For marijuana businesses, it can be extremely challenging to utilize social media to its fullest marketing potential. Historically, social media companies have erred on the side of caution when establishing their community guidelines, siding with the feds’ prohibition of marijuana. However, a recent statement from Instagram could indicate a change in that company’s stance on marijuana advertising.

The critical language was noticed by Ganjapreneur after a recent Leafly report on the ongoing Instagram impersonation of Kiva Confections, a popular California-based edibles company.

As Leafly reported, a fake account using Kiva’s name suddenly began abusing people in comments and direct messages. Kiva contacted Instagram and successfully had the internet trolls’ account shut down. However, it was through this exchange that Instagram revealed some potentially critical changes to its existing policy on cannabis as it relates to advertising.

The statement reads in full:

Instagram does not allow people or organizations to use the platform to advertise or sell marijuana, regardless of the seller’s state or country. This is primarily because most federal laws, including those of the United States, treat marijuana as either an illegal substance or highly regulated good. Our policy prohibits any marijuana seller, including dispensaries, from promoting their business by providing contact information like phone numbers, street addresses, or by using the “contact us” tab in Instagram Business Accounts. We do however allow marijuana advocacy content as long as it is not promoting the sale of the drug. Dispensaries can promote the use and federal legalization of marijuana provided that they do not also promote its sale or provide contact information to their store.

As Ganjapreneur points out, the emphasized portion above leaves out any mention of “websites.” Therefore, “without listing your location’s contact info, you can drive customers to your website where your contact info, daily deals, and updated menus are all prominently displayed.” In other words, as long as companies don’t advertise or promote the sale of cannabis, they should be in the clear.

Instagram’s omission signals a progressive push for the social media platform, which was bought by Facebook in 2012. Facebook’s community standards specifically prohibit content that promotes marijuana sales–even in states where it’s legal–but Instagram has a history of not enforcing its vague policies uniformly.

“What’s so interesting is that you’ll see posts from other companies or users and it’s naked women and paraphernalia and guns and cash,” Kristi Knoblich, co-founder of Kiva, said. “But all the posts we had on our real page were about education. Things like how to keep edibles away from kids, how to store and lock your edibles, pointers and tips for how to use safely. The nature of what we were posting didn’t have anything to do with promoting sales, illegal use, shipping or distribution.”

Hopefully, Instagram’s updated guidelines will ensure more breathing room for legal companies looking to grow their businesses with innocuous marijuana posts.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Did Instagram Change its Marijuana Marketing Policy? appeared first on Law Street.

Instagram is the worst app for your mental health, according to a new study released by the U.K.’s Royal Society for Public Health (RSPH).

Researchers surveyed nearly 1,500 14 to 24 year olds and found that heavy usage of the photo sharing app led to poor body image and sleep, as well as higher levels of anxiety and depression.

.@YouTube only net positive platform for mental health whilst @Twitter – @facebook – @Snapchat & @instagram all net negative #StatusOfMind pic.twitter.com/E95Ob2D1vp

— RSPH (@R_S_P_H) May 19, 2017

Although “FOMO”–aka the “fear of missing out”–may not be a real a mental condition, it has been shown to take a serious toll on young people; the survey found that users who spent more than two hours on social media were more likely to report poor mental health, increased levels of psychological distress, and suicidal ideation.

The #StatusOfMind report explains:

This phenomenon has even been labelled as ‘Facebook depression’ by researchers who suggest that the intensity of the online world – where teens and young adults are constantly contactable, face pressures from unrealistic representations of reality, and deal with online peer pressure – may be responsible for triggering depression or exacerbating existing conditions.

“Instagram easily makes girls and women feel as if their bodies aren’t good enough as people add filters and edit their pictures in order for them to look ‘perfect’,” one survey responder explained about the app.

Snapchat, Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube were found to be similarly damaging to mental health, counteracting positive effects like self-expression, self-identity, and community building.

Here is the @instagram profile that led to it being ranked worst for young people’s mental health and wellbeing in our report #StatusOfMind pic.twitter.com/9SbfoQwMY1

— RSPH (@R_S_P_H) May 19, 2017

Even with all of the negative side effects, quitting social media altogether can be can be extremely hard for users, according to Shirley Cramer, chief executive of RSPH.

RSPH and the Young Health Movement are now calling on social media companies to:

• Introduce a pop-up heavy usage warning on social media
• Identify users who could be suffering from mental health problems by their posts, and discretely signpost to support
• Highlight when photos of people have been digitally manipulated

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Is Instagram Wrecking Your Self Esteem? appeared first on Law Street.

