature was unable to pass a budget. Despite the setback in Maryland, multiple other states and Congress have introduced legislation that may protect schools from social media related lawsuits while also protecting the personal digital privacy rights of students.
HB 309 is needed because colleges and universities across the country are requiring some of their students to download social media monitoring software onto their personal electronic devices or accounts in order to keep their scholarships. This practice has become an epidemic. The CEO of one social media monitoring company has boasted that requiring students to provide access to password protected digital content “is the new drug testing — it will be as common as being asked to take a drug test in the next two years."
Under Delaware's HB 309, colleges and universities may not:
Require a student to provide his Facebook username and/or password to a school employee or agent of the school to obtain or keep a scholarship
Require a student to download social media monitoring software onto their personal iPhones, computers, accounts, etc...
Require a student to Facebook Friend a school employee or agent of the school
In return, Delaware colleges and universities may have a legal liability shield against claims that they have a legal duty to monitor their students' personal social media accounts. This legal liability shield may become extremely important in the near future in light of the recent lawsuit against the University of Virginia, its coaches, and athletic director for failing to properly monitor one of their star student-athletes.
Hiring social media consultants who advocate monitoring students' personal social media/digitial accounts may lead to lawsuits and judgements that may financially harm public schools and taxpayers. The bottom line is that colleges and universities in Delaware and across the country need to reexamine their general student and student-athlete social media policies to ensure that they do not violate state and/or federal law.
To learn more about legal student social media policies and how to properly educate your students and employees about social media you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
(Full Disclosure: I advised Rep. Brady and Sen. Bushweller's offices on HB 309 to ensure that it would mutually benefit colleges, universities, and students.)
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Delaware's HB 309 utilized Maryland's SB 434 as a template. Maryland's SB 434 passed the Maryland Senate 46-0 but died at the end of the legislative session due to the logjam created when the legislature was unable to pass a budget. Despite the setback in Maryland, multiple other states and Congress have introduced legislation that may protect schools from social media related lawsuits while also protecting the personal digital privacy rights of students.
HB 309 is needed because colleges and universities across the country are requiring some of their students to download social media monitoring software onto their personal electronic devices or accounts in order to keep their scholarships. This practice has become an epidemic. The CEO of one social media monitoring company has boasted that requiring students to provide access to password protected digital content “is the new drug testing — it will be as common as being asked to take a drug test in the next two years."
Under Delaware's HB 309, colleges and universities may not:
Require a student to provide his Facebook username and/or password to a school employee or agent of the school to obtain or keep a scholarship
Require a student to download social media monitoring software onto their personal iPhones, computers, accounts, etc...
Require a student to Facebook Friend a school employee or agent of the school
In return, Delaware colleges and universities may have a legal liability shield against claims that they have a legal duty to monitor their students' personal social media accounts. This legal liability shield may become extremely important in the near future in light of the recent lawsuit against the University of Virginia, its coaches, and athletic director for failing to properly monitor one of their star student-athletes.
Hiring social media consultants who advocate monitoring students' personal social media/digitial accounts may lead to lawsuits and judgements that may financially harm public schools and taxpayers. The bottom line is that colleges and universities in Delaware and across the country need to reexamine their general student and student-athlete social media policies to ensure that they do not violate state and/or federal law.
To learn more about legal student social media policies and how to properly educate your students and employees about social media you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com/attorney_profile.
(Full Disclosure: I advised Rep. Brady and Sen. Bushweller's offices on HB 309 to ensure that it would mutually benefit colleges, universities, and students.)
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Saturday, June 23, 2012
Penn State Sandusky guilty verdict proves NCAA schools should not hire social media monitoring companies to spy on their student-athletes or employees
The Penn State sex scandal is the worst scandal that any NCAA athletic department has ever encountered. Late last night, a jury found Jerry Sandusky, the former defensive coordinator of Penn State's football team guilty of 45 of 48 counts of child sex abuse.
Jerry Sandusky is by far the worst monster to have ever coached at an NCAA school. My heart goes out to all of Sandusky's victims. According to published media reports, it appears that Penn State may have known that Sandusky was a sexual predator since at least 1998 when he was initially investigated by Penn State Police. Unfortunately, at that time nothing was done to stop this predator from having access to Penn State facilities with young boys.
