FACEBOOK CAN’T GET SUED?
Tue, 2015-10-13 21:56
News Staff
THE SPREADING OF MALICIOUS GOSSIP
I’m looking at this Facebook post someone sent me last week written by a guy who hides behind a bogus name – too cowardly to come out from behind the mask -- claiming that at least three county officials are having sexual relations with their subordinates – he names them all, including the subordinates. And I’m thinking how can Facebook get away with allowing this to happen without any facts to back it up?
A newspaper can’t allow it or we’ll get sued. Granted, for public figures, suing for libel is a difficult endeavor. Not only do they have to prove what’s been written is false, but they also have to prove it was done with malicious intent. But at least three of the county employees named in the Facebook post are private figures, county employees; they’re not public figures. So for them, suing someone for libel is easier, albeit messy and expensive.
Public figures don’t have it so easy. Which is why people should think long and hard before choosing to run for office. Because all of those skeletons in the closet, and we all have some to varying degrees, are most likely going to be made public.
But private figures, even though they work for a public entity, still have the right to privacy.
Malicious gossip
Something similar happened after the city of Pharr passed its new ordinance/personnel policy, prohibiting its employees from dating one another unless they’re serious about the relationship – i.e., they plan on getting married. After the new ordinance was passed, I get an email from someone I’ve never heard of encouraging The Advance News Journal to investigate a city employee who’s allegedly having a gay affair with a co-worker.
Are you kidding me? Number one, if it’s true, the employee is a private citizen. And what’s being gay have to do with it? Some religious folks may take exception to it, but last time I checked, unlike the 19th century, homosexuality is no longer a crime.
Second, if it is true, the two city employees now have the opportunity to end the relationship since the ordinance was only recently passed, or keep it going as long as one of them resigns from the city and finds another job.
Then right after that, I get an email, again from someone I’ve never heard of, accusing employees who work for a local city of wrongdoing, which includes smoking on the job (cigarettes); sleeping on the job (allegedly he snores); gambling on the job; dating on the job (he is constantly in the office with her, claims the e-mailer); getting extra time off due to favoritism on the part of their respective department heads; making personal phone calls on the clock, using cell phones to order food, check game scores and post on social media.
But at least they showed up for work?
It’s as if The Advance has become the local National Enquirer clearing house for alleged employee malfeasance.
The problem with this, of course, is that city-related personnel issues are nearly impossible to uncover. Number one, the employees aren’t going to admit to it. And number two, if they’re ultimately fired for wrongdoing, the city isn’t going to release details to the media, fearful of a lawsuit. If The Advance calls city hall, asking why so-and-so was terminated, that’s what we’ll be told: it’s a personnel issue, and we can’t comment on it, based on the advice of our attorney.
Number three, all of the rumors we hear of on-the-job affairs, and we hear plenty, are a very touchy subject, to say the least. There are kids involved, spouses involved (many of whom no doubt possess a jealous streak), extended family involved, and first and foremost, except for elected officials, there is still the right to privacy for private citizens, even if they do work for a public entity.
Facebook’s free pass
But back to the Facebook post mentioned at the top of this column, alleging adultery on the part of certain county officials. How do people get away with this without getting sued? And why isn’t Facebook held accountable?
The first part to the equation is easy. The public figures don’t want to make a big deal out of it. Better to let the rumors die, even if they are false, hoping as few people as possible will stumble upon them. And most of the people doing the posting don’t have a lot of money. So, for what is there to sue?
“Rick” Salinas, the criminal defense attorney representing former Comfort House Hospice Executive Director Melissa Patterson, charged with murder, currently out on bail, once described most of these nameless Facebook posters as losers with basically no job, no life, who while away their days sitting in a Starbucks, posting meaningless stuff on Facebook, looking to libel and harm as many people as possible with unfounded allegations. To what degree he’s right is open to debate. But it’s clearly the way many public officials feel about it if asked. Patterson is the one facing murder charges, not her family. And yet there they are, her family members, current and former public officials, being called all sorts of names online.
But there’s apparently nothing they can do about it. Facebook, unlike this newspaper, or any legitimate news outlet, bears no liability if and when libelous statements get posted on its social media site.
How can that be? My guess is, the politicians in D.C., many of them, were paid off to make this happen by the big-moneyed interests who own most of the bigname online sites, such as Facebook. After all, it’s the big-moneyed interests who own the politicians by funding their campaigns.
In 1996, in between trips to the stripper clubs and visits with their bookies, members of the U.S. Congress found the time to pass the “Communications Decency Act.” Section 230 of The Act, passed by a near-unanimous vote, no less, on the floor of the House, added protection for online service providers, such as Facebook, completely shielding them from any legal action based on what gets posted on their site.
Effectively, Section 230 grants immunity to online sites like Facebook, no matter what someone may post. Not only that, but they still face no liability even if they refuse to take down the content after being alerted to its harmful, offensive or fictitious content.
Newspapers, of course, are not protected in any similar fashion.
Two years ago, attorneys general of 47 states signed a letter and sent it to the U.S. Congress requesting that the criminal and civil immunity in Section 230 be removed (Wikipedia.com). But the ACLU fought back, saying that if online sites were stripped of that protection, “it wouldn’t take long for the vibrant culture of free speech to disappear from the web (Wikpedia.com).”
So if you’re one of those public or private figures, and you see some anonymous poster claiming you’re having an affair on the job, or stealing from public coffers, remember this: Facebook can’t be sued, and it’s under no obligation to remove the offensive material even after being advised that it’s false.
Meanwhile, the net worth of the founder of Facebook, Mark Zuckeberg, is estimated at $35.7 billion.
Not a bad deal for helping spread malicious lies. Granted, not all of the posts are lies, but a lot of them are. Unlike Facebook, I’ve actually looked into some of them.