Albany Unified School District in California was just hit with a lawsuit over its officials’ choice to suspend students who interacted with racist images on social media. More than a dozen students at Albany High School, near San Francisco, allegedly liked and posted racist images on Instagram. In response, some were suspended. Now, four of the students have filed a lawsuit against the school district, claiming that their suspensions are a violation of their First Amendment rights.

The images in question included photoshopped pictures of some of the black female students at the school, posted on Instagram. The photos were photoshopped to include nooses and other racist symbols. At least a dozen students liked or commented positively on the posts. The four students who are suing fell into that category–the kid who originally created the posts is not party to the lawsuit.

The lawyers of the four students who filed the federal lawsuit claim that in addition to violating the students’ freedom of speech, what the students did outside of school was none of the school’s business. The lawsuit reads:

This action arises out of a private online discussion between friends that the Albany School system has pried into without authority. All conduct at issue in this matter occurred off school property, were conducted off school hours, and were otherwise completely unrelated to school activity.

The plaintiffs also claim that the school officials made a spectacle out of them by bringing them through the hallways and allowing them to be berated by other students.

The parents of the students who were the victims of the photoshopping disagree with the First Amendment claims, pointing out that the images constitute hate crimes. One of the fathers of the girls told a local outlet: “This is a hate crime. You don’t have a First Amendment right to promote a hate crime against a group of people based on their skin color.”

The students are suing for damages, but they haven’t specified how much they’re asking for. They’re also asking to have the incident removed from their records. The school has said that it will be reviewing the lawsuit, but it’s unclear what move it will make from here.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post California School Sued for Suspensions of Students who “Liked” Racist Images appeared first on Law Street.

A Florida extortion case involving two social media influencers and some X-rated blackmail has renewed interest in the debate over cellphone privacy–specifically, whether or not a suspect’s phone password is protected by the Fifth Amendment.

The case involves Hencha Voigt, 29, and her then-boyfriend, Wesley Victor, 34, who were arrested last July after they allegedly threatened to leak sexually explicit videos and photos of social media star Julieanna Goddard unless she paid them. The pair reportedly requested that Goddard–better known as “YesJulz” on social media–pay them $18,000 within 24 hours, according to a Miami Police Department report.

Law should support their phones being searched.They were seized as evidence 2the crime- extortion,which is a felony. https://t.co/xT2xLN391i

— Julz (@YesJulz) April 26, 2017

Goddard has over 460,000 followers on Instagram and has been referred to as “the Queen of Snapchat” by the New York Times in a profile last year. The 26-year-old multi-hyphenate (she’s a promoter, social-media marketer, and model) has worked with brands like Puma and Red Bull and can be seen hanging out with the likes of Lebron James and footwear and clothing designer Ronnie Fieg.

Voigt, on the other hand, is an Instagram celebrity in her own right. The fitness model starred last fall in “WAGS Miami,” an E! reality TV show about the wives and girlfriends of sports figures in South Beach.

According to CNN, prosecutors have been unable to search through Voigt and Victor’s confiscated cellphones for more evidence, since both locked phones are password protected. Now, prosecutors have asked the judge to compel Voigt and Victor to give up their passwords, but lawyers for the pair are pushing back, arguing that passwords are equivalent to self-incriminating testimony that is protected under the Fifth Amendment.

“They’re asking for the passcode so they can keep on searching what’s on the phone–which may be incriminating my client–and then use that against her,” Kertch Conze, Voigt’s attorney, told CNN. While its unclear how the judge will rule in this case, this is yet another example of investigators fighting over what protections are afforded to defendants’ locked phones.

Last year, Apple notably pushed back against the FBI after it wanted the company to devise a way to unlock one of the San Bernardino shooters’ phones. Apple CEO Tim Cook argued that the “back door” could potentially be used by sophisticated hackers and cyber-criminals, which would effectively put tens of millions of Americans at risk.

However, this “sextortion” case is clearly different. For one, the defendants aren’t dead and no back doors are needed, and two, there isn’t a threat of a possible terror attack at stake.

While some lower courts have ruled that forcing suspects to reveal their passcodes is unconstitutional due to the Fifth Amendment, other courts have contradicted these rulings. Therefore, we’ll just have to wait and see if the judge will  grant prosecutors in this case an exception.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Florida “Sextortion” Case Renews Phone Password Privacy Debate appeared first on Law Street.

The Federal Trade Commission means business when it comes to regulating Instagram advertisements.

The consumer rights advocacy group Public Citizen recently complained celebrities weren’t being upfront about which of their posts were sponsored. So, the FTC responded by reviewing the photos and sending warning letters to more than 90 Instagram users. The commission has discussed its standards for advertising on social media before, but has not directly confronted the celebrities named in complaints until now.