Since at least 2002, the Penn State athletic department knew about allegations that Sandusky may have raped a young boy at its athletic facilities but did nothing to report him to law enforcement or to stop him from having access to its facilities. Since it appears that the athletic department knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual abuse crimes on its campus it may have significant civil legal liability. Administrators who lied about their knowledge of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities when questioned by police may also have criminal legal liability. In addition to potentially having criminal legal liability for lying about their knowledge of Sandusky's then alleged criminal activities, Penn State and its employees may also have significant civil liability for Sandusky's on and off-campus activities since it appears that Penn State knew that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual crimes and did nothing to stop him.
If Penn State wasn't informed about Sandusky's alleged sexual abuse of young boys it would be very difficult to prove that Penn State and/or any of its employees should be held liable for not stopping these terrible activities. However, since it appears that Penn State coaches, athletic department members, and members of the university administration knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing major crimes on and off campus Penn State and some current and/or former employees may have significant legal liability.
The Virgina Tech case should have been a wake up call that NCAA schools should not require their student-athletes or employees to provide access to their password protected digital content and/or to turn over their social media usernames. Next, the lawsuit by the family of a University of Virginia lacrosse player who was murdered by another student-athlete should have been another wake up call that athletic departments must stop these practices. Now, the Penn State guilty verdict appears to prove that if a university and/or its employees want to avoid legal liability for the digital content of their student-athletes or employees they must not require students or employees to provide access to their password protected personal digital content.
On November 15, 2011, I stated, if Penn State was aware of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities and failed to stop him the school may have major legal liability issues to defend against. Since it appears that Penn State knew about Sandusky's criminal behavior the economic cost of this matter to Penn State may be north of $100 million dollars due to court costs, litigation expenses, attorney fees, investigation costs, judgements, settlements, reputation costs, etc... It is premature to determine how much of these costs the school's insurance companies will pay but there is already litigation regarding the matter.
The Penn State sex scandal once again proves that NCAA schools need to ensure that their social media policies do not create unintended legal liability. Compliance personnel, coaches, or university employees who require their student-athletes or employees to turn over their social media usernames, passwords, or to download social media monitoring software, or to use any other unethical or illegal method to obtain access to their students' or employees' personal password protected digital content may create millions of dollars of legal liability for their schools and/or themselves.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Jerry Sandusky is by far the worst monster to have ever coached at an NCAA school. My heart goes out to all of Sandusky's victims. According to published media reports, it appears that Penn State may have known that Sandusky was a sexual predator since at least 1998 when he was initially investigated by Penn State Police. Unfortunately, at that time nothing was done to stop this predator from having access to Penn State facilities with young boys.
Since at least 2002, the Penn State athletic department knew about allegations that Sandusky may have raped a young boy at its athletic facilities but did nothing to report him to law enforcement or to stop him from having access to its facilities. Since it appears that the athletic department knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual abuse crimes on its campus it may have significant civil legal liability. Administrators who lied about their knowledge of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities when questioned by police may also have criminal legal liability. In addition to potentially having criminal legal liability for lying about their knowledge of Sandusky's then alleged criminal activities, Penn State and its employees may also have significant civil liability for Sandusky's on and off-campus activities since it appears that Penn State knew that Sandusky may be committing multiple sexual crimes and did nothing to stop him.
If Penn State wasn't informed about Sandusky's alleged sexual abuse of young boys it would be very difficult to prove that Penn State and/or any of its employees should be held liable for not stopping these terrible activities. However, since it appears that Penn State coaches, athletic department members, and members of the university administration knew or should have known that Sandusky may be committing major crimes on and off campus Penn State and some current and/or former employees may have significant legal liability.
