The basic story goes like this: a woman, Shellee Hale, posted comments on an online discussion board accusing software company Too Much Media of engaging in fraudulent practices and of threatening the life of a person who spilled the beans. Hale says she was putting together info for an investigation, and was maintained that she was protected by a shield law, which would prevent her from having to give up her sources.

Not so much, according to the court. Reuters reports:

“(We) do not believe that the legislature intended to provide an absolute privilege in defamation cases to people who post comments on message boards,” the court wrote. Otherwise anyone with a Facebook account could claim the journalist privilege, it said. Instead, the court concluded that online message boards are little more than unscreened reader comment pages or public forums for discussion.

The court “has taken a sharp turn against the nontraditional journalist and people writing on the web,” said Hale’s lawyer, Jeffrey Pollock. He said the decision relegates anyone writing for alternative media to a second class of protection. New Jersey can no longer pride itself on having the broadest shield law in the nation, he said.

“To ensure that the privilege does not apply to every self-appointed newsperson, the Legislature requires that other means of disseminating news be ‘similar’ to traditional news sources to qualify for the law’s coverage,” Chief Justice Stuart Rabner is quoted as saying.

Another interesting point of note is that Hale is reportedly both a blogger and a licensed private investigator, while the discussion site she posted on has been described as the “Wall Street Journal of the adult entertainment industry”.

What exactly does it take to be considered “similar” to a traditional news source, particularly in this era where print publications struggle to stay relevant as more people turn to a more diverse selection of news channels online, which include: traditional news sites, blogs, aggregators, social networks, and sites that offer various combinations of these elements? I’m guessing tweets and Facebook status updates don’t qualify as “similar,” which would be ironic considering how much emphasis traditional news sources place on such channels. Watch CNN or ESPN television broadcasts on any given day, and you’ll likely see tweets being reported. Sometimes they’re integral to the story, and sometimes they’re simply random opinion filler.

As far as blogs, some publications start off as blogs and get bought up by major media companies. Is that what it takes to be considered “similar”? If so, where is the line between that and some average joe deciding to start a WordPress blog and reporting on some topic of interest? Are the protections of these two publications different?

In short, this re-opens the same old can of worms that comes up in the media industry time and time again, only with a blatant legal ruling from as high up as the Supreme Court. How this will be enforced on a consistent basis remains to be seen.

According to the Reuters report, “The New Jersey Supreme Court’s opinion affirmed the rulings of both the trial and appellate courts. However, unlike the appeals court, the high court said that the shield law does not require newspersons to identify themselves as reporters, carry certain credentials or follow professional standards like taking notes, fact-checking or disclosing conflicts of interest.”

Another point worth considering is whether or not the law applies to a traditional media journalist reporting on a message board, or say, Twitter. If Anderson Cooper posted the message in question on the same site, are we having this conversation? If he tweeted it?

Do you agree with the court’s ruling?

The story begins during the election in 2009. Jesse’s parents took both him and his brother to the polls, to give them a look at what happens during elections. Jesse wanted to vote, but was told he was too young. Like most children when they’re told they aren’t able to do something, Jesse began to cry. This continued to the car, when Jesse’s mom began filming her son’s tantrum on being too young to become governor.

The video became an instant hit, and eventually led to the family receiving $10,000 from America’s Funniest Home Videos. The good fortune didn’t end there however, as Governor Christie caught wind of the video. He tweeted this in response:

Christie’s involvement went beyond tweeting, as he ended up inviting Jesse and his family to tour his office and check out the governor’s job. The proclamation declaring Jesse as honorary governor was a surprise, which led to a press conference announcing Jesse’s new position. Like the video listed above, hilarity and insanity ensues. If only all political press conferences could be this entertaining.

When asked what his first act as governor would be, he answered “going home”. He promises to not raise property taxes though. Sounds like the kid already has an idea of what it takes to be a successful politician.

Before I comment on the letter, I want to tell you a little bit about its author, Tony Orsini. I can’t say that I know him very well, but all four of my kids attended his Ridgewood New Jersey middle school and he is a good principal. He is passionate about what’s right for his students, and I guarantee you that every word in his letter is built on what he believes is right.

I just think he is misguided on this one. And it is very understandable how that happens, because it happens to all of us when faced with new technology. Because the technology is the thing being injected into our otherwise settled equation, it feels right that the technology is the problem, when we are our own worst enemies. It’s not the technology. It’s us.

Think about it. Tony points out that Facebook and other social networks have become the newest venues for bullying, which is an incredibly serious problem. But the issue isn’t where the bullying is happening. The issue is the bullying. Let me make this point with a personal story.