Public Citizen wasn’t alone in its push to make sponsored content more transparent—this past summer, the nonprofit Truth in Advertising filed a complaint against the Kardashian family for “deceptive marketing.” Though the FTC won’t name which celebrities received the letters, Public Citizen also included the Kardashians in its petition, in addition to well-known Instagrammers like Rihanna, Michael Phelps, Chris Pratt, Jennifer Lopez, Lindsay Lohan, Lebron James, Drake, Mark Wahlberg, and Blake Lively.

The 113 photos Public Citizen referenced in its complaint usually show the celebrities using a product from the brand that has paid them, with an accompanying caption endorsing it. Products range from makeup and hair care from companies like L’Oreal to athletic gear from Nike and Adidas to snacks from Lay’s and Dunkin’ Donuts.

According to a release on the FTC’s website:

The FTC’s Endorsement Guides provide that if there is a ‘material connection’ between an endorser and an advertiser – in other words, a connection that might affect the weight or credibility that consumers give the endorsement – that connection should be clearly and conspicuously disclosed, unless it is already clear from the context of the communication. A material connection could be a business or family relationship, monetary payment, or the gift of a free product. Importantly, the Endorsement Guides apply to both marketers and endorsers.

The release adds that Instagrammers should be clear that their post is an ad within the first three lines of the photo caption, and should avoid writing too many hashtags that could bury disclaimers. The use of hashtags and captions like “#sp” (short for “sponsored”), “Thanks [Brand],” or “partner” do not directly communicate that the post is sponsored and can confuse followers, the FTC says.

In its Endorsement Guides, the FTC writes that ads should be “honest and not misleading”—and consumers should know when they’re reading an endorsement that has been paid-for, because it can affect the way they “[evaluate] the endorser’s glowing recommendation.”

This doesn’t mean your favorite actors, athletes and reality stars are headed to court or getting banned from Instagram anytime soon. Often, it’s the sponsor behind the post that ends up taking the heat for its sneaky ad campaigns. In July, Warner Bros. settled charges that it failed to disclose information about paying “influencers,” like Youtube star PewDiePie, to recommend one of its video games. In March, the department store Lord & Taylor settled charges over its failure to inform consumers that it had sent popular Instagram users free clothing in exchange for promotion of one of its clothing lines.

Victoria Sheridan

Victoria is an editorial intern at Law Street. She is a senior journalism major and French minor at George Washington University. She’s also an editor at GW’s student newspaper, The Hatchet. In her free time, she is either traveling or planning her next trip abroad. Contact Victoria at VSheridan@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The FTC Isn’t Kidding About Instagram Ads appeared first on Law Street.

Remember hoverboards? They were briefly popular a couple years ago, until it was discovered that they sometimes caught on fire and were also really hard to ride without falling all over yourself. But hoverboards aren’t totally out of the mainstream yet (although I suppose that depends on how you define mainstream.) One hoverboard manufacturer, Sidekick Group, is suing Jennifer Lopez, claiming that she didn’t follow through on her obligation to promote the company on her social media platforms.

According to the company, Sidekick Group, Lopez signed a contract in 2015. The company provided JLo with 42 custom hoverboards to be used in her Las Vegas Show at Planet Hollywood. In return, Lopez was supposed to promote the company on her social media platforms–specifically Instagram and Twitter–at least once every three months. That would be a big boost for the company, given that Lopez has over 100 million followers between the two social media platforms. But the company claims that Lopez didn’t follow through on her obligation. The company is now suing Lopez for roughly $55,000, which it claims is what the customized hoverboards are worth.

That relatively low ask has raised some eyebrows. Forbes has Lopez’s net wealth for 2016 listed at almost $40 million. It seems as though Lopez, or the producers of her show, could have purchased the hoverboards without needing to come to any sort of agreement for promotion.

Media outlets have pointed out that Lopez did follow through on the promise at least once, when she tweeted footage from her show, complete with background dancers on the hoverboards.

The #AllIHave dancers killing it on their @SideKickWheels. Check them out at https://t.co/fkGTynZmrz #JLoVegas pic.twitter.com/1hHOAtuTmn

— Jennifer Lopez (@JLo) May 26, 2016

J-Lo’s team doesn’t appear to have responded to any requests for comment about the lawsuit, and it’s unclear why she may not have posted about the hoverboards. But, we’ll see if she has to pay up, or if this lawsuit just rolls off of her (pun intended.)

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post A Hoverboard Manufacturer is Suing Jennifer Lopez appeared first on Law Street.

Find out what’s buzzing on Law Street by catching up on the best stories from last week. Our 2017 rankings for “Crime in America” are out, so check out the top ten safest and most dangerous cities over 200,000. Also, learn more about Instagram’s censoring of legal medical marijuana posts. ICYMI–Check out the top stories below!