The Virgina Tech case should have been a wake up call that NCAA schools should not require their student-athletes or employees to provide access to their password protected digital content and/or to turn over their social media usernames. Next, the lawsuit by the family of a University of Virginia lacrosse player who was murdered by another student-athlete should have been another wake up call that athletic departments must stop these practices. Now, the Penn State guilty verdict appears to prove that if a university and/or its employees want to avoid legal liability for the digital content of their student-athletes or employees they must not require students or employees to provide access to their password protected personal digital content.
On November 15, 2011, I stated, if Penn State was aware of Sandusky's alleged criminal activities and failed to stop him the school may have major legal liability issues to defend against. Since it appears that Penn State knew about Sandusky's criminal behavior the economic cost of this matter to Penn State may be north of $100 million dollars due to court costs, litigation expenses, attorney fees, investigation costs, judgements, settlements, reputation costs, etc... It is premature to determine how much of these costs the school's insurance companies will pay but there is already litigation regarding the matter.
The Penn State sex scandal once again proves that NCAA schools need to ensure that their social media policies do not create unintended legal liability. Compliance personnel, coaches, or university employees who require their student-athletes or employees to turn over their social media usernames, passwords, or to download social media monitoring software, or to use any other unethical or illegal method to obtain access to their students' or employees' personal password protected digital content may create millions of dollars of legal liability for their schools and/or themselves.
To learn more about these issues you may contact me at http://shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2011 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Tuesday, February 21, 2012
Dharun Rhavi Case Proves Some Universities Must Rethink Their Social Media Policies
Some colleges and universities may have social media policies that violate the U.S. Constitution. As I stated on September 26, 2011, the University of North Carolina's social media policy for its student-athletes is very troubling and every single day that UNC has this policy in place the university is increasing its legal liability.
Schools that require their students to turn over their social media user names, and/or account names, and/or passwords, and/or require students to Facebook Friend university employees and/or download monitoring software onto their personal electronic devices to monitor all of their students' online activity are creating a legal minefield they do not understand.
This week the tragic case of Rutgers' student Tyler Clementi is back in the news. For those not familiar with the matter, I first wrote about it on October 6, 2010 and then again on May 1, 2011. Prosecutors allege that Dharun Rhavi's online activity contributed to Tyler Clementi's suicide. In addition, the prosecution has charged Rhavi with tampering with online evidence.
If Rutgers was monitoring the social media activity of Clementi and/or Rhavi and did not act to stop the online activity that is alleged to have contributed to Clementi's death Rutgers may be sued for negligent social media monitoring. However, if Rutgers was only monitoring the social media activity of some of its students but not all of its students Rutgers may be sued for discrimination. Multiple lawyers and risk professionals have already discussed the tremendous liability schools may encounter social media monitoring their students. Therefore, schools must tread very carefully when creating a social media policy.
To learn more about this issue you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserve
Schools that require their students to turn over their social media user names, and/or account names, and/or passwords, and/or require students to Facebook Friend university employees and/or download monitoring software onto their personal electronic devices to monitor all of their students' online activity are creating a legal minefield they do not understand.
This week the tragic case of Rutgers' student Tyler Clementi is back in the news. For those not familiar with the matter, I first wrote about it on October 6, 2010 and then again on May 1, 2011. Prosecutors allege that Dharun Rhavi's online activity contributed to Tyler Clementi's suicide. In addition, the prosecution has charged Rhavi with tampering with online evidence.
If Rutgers was monitoring the social media activity of Clementi and/or Rhavi and did not act to stop the online activity that is alleged to have contributed to Clementi's death Rutgers may be sued for negligent social media monitoring. However, if Rutgers was only monitoring the social media activity of some of its students but not all of its students Rutgers may be sued for discrimination. Multiple lawyers and risk professionals have already discussed the tremendous liability schools may encounter social media monitoring their students. Therefore, schools must tread very carefully when creating a social media policy.
To learn more about this issue you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserve
Friday, February 3, 2012
Maryland Bills Would Protect Students' Social Media Privacy Rights, Schools, and Taxpayers
The State of Maryland is leading the way nationally to protect the social media privacy rights of students with Senate Bill 434: Institutions of Postsecondary Education-Electronic Account, Service, and Communications Device Privacy Protection and House Bill 310 Public and Non-Public Institutions of Higher Education - Internet and Electronic Privacy Protection.
