Social Networking; Messaging; Chat Rooms • January 2015 Top 15 Social Networking Sites • Top Messaging Apps • Chat Rooms • On-line Gaming (yahoo games, XBOX, WOW, avatars, etc) • No matter which vehicle is used, the questions are… What personal info is being asked/shared? What other details: where you live? Where are you now? Who is this person, and are they really who they say they are? What is being said? What are they pushing you to do? What pictures are you posting?
Transcript
Social Networking; Messaging; Chat Rooms
• January 2015 Top 15 Social Networking Sites• Top Messaging Apps• Chat Rooms• On-line Gaming (yahoo games, XBOX, WOW, avatars,
etc)• No matter which vehicle is used, the questions are…
What personal info is being asked/shared? What other details: where you live? Where are you now? Who is this person, and are they really who they say they are? What is being said? What are they pushing you to do? What pictures are you posting?
• Oversharing Top 10: Think Before you Post.pdf Eva's Story
• 2 Timothy 2:22 Flee the evil desires of youth and pursue righteousness, faith, love and peace, along with those who call on the Lord out of a pure heart.
• James 4:11-12 My friends, don’t say cruel things about others! If you do, or if you condemn others, you are condemning God’s Law. And if you condemn the Law, you put yourself above the Law and refuse to obey either it or God who gave it. God is our judge, and he can save or destroy us. What right do you have to condemn anyone?
The u̇se of digital media tools, su̇ch as the Internet and cell phones, to deliberately and repeatedly hu̇rt, harass, or embarrass someone else.
Cyberbullying \ˈsī-bər-ˌbu̇ -lē-iŋ, -ˈbə-\ noun
The u̇se of digital media tools, su̇ch as the Internet and cell phones, to deliberately and repeatedly hu̇rt, harass, or embarrass someone else.
Catholicism and Bullying
• The Catholic teachings on the issue of Bullying is that it is wrong. As it says in the Catechism of the Catholic Church, "Human life is sacred because from its beginning it involves the creative action of God and it remains for ever in a special relationship with the Creator, who is its sole end. God alone is the Lord of life from its beginning until its end: no one can under any circumstance claim for himself the right directly to destroy an innocent human being." [CCC 2258].
• Mark 12:31 And the second, like it, is this: ‘You shall love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no other commandment greater than these.
• Deuteronomy 31:6 So be strong and courageous! Do not be afraid and do not panic before them. For the Lord your God will personally go ahead of you. He will neither fail you nor abandon you.
Cyberbullying• “Being mean online” or “digital drama”
• Examples of cyberbullying behavior: Publicly sharing messages or images meant to be private – sometimes “sexting”
Repeatedly sending hurtful, harassing, or threatening messages
Spreading rumors, lies, or embarrassing stories
Posting cruel comments on the Internet
Setting up fake social networking pages to make fun of targets
• Cyberbullies aren’t always the kids we’d expect
• Social pressure often motivates behavior
• More public, permanent, and inescapable thantraditional school yard bullying
• Targets commonly experience sadness, social anxiety, or acting out
• Psalm 27:1 You, Lord, are the light that keeps me safe. I am not afraid of anyone. You protect me, and I have no fears.
• Matthew 5:11 God will bless you when people insult you, mistreat you, and tell all kinds of evil lies about you because of me
• Romans 12:19-20 Dear friends, don’t try to get even. Let God take revenge. In the Scriptures the Lord says, “I am the one to take revenge and pay them back.” The Scriptures also say, “If your enemies are hungry, give them something to eat. And if they are thirsty, give them something to drink. This will be the same as piling burning coals on their heads.”
• Proverbs 6:16-19 There are six things the Lord hates, seven that are detestable to him: haughty eyes, a lying tongue, hands that shed innocent blood, a heart that devises wicked schemes, feet that are quick to rush into evil, a false witness who pours out lies and a person who stirs up conflict in the community.
• Matthew 7:12 Do to others whatever you would like them to do to you. This is the essence of all that is taught in the law and the prophets.
• Romans 15:7 Therefore, accept one another, just as Christ also accepted us to the glory of God.
• Cyberbullying Movie• Megan Meier Story• Amanda Todd Her Story
• Isaiah 41:11-13Behold, all who are incensed against you shall be put to shame and confounded; those who strive against you shall be as nothing and shall perish. You shall seek those who contend with you, but you shall not find them; those who war against you shall be as nothing at all. For I, the Lord your God, hold your right hand; it is I who say to you, “Fear not, I am the one who helps you.”
• 1 Peter 3:8-9Finally, all of you, have unity of mind, sympathy, brotherly love, a tender heart, and a humble mind. Do not repay evil for evil or reviling for reviling, but on the contrary, bless, for to this you were called, that you may obtain a blessing.
• Romans 12:19-20Beloved, never avenge yourselves, but leave it to the wrath of God, for it is written, “Vengeance is mine, I will repay, says the Lord.” To the contrary, “if your enemy is hungry, feed him; if he is thirsty, give him something to drink; for by so doing you will heap burning coals on his head.”