Even though I am older in dirt, I was in sixth grade once myself. My family had moved from another state and I was "the new kid." I was short and scrawny–a patsy. I was the easiest victim they’d ever seen, so the other boys in my grade bullied me for well over a year at every recess every school day.

One day, in seventh grade, I decided that I wasn’t going to subject myself to it anymore, so when everyone else went to play at recess, I just plopped myself down away from the other kids and did not move from there. A teacher who had apparently never noticed the bullying going one for months noticed me today and asked me what was wrong, so I told her. At that point, the school cracked down on the kids and my life got better.

Schools have changed a lot since I was 12. They now take bullying extremely seriously and no kid would go through what I did, because the kids are told that the adults care about this problem and that they can be approached. I never knew that anyone would care if I told them and the bullies had made it clear that that wasn’t my best strategy. So, I wasn’t intending to tell someone about my problem when I removed myself physically from the bullying. I had taken Tony’s solution. Instead of addressing the problem, I canceled my own recess.

So, I understand where Tony is coming from. If they are bullying you at recess, cancel recess. If they are bullying you in Facebook, cancel Facebook. But that was my solution as a 12-year-old. Fortunately, the adults, the teachers and other educators, have spent the last 40 years figuring out how to stop bullying without canceling recess. And as far as I can tell, it has been highly effective. The teachers try to monitor bullying behavior more than they once did, yes, but the main thing they do is to empower the victims of bullying by telling them what to do when it happens. And they also drill into kids from an early age that bullying is unacceptable. And it works. Without canceling recess.

The truth is that although Facebook seems like this brave new world to us oldsters (and in some ways it is), it doesn’t repeal the laws of human behavior. The problem is not bullying on Facebook. The problem is bullying. 40 years ago, many teachers said things like "boys will be boys" over this problem because they felt helpless about what they could do to stop it. It is understandable that we might feel a bit helpless about cyber-bullying now, but canceling Facebook is not the solution.

Instead, we must accept that bullying is unacceptable no matter where it happens. And we must accept that in the real world or the cyberworld, adults can’t always monitor what kids do. And we must accept that this technology will be used no matter what we want. At what age is Facebook OK? How do children learn how to act appropriately online? We must step up to teach them and we must emphasize that they are accountable for what they do online as well as everywhere else. And we must emphasize that we care what happens to them online, just as we do everywhere else. Canceling Facebook is just drawing a line that cannot hold.

Having said that, i have no issue with parents who want to follow Tony’s advice. That might be the right approach for your kid. But it can’t be right for every kid. There are plenty of mature eighth graders that can handle Facebook, just as there are probably some ninth graders that can’t. Each parent can make that decision based on their own kid. If Tony’s letter helps parents reclaim their confidence to make that decision, good. But if his letter just scares everyone into thinking that putting our heads in the sand will keep the cyber-bullies away, that would be a shame.

It’s easy to demonize Facebook for cyber-bullying. It’s harder to address the problem of student behavior, whether it happens online or off. But just as 40 years ago we ignored the problem offline, we have learned enough to know that we must confront bullying wherever it happens. On Facebook, too.

Thanks for raising the issue, Tony. I know it comes from a good heart. I just think we need to take a different approach.

Comments

The bill was introduced into the New Jersey senate by Senator Raymond Lesniak (D-Union), who also introduced a separate bill which calls for New Jersey residents to vote on a constitutional amendment that would allow state-regulated sports wagering in Atlantic City casinos, and to state residents via an intra-state Internet gambling system.

New Jersey currently offers gambling on horse races to state residents through the 4NJbets.com website. The state would expand the law to permit online versions of games currently allowed in Atlantic City casinos, such as Poker, Blackjack and Baccarat. The Internet gambling system would be regulated by the New Jersey Casino Control Commission, which would establish a Division of Internet Wagering to manage operations and licensing.

Joe Brennan Jr.
IMEGA’s chairman

"We’re happy that New Jersey has taken this issue into their own hands," said iMEGA chairman Joe Brennan Jr.

"New Jersey is recognized as having the toughest gaming regulators in the US, but as a leading gaming state with a long track record of doing things the right way, Internet gambling will have a great home here and the opportunity to begin normalizing the industry."

The iMEGA says it supports efforts in Washington DC by Representative Barney Frank (D) in the House and Senator Robert Menendez (D) in the Senate, to create a Federal path to regulation, the association worked with New Jersey legislators on the bill to establish continued progress toward regulate internet gambling in the U.S.

"The efforts to resolve the Internet gambling issue have stalled in Washington DC," Brennan said.