According to the synopsis of Senate Bill 434 on the Maryland Legislature's website:
Prohibiting an institution of postsecondary education from requiring a student or an applicant for admission to provide access to a personal account or service through an electronic communications device, to disclose any user name, password, or other means for accessing specified accounts or services through an electronic communications device, or to install on specified electronic communications devices software that monitors or tracks electronic content; etc.
According to the synopsis of House Bill 310 on the Maryland Legislature's website:
Prohibiting public and nonpublic institutions of higher education from requiring a student or applicant for admission to provide the academic institution with access to specified Internet sites or electronic accounts through specified electronic devices, to disclose specified password and related information, or to install specified monitoring or tracking software onto specified electronic devices; etc.
These bills still allow students and coaches, school employees, etc... to interact with each other online. This is in contrast to the initial bill that Missouri passed and then revised last year. Since students have the right to engage or not engage with their coaches, school employees, etc... offline they should also have this same right online.
SB 434 and HB 310 would benefit students, applicants, schools, and taxpayers. They would protect a student's and college applicant's privacy rights. The Supreme recently signaled in U.S. v. Jones, that students still have an expectation of privacy in the Social Media Age and that students still have free speech rights while utilizing social media.
Both bills would ensure that colleges and universities do not create a legal duty to monitor all of their students' digital content. Once a school creates a legal duty to monitor all electronic content they may be subject to numerous costly lawsuits. For example, if the University of Virginia was monitoring the electronic content of its former lacrosse players George Huguely and/or Yardley Love and knew or should have known that Huguely may hurt Love then UVA may have had significant legal liability for negligent social media monitoring because it failed to protect Love. If UVA was only monitoring the electronic content of its football and/or basketball players but not its lacrosse players then it may be considered discrimination and UVA may have been sued for not monitoring the electronic content of all of its students.
Taxpayers support the educational system and therefore would benefit from the passage of this legislation because tax dollars should be utilized to educate our children and not be wasted on creating easily avoidable legal liability. In addition, when a school is sued for negligence tax payers may end up footing the bill.
With access comes responsibility. I do not believe that schools that require their students to provide them access to their personal electronic accounts understand the constitutional and legal liability issues involved. If Penn State's legal counsel would have been made aware of the Jerry Sandusky matter at a much earlier stage and was able to inform the athletic department and the administration about the serious legal and financial liability issues involved, Penn State may not be facing their current legal mess and multiple young boys may have been saved from being molested.
As I have stated over and over and over again, educational institutions and society need to fully understand the legal and public policy implications of social media before creating policies that may not only be unconstitutional but also may create tremendous unforeseen legal liability. Too many colleges and universities are already creating a legal quagmire with their social media policies. Now is the time to rectify the situation before schools are left with tremendous legal bills defending unconstitutional policies and tort judgments for negligence.
Unlike China, the United States does not have a Microblog Identification Program that requires its online users to register with the government so it may track its citizens' online speech. Schools that require their students to turn over their social media user names and/or content are acting as though they are based in China and not in the United States. It is time for these schools that are violating the Constitution to stop because our country has a long history of protecting and encouraging free speech from the Federalist Papers to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 393 U.S. 503 (1969) to their decisions a few weeks ago to uphold student free speech in the MySpace cases and clearly declare in U.S. v. Jones we still have an expectation of privacy in the Social Media Age.
I encourage everyone who reads this to reach out to Maryland's legislators to voice support for these bills and to lobby your state legislatures to pass similar legislation. These bills are a win for students, schools, and taxpayers.
(Full Disclosure: I am not being paid for my work on this legislation. I believe that the 1st and 4th Amendments still matter in the Social Media Age and I want to protect students, schools, and taxpayers from unforeseen legal issues that may arise if these practices continue. Therefore, I contacted Maryland Senator Ronald Young and Maryland Delegate Shawn Tarrant to notify them about these issues and worked with them to create a common sense solution to this problem that protects the interests of students, schools, and taxpayers.)