1. Crime in America 2017: Top 10 Safest Cities Over 200,000

Irvine, California, and Gilbert, Arizona, remained the two safest cities in the United States with populations over 200,000 for the fourth year in a row. Newcomers to this year’s list included Glendale, California, which previously wasn’t included because its population was below the 200,000 person threshold, and Scottsdale, Arizona, which was not included in the FBI’s statistics last year. While the overall rate of violent crime rose by a small margin in the United States–roughly 3 percent–the safest cities were a mixed bag, with both notable increases and decreases in violent crime rates. Read the full article here.

2. Instagram is Censoring Accounts With Pictures of Legal Weed

Instagram has been deleting accounts that contain pictures of marijuana, even if the location where the account is based has legalized the drug in some form. Two companies in Canada, where medical marijuana is legal, recently had their accounts shut down by the social media giant after featuring pictures of legal weed. Read the full article here.

3. Crime in America 2017: Top 10 Most Dangerous Cities Under 200,000

Rockford, Illinois, is the most dangerous city in the U.S. with a population between 100,000-200,000 people, displacing Little Rock, Arkansas, which now ranks as #2. Tallahassee, Florida moved onto the list at #8 after just missing the cut at #12 last year; Odessa, Texas also moved from #11 to #9. Many of the rest of the positions held steady and only saw small increases or decreases in their violent crime rates. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Happy Monday Law Streeters! Start your week of right with Law Street’s top stories from last week, which include everything you need to know going into tonight’s first presidential debate, Instagram censoring medical marijuana posts, and a Tulsa officer charged in Terence Crutcher’s Death. ICYMI–check out the top stories below!

1. What You Need to Know About the First Presidential Debate

On Monday September 26, Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump will go head-to-head in the first presidential debate. The debate starts at 9 p.m. EST and will air on all major news networks and stream live on Twitter. Make sure you’re following Law Street on Twitter and Facebook for live debate coverage and commentary. For everything you need to know heading into round one, read the full article here.

2. Instagram is Censoring Accounts With Pictures of Legal Weed

Instagram has been deleting accounts that contain pictures of marijuana, even if the location where the account is based has legalized the drug in some form. Two companies in Canada, where medical marijuana is legal, recently had their accounts shut down by the social media giant after featuring pictures of legal weed. Read the full article here.

3. Tulsa Officer Charged With Manslaughter in Terence Crutcher’s Death

Betty Shelby, the police officer who shot Terence Crutcher on a highway in Tulsa, Oklahoma last week, was formally charged with manslaughter. Tulsa County District Attorney Steve Kunzweiler announced on Thursday that he had charged officer Shelby with first-degree manslaughter, which would amount to a minimum of four years in prison if convicted. Read the full article here.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post ICYMI: Best of the Week appeared first on Law Street.

Instagram has been deleting accounts that contain pictures of marijuana, even if the location where the account is based has legalized the drug in some form. Two companies in Canada, where medical marijuana is legal, recently had their accounts shut down by the social media giant after featuring pictures of legal weed.

Lift Cannabis Co. is a Canadian website that reviews legal strains of weed through licensed producers. A Lift representative told VICE that his company’s Instagram account was deactivated last week.

“Nothing we’re sharing is against the law,” said Lift communications director David Brown. “Instagram is a US-based company. I suspect they don’t really understand the rules involving Canada.”

Lift isn’t the only Canadian company whose Instagram account has recently been taken down.

Tweed, Canada’s largest licensed producer of medical marijuana, used its Instagram as a vital piece of its marketing strategy since advertising medical marijuana in Canada is not permitted. Its account has been shut down twice.

“The work it takes to build an online community isn’t worth it if there’s the constant risk of it disappearing,” Tweed spokesman Jordan Sinclair told VICE. He said Tweed will not open another Instagram account, but will rebuild its social presence on Snapchat and Massroots as alternatives.

Instagram’s community guidelines state: “Offering sexual services, buying or selling firearms and illegal or prescription drugs (even if it’s legal in your region) is also not allowed. Remember to always follow the law when offering to sell or buy other regulated goods.”

However, there are accounts that have pictures of marijuana plants or promote illegal weed that haven’t been deactivated. Cannabis Culture, which sells recreational weed (which is still technically illegal) in parts of Vancouver and Toronto, has an operational account. Leafy and Weedmaps, smart phone apps which review dispensaries and use GPS technology to locate them for the use, both have operating Instagram accounts as well.

Brown is dumbfounded by the seemingly arbitrary account take downs.

