Facebook Forced To Trial on "Revenge Porn" Lawsuit

[EagerBeaver]

My initial reaction to this decision without thinking about it too much is that it is a bad decision that actually encourages the posting of revenge porn, because pervs will think that Facebook and not they are accountable, but if someone here has a different point of view feel free to post it:

http://money.cnn.com/2016/09/13/technology/facebook-nude-photo-lawsuit/index.html

I also don't really understand what Facebook can do beyond posting their no nudity and porn policies.

I don't like law that says individuals are not accountable for their own criminal conduct or invasion of privacy.

 

[Passionné]

The article says the girl is suing both the offending individual and Facebook. There's nothing about a law preventing the individual from being held responsible. If there is a relevant law as described where is it?

According to the article Facebook has the ability to control reposting of any material deemed unacceptable. I'd guess they could also block the accounts of offending individuals who violate policy standards or ignore them repeatedly. Facebook seems to have failed to control the situation where they could have.

The episode with the very famous photo of the "Napalm Girl" points to the usual problem. How to identify inappropriate material. The Vietnam photo shows a girl who survived being firebombed and had to strip her clothes off to avoid burning to death. A photojournalist documented the event showing a nude young girl running naked and screaming. Is it to be banned because of her age or is it a newsworthy terrifying incident? As it says Facebook eventually allowed it. If Facebook had a policy of no personal nudity at all, which they don't seem to, it would or should simplify the issue.

The girl's lawyer in this case said the posting of the nude photo was an act of revenge. The issue of revenge may be relevant in the suit but it should not be to Facebook. These days there is plenty of technology in widespread use to recognize a problematic issue of this kind and resolve it fast. Given that Facebook should be liable for failing to use tech applications they had already to stop this.

It must be difficult for Facebook or any other media to be able to keep track and be able to consistently block this kind of smut.

Smut? Now there's a definition many would have wide-ranging views on depending on personal tastes, along with the fact nudity or a sexual act is not absolutely necessary to be pornographic subjects. These things are very tricky.

 

[Passionné]

Sorry but the article was about an adult posting nude photos of a 14 year old girl, not an artists rendition about the beauty of the female body.

Okay, the reference to "smut" was in general concept not specific to this incident. This incident is clearly illegal and extremely offensive in nature. All the more reason why Facebook should have been right on top of this. In this day and age there's no way they could not realize something like this was going to happen and should have been ready to deal with it effectively right away.

 

[Passionné]

I still believe that they should be held accountable for their actions and not be able to post with immunity.

I agree completely. If any such law prevents such accountability the law should be erased. I believe merely taking or having such a photo is a crime, never mind posting it.

 

[jalimon]

I dont' understand why Facebook should be responsible for someone breaking their rule? As you said Sam people are ingenious at being able to get around security system... They will always find a way.

Should facebook be responsable because Extremist muslim use facebook to communicate? No online platform of any kind will survive if Facebook is held accountable for this sick guy that post nude pic of a 14 year old girl...

Cheers,

 

[Splotch]

The dude that posted the photo is a real asshole, but the girl's lawyers have sniffed a wonderful opportunity when they saw a weakness in Facebook's way of doing things, and are prepared to make a mint!
I wonder how much money they are going to expect from Facebook? ( My guess: many-many millions!)

 

[EagerBeaver]

Allowing Facebook to defend the case at trial sends a message that encourages the plaintiff to go after the deep insured pocket and not the uninsured criminal who is merely a token defendant and is not being held accountable. This in no way sends a message to revenge porn posters that they will be held accountable. It sends the message that it is Facebook's problem. The law is discussed right in the article, so not sure what you read. Fortunately it's just a trial judge in Ireland whose decision has little precedential value, although it has some unless reversed on appeal.

 

[EagerBeaver]

The dude that posted the photo is a real asshole, but the girl's lawyers have sniffed a wonderful opportunity when they saw a weakness in Facebook's way of doing things, and are prepared to make a mint!
I wonder how much money they are going to expect from Facebook? ( My guess: many-many millions!)

Splotch you are correct. I have been on the other side of cases involving large corporate defendants- fast food chains, pharmacies, and retailers. All of these corporations have weaknesses that can be exposed in discovery. I recently settled a case against a chain restaurant for a lot more than what it was worth. Plaintiff's counsel did a great job- he did his homework and he seized on a discovery strategy that exposed a weakness that the company simply didn't want litigated and exposed. Long story short every company has its kryptonite and if you look hard enough you will find it and the company will pay the plaintiff not only for her damages but also to keep her mouth shut. That Irish judge created some very bad precedent from the standpoint of social behavior. We should want law that discourage revenge porn, not law that absolves the avenging privacy invader. I don't really understand what Facebook was supposed to have done. And now the message sent is that they are fair game and it's their problem what criminals will do on their website.

 

[Passionné]

So true the lawyer is going after Facebook in part, maybe mostly, because of their money. He is probably going after the poster partly because it's right and partly as a token to make the courts believe it's not all about money, whether it is or not.

I don't know which or whose laws and regulations in what jurisdiction applies to this case. Certainly Facebook's guilt depends on a standard somewhere. I'd guess much of the regulations, whatever they are, depends on the nature of the operation and what can be expected regarding problems and violations. Of course we know people pull all kinds of crap and have great skill technically in violating rules. An operation so open like Facebook would be expected to account for those possibilities up to a point. What isn't clear is how far those expectations go and what Facebook can be held to to keep up with guidelines/regulations.

No online platform of any kind will survive if Facebook is held accountable for this sick guy that post nude pic of a 14 year old girl...

Cheers,

Failing to block out a violator who had already been caught and dealt with previously seems like a lapse in responsibility...unless he used a technique that could not have been accounted for.

One thing for sure, hackers could have a field day getting those kinds of photos. I can see how many irresponsible dumb overheated teens with poor judgment are making and trading these between themselves and providing hackers with the opportunities. I don't think it's beyond the operators of any open system like Facebook to have known this would be an issue eventually, meaning they should have been ready and vigilant in being able to deal with it.

 

[EagerBeaver]

It's a civil case seeking monetary damages and although I have not seen the complaint, it appears that what has been alleged is common law negligence against Facebook. There was a dispositive motion to try and get the Court to rule on the case as a matter of law, but the judge declined to do so and allowed it to proceed to trial, presumably because he believed there was an issue of fact to be decided by the trier of fact. All of that tells me that this is a common law negligence case, presumably applying Irish law. The plaintiff has not been identified, but I would surmise she is an Irish citizen.