"If states assert their right to regulate gambling within their borders and take a serious look at permitting Internet gambling, one side effect may be a breaking of the deadlock in the US Congress."

Related Articles:

>U.S. Asked To Halt Online Gambling Rules

>Kentucky Supreme Court Hears Online Gambling Case

>Americans Favor Legalizing Online Poker

If the bill is enacted it would likely have little impact on sites like Facebook or MySpace since the Federal Communications Decency Act protects sites from lawsuits based on users posts.

Anne Milgram

The bill is part of New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram’s initiative concerning Internet safety. "The social networking site safety act is intended to deter cyber-bullying and the misuse of social networking Web sites," the Office of Attorney General said in a statement about the proposed bill.

"The bill empowers users of social networking sites to take steps to stop harassment or exploitation."

The bill would require a social networking website to display an icon or link that would allow users to report sexually offensive or abusive communication. The sites would then investigate the comments and contact law enforcement if necessary.  The sites would also have to allow user to block messages from the offenders.

Social networks and Internet service providers already have policies in place that address harassment and obscenity. They also work in cooperation with law enforcement on such issues.
 

Anne Milgram
NJ Attorney General

New Jersey Attorney General Anne Milgram said that more than two thousand complaints were filed by consumers with the State Division of Consumer Affairs this month in connection with online sales of tickets to Springsteen concerts.

"Everyone deserves an equal chance to buy tickets on a primary ticket selling website and shouldn’t be steered to a re-selling website where the prices can be substantially higher," said Attorney General Milgram.

Under terms of the settlement, Ticketmaster must put up a virtual wall between it and its ticket re-selling subsidiary TicketsNow. Ticketmaster has agreed that all tickets it sells to the public will be sold on its primary website.

Ticketmaster also agreed not to allow the sale of any tickets on its TicketsNow re-selling website until initial sales begin on its primary website.

The settlement creates a random drawing for 1,000 people who will be allowed to purchase two tickets for Springsteen concerts in New Jersey in May. In addition, people who filed complaints but are not chosen in the random drawing for the chance to buy tickets will receive a $100 gift certificate from Ticketmaster and the chance to purchase two tickets to a future Springsteen concert in New Jersey.

People who purchased more expensive tickets at TicketsNow will receive a refund from Ticketmaster that will make up the difference between the purchase price and the face value of the tickets.

Sometimes, depending on where you live, a sex offender can be someone who went streaking at a ballgame, or somebody busted at the local rub-and-tug. The definition can be very broad, and degrees of offense can be expansive.

The KIDS Act, passed in New Jersey, like proposed laws in other states, would prevent these types of sex offenders from using a "computer or any other device with Internet capability," unless it is for work-related purposes.

Parole officers would regularly supervise, of course.

Now, when it comes to child molesters/rapists, I don’t have any interest in getting into recidivism rates or debates about the effectiveness of rehabilitation, as in this InternetNews.com article; as far as I’m concerned they should be sentenced to a slow, tortuous death via means similar to the nature of their offense (i.e., something horribly invasive and icky). That’s why I can’t be king; my vengeance would be great.

But aside from the broad definition of what makes someone a sex offender, Technology and Marketing Law Blog writer Eric Goldman points out that the New Jersey law suffers from grammatical ambiguity that will eventually make it overreaching. Ten years into the future, for example, a device with Internet capability could be mean just about anything.

Goldman writes, "A TiVo can access the Internet–is that off-limits to sex offenders? When a refrigerator is Internet-accessible, will that be off-limits? Cars are Internet-connected; are they off-limits too? This law makes about as much sense as banning sex offenders from using our road system (which they also use to commit their crimes)."

Yes, that could be a problem. Like I said, I don’t really care what awful things befall the molesters, but blocking access to the Internet because an 18-year-old kid stripped off and ran across a football field seems a little excessive and potentially problematic. 
 

Remember that Facebook may be trying to prove it’s worth $10 to $15 billion; a legal battle in which the company appeared to be defending sex offenders wouldn’t do it a lot of good.

Neither would cooperating with the AG, though, if it turned out that a bunch of unsavory individuals were hanging about.  AllFacebook’s Nick O’Neill recalls, “Everyone remembers all the buzz surrounding MySpace and sexual predators.  It looks like Facebook is now the new site to receive the same negative buzz.”

Facebook’s (potentially) facing a no-win situation.  It has until October 12th to react to the subpoena, so whatever its decision, the social network will have to move quickly.  The best response, in terms of public relations, might be some sort of proactive sweep.  But this solution would require even faster work.

Facebook did not immediately return a call requesting comment, but it’s fair to guess that the company is taking the subpoena seriously.