“So a company that operates with the entirely legal medical cannabis space in Canada gets deleted, twice, but a company that cover the federally illegal recreational culture in the US and around the world gets a pass,” Brown said. “No rhyme or reason.”

Alec Siegel

Alec Siegel is a staff writer at Law Street Media. When he’s not working at Law Street he’s either cooking a mediocre tofu dish or enjoying a run in the woods. His passions include: gooey chocolate chips, black coffee, mountains, the Animal Kingdom in general, and John Lennon. Baklava is his achilles heel. Contact Alec at ASiegel@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Instagram is Censoring Accounts With Pictures of Legal Weed appeared first on Law Street.

Have you ever scrolled though your Instagram feed and stopped on an image of one of the Kardashian/Jenner sisters (yes, it’s ok to admit that you follow one, if not all of them) posing with some new fit tea, hair pill, or waist trainer? Was the photo perhaps missing a clearly visible sponsored content label?

Chances are your answers to both of these questions are yes, which is why the famous celebrity clan has been warned that if they don’t remedy their deceptive advertising practices in a week, a formal complaint will be filed with the FTC.

Even the government is no fan of the Kardashians’ detox tea ads on Instagram https://t.co/YAqyvFxO1s pic.twitter.com/ydRfwxMeaM

— Her Campus (@HerCampus) August 7, 2016

On August 17, Truth in Advertising.org sent the family’s matriarch/mom-ager, Kris Jenner, and 27 companies–including Puma, Calvin Klein, JetSmarter, Fit Tea, LuMee, and Balmain–a letter notifying them about the deceptive marketing campaigns. The nonprofit reviewed accounts for Kim, Khloe, Kourtney, Kylie, and Kendall, and found “a plethora of posts that do not clearly or conspicuously disclose their relationships with the companies being promoted in the posts as is required by federal law.”

TINA.org writes:

We intend to notify the Federal Trade Commission that these individuals and companies are engaged in deceptive marketing campaigns unless, by August 24, 2016, the issues described above are fully corrected by clearly and conspicuously disclosing that all applicable posts – past, present, and future – are paid advertisements or the result of material connections between the Kardashian/Jenner individuals and the companies featured in the posts.

Read TINA.org’s letter to the Kardashian-Jenner family here.

The sisters, who have a combined Instagram following of more than 316 million, reportedly make an upwards of $300,000 per sponsored post. According to TINA.org, youngest sister Kylie had the most problem posts, followed by Kim. Also, Puma, with which Kylie has an endorsement deal, lead all companies in improperly marked paid content with 13 posts.

While the girls have occasionally used tags such as #sp and #spon to mark their sponsored posts, the FTC told Bloomberg the subtle disclaimer isn’t enough. Using the hashtag #ad is okay, but only if it’s at the beginning of a post.

Since receiving the letter, the Kardashian-Jenners have already begun retroactively amending posts to contain #ad at the end. However,  since the number of impressions garnered on a post significantly decreases after the initial posting, this remedy may be a waste of time. On August 24 it will be interesting to see if TINA.org is satisfied with changes, or if the group decides to move forward with filing an official FTC complaint.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Truth in Advertising Org Threatens to Report Kardashian/Jenner Family to FTC appeared first on Law Street.

People love to joke that the Kardashian/Jenner clan is taking over the world, but some in Iran have genuine concerns.

Iranian officials have accused the family’s top bread winner, Kim Kardashian, of being a secret agent. On an Iranian news program Sunday night, the Iranian Revolutionary Guard’s Organized Cyberspace Crimes Unit (OCCU) accused Kim of conspiring with Instagram to corrupt Iranian women with “un-Islamic photos.”

OCCU spokesman Mostafa Alizadeh explained that the reality star “targets” Muslim women with photos that are contradictory to an Islamic lifestyle:

They are targeting young people and women. Foreigners are behind it because it is targeting families. These schemes originate from around the Persian Gulf and England. When you draw the operational graph, you will see that it is a foreign operation. Ms. Kim Kardashian is a popular fashion model so Instagram’s CEO tells her, ‘make this native.’ There is no doubt that financial support is involved as well. We are taking this very seriously.

This comes just as eight women working as online models for social media platforms such as Instagram were arrested in Iran as part of the country’s larger crackdown on “un-Islamic” photos.

But now that I think about it, this is not the first time Kim K has been accused of espionage-like involvement. I decided to do some digging to see if Kim could in fact be a spy, and came to the conclusion…possibly? So, without further adieu:

Here’s Three Reasons why Kim Kardashian Could Actually be a Spy

1. Kim’s Favorite Television Shows are Very Suspicious

Once, when asked by a fan what TV shows she likes to watch, Kim answered, “I love investigating shows like ‘Dateline,’ ‘Forensic Files,’ [and] ‘I Survived…'” NBC’s “Dateline” regularly airs true crime stories, “Forensic Files” shows how scientists use forensic science to solve crimes, and “I Survived…” profiles people’s near death experiences.