To learn more about this issue you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
According to the synopsis of Senate Bill 434 on the Maryland Legislature's website:
Prohibiting an institution of postsecondary education from requiring a student or an applicant for admission to provide access to a personal account or service through an electronic communications device, to disclose any user name, password, or other means for accessing specified accounts or services through an electronic communications device, or to install on specified electronic communications devices software that monitors or tracks electronic content; etc.
According to the synopsis of House Bill 310 on the Maryland Legislature's website:
Prohibiting public and nonpublic institutions of higher education from requiring a student or applicant for admission to provide the academic institution with access to specified Internet sites or electronic accounts through specified electronic devices, to disclose specified password and related information, or to install specified monitoring or tracking software onto specified electronic devices; etc.
These bills still allow students and coaches, school employees, etc... to interact with each other online. This is in contrast to the initial bill that Missouri passed and then revised last year. Since students have the right to engage or not engage with their coaches, school employees, etc... offline they should also have this same right online.
SB 434 and HB 310 would benefit students, applicants, schools, and taxpayers. They would protect a student's and college applicant's privacy rights. The Supreme recently signaled in U.S. v. Jones, that students still have an expectation of privacy in the Social Media Age and that students still have free speech rights while utilizing social media.
Both bills would ensure that colleges and universities do not create a legal duty to monitor all of their students' digital content. Once a school creates a legal duty to monitor all electronic content they may be subject to numerous costly lawsuits. For example, if the University of Virginia was monitoring the electronic content of its former lacrosse players George Huguely and/or Yardley Love and knew or should have known that Huguely may hurt Love then UVA may have had significant legal liability for negligent social media monitoring because it failed to protect Love. If UVA was only monitoring the electronic content of its football and/or basketball players but not its lacrosse players then it may be considered discrimination and UVA may have been sued for not monitoring the electronic content of all of its students.
Taxpayers support the educational system and therefore would benefit from the passage of this legislation because tax dollars should be utilized to educate our children and not be wasted on creating easily avoidable legal liability. In addition, when a school is sued for negligence tax payers may end up footing the bill.
With access comes responsibility. I do not believe that schools that require their students to provide them access to their personal electronic accounts understand the constitutional and legal liability issues involved. If Penn State's legal counsel would have been made aware of the Jerry Sandusky matter at a much earlier stage and was able to inform the athletic department and the administration about the serious legal and financial liability issues involved, Penn State may not be facing their current legal mess and multiple young boys may have been saved from being molested.
As I have stated over and over and over again, educational institutions and society need to fully understand the legal and public policy implications of social media before creating policies that may not only be unconstitutional but also may create tremendous unforeseen legal liability. Too many colleges and universities are already creating a legal quagmire with their social media policies. Now is the time to rectify the situation before schools are left with tremendous legal bills defending unconstitutional policies and tort judgments for negligence.
Unlike China, the United States does not have a Microblog Identification Program that requires its online users to register with the government so it may track its citizens' online speech. Schools that require their students to turn over their social media user names and/or content are acting as though they are based in China and not in the United States. It is time for these schools that are violating the Constitution to stop because our country has a long history of protecting and encouraging free speech from the Federalist Papers to Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District 393 U.S. 503 (1969) to their decisions a few weeks ago to uphold student free speech in the MySpace cases and clearly declare in U.S. v. Jones we still have an expectation of privacy in the Social Media Age.
I encourage everyone who reads this to reach out to Maryland's legislators to voice support for these bills and to lobby your state legislatures to pass similar legislation. These bills are a win for students, schools, and taxpayers.
(Full Disclosure: I am not being paid for my work on this legislation. I believe that the 1st and 4th Amendments still matter in the Social Media Age and I want to protect students, schools, and taxpayers from unforeseen legal issues that may arise if these practices continue. Therefore, I contacted Maryland Senator Ronald Young and Maryland Delegate Shawn Tarrant to notify them about these issues and worked with them to create a common sense solution to this problem that protects the interests of students, schools, and taxpayers.)
To learn more about this issue you may contact me at www.shearlaw.com.
Copyright 2012 by the Law Office of Bradley S. Shear, LLC. All rights reserved.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)