Cyberlaw: Parents May Be Liable for Child's Activity on Facebook
• Jeffrey N. Rosenthal, The Legal Intelligencer, January 27, 2015• It's 10 p.m. Do you know what your children are posting online?• If the answer is no, here is yet another reason to consider policing your
children's online activity: As a parent, you could be found liable for failing to prevent the dissemination of harmful content they post online.
• In the first decision of its kind, a Georgia state appellate court recently held a jury must decide whether the parents of a seventh-grader are responsible for failing to supervise their son's use of a computer and Internet account to post libelous content about another student on Facebook.
• Should other courts adopt such a ruling, parents across the country may soon be paying their own price for their children's poor decisions online.
Cyberlaw: Parents May Be Liable for Child's Activity on Facebook
• In May 2011, seventh-grader Dustin Athearn made a fake Facebook profile (with the help of another female friend) under the name of his classmate, Alexandria "Alex" Boston. according to the opinion in Boston v. Athearn, No. A140971 (Ga Ct. App. Oct. 10, 2014).
• Dustin filled up the unauthorized profile with graphic sexual and racist comments—including references to Alex's alleged homosexual orientation—as well as other obscene content. The profile also depicted Alex as taking drugs for her mental health disorders, as well as illegal drugs.
• Notably, the unauthorized Facebook page remained accessible for an additional 11 months after its discovery; it was not until Alex's parents sued Dustin and his parents in Georgia state court that Facebook deactivated the account.
• In seeking damages for libel and intentional infliction of emotional distress, the Bostons alleged the Athearns made no effort to view the defamatory posts, or to force their son to delete the posts following the discovery thereof. The Cobb County Superior Court dismissed the Bostons' negligence claims against the parents. But the Georgia Court of Appeals reversed, holding that a jury should determine if the Athearns had failed to supervise their son's use of the family computer and Internet account relating to the alleged defamation.
• Judge John Ellington, writing for a unanimous three-judge panel, ruled that although the Athearns may not have been able to anticipate that their son would use the computer to hurt others, once they found out about the creation of the fake Facebook profile they had a duty to supervise his computer usage.
• The court went on to opine that "given that the false and offensive statements remained on display, and continued to reach readers, for an additional 11 months, we conclude that a jury could find that the Athearns' negligence proximately caused some part of the injury Alex sustained from Dustin's actions (and inactions)."
• But the Athearns did not have a duty to initially take down the page, Ellington ruled, as Facebook had informed the Athearns that only the user who signed up for the password-protected account could disable the page. The dismissal of that aspect of the Bostons' lawsuit was, accordingly, affirmed.
IMPLICATIONS: THE DIGITAL PARENT TRAP• Athearn represents yet another unfortunate incident of cyberbullying in schools. But its legal implications stretch far
beyond the schoolyard.• The most significant implication from Athearn is the extent to which the court imputes an awareness of the inner-
workings of modern technology upon the Athearns. In ruling that Dustin's parents may have violated their so-called "parental duty of reasonable supervision," the court found that the mere act of grounding their son for his transgression was not enough; they had to ensure his online harms were also rectified, or at least mitigated. Here, that meant actively monitoring whether the fake Facebook page had been deactivated—not to mention being aware such a thing was even possible.
• (As an aside, making a page for another person, or uploading knowingly false information, constitutes a violation of Facebook's terms of service.)
• The proffered basis for the holding in Athearn was that the false and offensive posts stayed online for an additional 11 months—thereby permitting more readers to access them. But this begs the question: What if the page was taken down a mere two weeks, or even a month, later? Under the court's reasoning, even keeping the unauthorized page active for a single day after its discovery—especially with over 70 followers—could result in the type of additional exposure contemplated by the ruling.
• Tellingly, both plaintiffs and defense counsel separately noted the opinion's novelty.• For instance, Edgar S. Mangiafico Jr., counsel to the Athearns, told Law Blog he felt the decision was "marred by
inconsistencies," promising to seek an appeal from the Georgia Supreme Court, according to an Oct. 15, 2014, article in The Wall Street Journal.
• Natalie Woodward, counsel to Alex, also said the outcome was novel. According to Woodward, Athearn demonstrates how in "certain circumstances, when what is being said about a child is untrue and once the parents know about it, then liability is triggered," according to the same Wall Street Journal piece.
• Potential liability for creating fake Facebook pages is not entirely unheard of, however. Even the U.S. government has felt the repercussion of such actions.
• Most recently, on Jan. 20, the U.S. Department of Justice paid $134,000 to settle a suit by a New York woman who accused a drug enforcement agent of using photos and other personal data lifted from her cellphone following her arrest to make a fake Facebook page on her behalf. The agent then posed as the woman to ensnare drug dealers, according to news reports.
• For the time being, the imposition of parental liability based on a child's conduct online remains a real possibility. But the extent to which other courts may be willing to extend Athearn remains unknown. If parents are themselves going to be punished for the actions of their children online, courts must first ensure the sentence fits the crime. Either way, Athearn makes clear that what a child does online may concern his or her entire family.