I’m noticing a suspicious theme here.

2. Kim Loves Investigating Her Own Family

If you watch “Keeping Up With the Kardashians,” you’d know that Kim has a history of investigating her family and hiring private investigators. In an episode of the KUWTK’s spinoff “Kourtney & Kim Take Miami,” Kim is suspicious of Kourtney’s then-boyfriend Scott Disick, so she hires a P.I. to track him.

Watch her shady sleuthing in the clip below:

If she’d investigate someone she considers to be family, who’s to say she wouldn’t be down for investigating entire countries like….idk IRAN!

3. Tina Fey is Convinced There’s Something Amiss 

Tina Fey joked that the reality star was “made by Russian scientists to sabotage our athletes” in her comedic bestseller “Bossypants.”

I mean #NuffSaid. You may be on to something, Iranian officials. We’ll have to keep an eye out.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Iran Officials Think Kim Kardashian is a Secret Agent: Maybe They’re Right? appeared first on Law Street.

Emojis are a fun way to let your friends know exactly how you feel while you’re texting them, but, can they be harmful? In some cases, interpreting the meaning behind emojis is more difficult than you may think. What one person sends as a funny joke with a smiley face could be interpreted differently by the person receiving the message. In a world full of  miscommunications because of the lack of tone in a text message, it can be hard to tell just what an emoji means.

In this week’s emoji news, a 12-year-old girl has been charged with threatening her school on Instagram due to a post from this past December. According to the Washington Post, the girl posted an ambiguous message under a different student’s name involving several emojis, including the gun, knife, and bomb emojis. The message also had the word “killing” in it, although it is unclear what the full Instagram post actually said. Though the post was not under her name, the girl did admit that she was the one who had posted it when questioned by the authorities.

After the school received word of this potential threat, it notified the police. Police officers got a search warrant and managed to identify the girl through the IP address used to post the image. Once they determined that the threat was not credible, the authorities still charged the girl who posted the image with threatening a school and computer harassment. Her mom claims she was confused as to why her daughter would have posted something like this, but suspects that it may be in response to bullying. One of the biggest questions in the investigation was about what exactly the gun, knife, and bomb emojis really meant and whether or not they could be considered threatening.

Deciphering the meaning of emojis is becoming a growing concern as their popularity grows. This Virginia pre-teen isn’t the first person to get in trouble for posting seemingly threatening emojis online, and she most likely won’t be the last. Almost a year ago, a 17-year-old named Osiris Aristy was arrested after using a gun emoji pointed at a police officer emoji–which the police considered a threat against local officers. During the Silk Road Trial, the judge ruled that punctuation and emoticons were necessary to understanding the evidence presented to a jury, so all texts read on to the record had to include descriptions of the emoticons used. In a case last year, Jesse Enjaian claimed that messages sent to a girl he was allegedly harassing online lacked context when emojis were redacted from the messages. Enjaian argues that with the emojis, the messages took a very different tone.

The problem with emoji interpretation is that their meaning is extremely subjective. While one person might think that adding a winky face to the end of a text makes it fun and light-hearted, the person receiving the text might not feel the same way. The same issue pops up in court cases–does the addition of emojis make a statement more or less threatening? In addition to the question of how emojis can be interpreted, there is also the question of how our First Amendment Rights apply to the internet. Can we really say whatever we want? And where do we draw the line when it comes to threatening or violent speech?

There’s not a whole lot of answers to these questions yet since the age of cyberbullying and emoji use is basically brand new. What everyone should take into careful consideration when texting, tweeting, or posting anything online is the fact that, no matter how funny you may think you’re being, the meaning of your words can be twisted or lost in translation when communicating on the internet.

Alexandra Simone

Alex Simone is an Editorial Senior Fellow at Law Street and a student at The George Washington University, studying Political Science. She is passionate about law and government, but also enjoys the finer things in life like watching crime dramas and enjoying a nice DC brunch. Contact Alex at ASimone@LawStreetmedia.com

The post Emojis: More Serious Than You May Think appeared first on Law Street.

Facebook is implementing new polices to prevent person-to-person gun sales via both the Facebook and Instagram sites. Traditionally, individuals making private gun sales have been able to arrange them using the social networks, but under Facebook’s new policies, that will no longer be allowed.

Firearms are joining the long list of things that people cannot use Facebook (or Instagram) to sell, including illegal drugs and pharmaceuticals. While Facebook’s old policies didn’t allow individuals to sell guns via Facebook ads, individuals could create posts for the private sale of firearms. However, Facebook did take actions in 2014 to restrict those kinds of sales to minors. According to NPR’s Laura Sydell: “Facebook has never been directly involved in gun selling, but it has been a place where buyers and sellers have negotiated sales.” However, these new policies won’t affect already-licensed sellers or stores from creating ads on the site.

Facebook’s head of Global Policy Management, Monika Bickert, stated:

Over the last two years, more and more people have been using Facebook to discover products and to buy and sell things to one another. We are continuing to develop, test, and launch new products to make this experience even better for people and are updating our regulated goods policies to reflect this evolution.

Under these new polices, Facebook will rely on users to report violations, and if certain individuals become repeat offenders, they may be banned from the social media sites. Facebook officials stated:

We will remove reported posts that explicitly indicate a specific attempt to evade or help others evade the law. For example, we will remove reported posts where the potential buyer or seller indicates they will not conduct a background check or are willing to sell across state lines without a licensed firearms dealer.

The move isn’t really much of a surprise–these changes to Facebook’s policies come roughly a month after President Barack Obama’s executive actions on guns were announced, which create stricter provisions for private, even individual, gun sales. The fact that Facebook is making an attempt to comply with its new provisions makes sense–hopefully it’ll help to cut down on unlicensed gun sales via two of the top social media sites in the U.S.

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Facebook Cracks Down on Gun Sales Through the Site appeared first on Law Street.

Even though the world very well may be reaching its breaking point with how much Kardashian news coverage it can take, recent legal trouble between the family’s top breadwinner Kim Kardashian West and the Food and Drug Administration has warranted keeping the reality stars in the spotlight.

Last week Kardashian West posted a selfie on Instagram of herself holding a prescription bottle of Diclegis, made by the pharmaceutical company Duchesnay USA. The pregnant celeb credited the drug with helping her manage her bouts of morning sickness with baby number two.

FDA tells @KimKardashian she’s doing it wrong http://t.co/DVHXBLes08 pic.twitter.com/wQWZKkOLlW

— Halle Tecco (@halletecco) August 12, 2015

The post, which has since been deleted, read:

I tried changing things about my lifestyle, like my diet, but nothing helped, so I talked to my doctor. He prescribed me #Diclegis, and I felt a lot better and most importantly, it’s been studied and there was no increased risk to the baby.

Kim is no stranger to social media product promotions; she’s utilized her personal accounts to sell everything from teeth whiteners to tennis shoes to her 42 million followers on Instagram and 25 million on Facebook. But, the so-called “selfie queen” failed to cover her bases with her latest venture.

Although the post linked to the drug’s website and its safety information, FDA Division Director for the Office of Prescription Drug Promotion Robert Dean says it wasn’t enough. In his warning letter dated August 7, Dean writes, “the social media post is false or misleading in that it presents efficacy claims for DICLEGIS, but fails to communicate any risk information associated with its use and it omits material facts.” He also points out that the post neglected to mention that the drug has not been studied in women with hyperemesis gravidarum, a complication of pregnancy characterized by uncontrollable nausea, vomiting, and dehydration.

The confusion over the side effect omission boils down to the drug’s classification. Diclegis, is labeled under the pregnancy category A, which means it has failed to demonstrate a risk to the fetus in the first trimester of pregnancy. Despite this, disclosing risks of the drug during pregnancy are still required in labeling and promotions.

Forbes explains further writing,

Incidentally, such pregnancy classifications were eliminated by FDA last month and companies are now required to give prescribers more precise safety details on a drug’s fetal and maternal risk profile because the old classification was “often misinterpreted and misused in that prescribing decisions were being made based on the pregnancy category, rather than an understanding of the underlying information that informed the assignment of the pregnancy category.

According to the drug’s website, Diclegis’ most common side effect is drowsiness and therefore should not be combined with alcohol, certain depressants and pain medications, and sleeping aides. Women are also encouraged not to drive, use heavy machinery, or “engage in other activities that need your full attention” while taking the drug.

In response to the letter, Duchesnay spokeswoman Laney Landsman said the company is working very hard to take quick action and is working out a plan to submit to the FDA. The letter warned that “failure to correct the violations discussed may result in FDA regulatory action, including seizure or injunction, without further notice.” It’s unclear if Kim will have to forfeit her compensation for the ad since it has been deleted, but it’s safe to say the reality star will likely be “keeping up with” the FDA’s requirements.

Alexis Evans

Alexis Evans is an Assistant Editor at Law Street and a Buckeye State native. She has a Bachelor’s Degree in Journalism and a minor in Business from Ohio University. Contact Alexis at aevans@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Kim Kardashian’s Selfie Comes With an FDA Warning appeared first on Law Street.

In our society, millennials constantly want to stay updated on important events occurring in the world. With today’s technology, most news events can be checked through our cellphones, whether we use news and social media apps or online sites. But one of the hottest social media apps is now getting into the game–Instagram is now trying to get involved in real time news.

This makes a lot of sense, as the American Press Institute did a study that shows 56 percent of Americans actually use their phones to access the news. Studies have also shown that people from the ages of 13-18 are on their phone for an average of four hours every weekday. People are constantly on their devices checking their Twitter, Facebook, and other apps for the newest trends or stories.

Instagram is now trying to be used for more than just posting casual pictures and videos by creating a new feature that will show real-time news to its users. Instagram CEO and Cofounder Kevin Systrom said in an interview:

People are hungry for what’s happening right now in the world. All of us in social media and regular media, we’re all competing for the same thing, which is this gap between something happening in the world and you knowing about it.

The popular app seems to be following the trend of social media companies like Twitter and trying to become a main source for news. Both tweeters and instagrammers log life experiences as they happen. To date, Twitter has been a better outlet for news because it has a more detailed search engine and features that better highlight relevant information. But Instagram has some advantages. Twitter’s growth has only jumped 18 percent to 302 million users in the past year, as opposed to Instagram’s 50 percent growth from 200 million to 300 million in only nine months.

Many see this update as Instagram trying to compete with Twitter’s new product-in-the-making–“Project Lightning”–which organizes tweets, photos and videos based on live events. Twitter also bought live stream startup Periscope earlier this year. But unlike Twitter, Instagram has no intention to stream events. Instead it is going to continue with photos and videos and utilize those types of media to cover the news. Systrom believes that users, especially journalists, will thoroughly enjoy the new features. He stated, “So if you’re a journalist and you want to see live photos happening at any location in our system, you can simply type in the location and up comes the page.” People seem to be agreeing with him so far.

Loving this new update, thanks #Instagram! #SocialMediaTools #SMM http://t.co/mLWggRUjT6

— #SocialMediaQueen™ (@stephanievoong) June 23, 2015

I love the new @instagram update. Y’all made the Explore page even better than it already was.

— Samuel Satterfield (@samuel_satt) June 23, 2015

Instagram is ranked as the second most used social media platform among young people. With the new update, users are now able to watch events unfold in real-time as images are uploaded to the app. By improving its “Explore” tab, people can see images taken at a specific place or under the most popular hashtags. The app also introduced a new search function that lets users search for images by people, hashtag and place. The updated Explore page will only be available for U.S. users as of now, but company team members said they are working to bring it to the rest of the world after they fine-tune the experience in the U.S.

With its constant growth rate and new features, I would not be surprised if Instagram surpasses Twitter’s dominance in real time news. This is a smart move for a company on a rise–expect to see it attract even more users and revenue.

Taelor Bentley

Taelor is a member of the Hampton University Class of 2017 and was a Law Street Media Fellow for the Summer of 2015. Contact Taelor at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Things Are Getting Real (Time) For Instagram Users appeared first on Law Street.

Freedom of speech is one of our rights in the United States, and it is guaranteed by the First Amendment. So it is hard to believe that something like social media that a majority of us use every day, could be the exception to the rule that we can say what we want to say without fear of backlash. In general, there are exceptions that prevent hate speech, defamation, and threats. Some of these aren’t legal, just frowned upon by the society at large, while others can get someone in trouble. Social media sites allow for the spread of all types of speech, from spoken word pieces on sites like YouTube, to shorter phrases said in 140 characters on Twitter. The publication of negative speech has some positive and negative consequences. We’ve seen them play out in the last few years with events in Ferguson, the Occupy Wall Street movement, and every major election.

It is difficult, however, to choose which pieces of speech are worthy of protection from action and which can be used against someone in legal proceedings. Not everything said on social media can be taken at face value. What one person deems as offensive and disturbing may incite a different emotion in another person. Striking a balance between unfiltered free speech, political correctness, and censorship is difficult. Censoring what is allowed on social media may seem like it goes against our Constitutional Rights, but allowing a free-for-all on speech can lead to threats, bullying, and hate speech.

Social Media’s Impact

Speech is not, nor has it ever been, a completely good vs. evil situation. There is so much more behind a string of text than just the literal meaning of the words. This is what makes it so difficult to decide who and what has a right to be on social media sites like Twitter, Facebook, and Tumblr. Some countries, like North Korea, Iran, China, Pakistan, and Turkey, have completely blocked their citizens’ access to social media sites as a way to ward off the problem. They operate under the theory that if you take away the cause, you won’t have to worry about it.

Many websites and apps do have “report” features so that a user can alert the webmasters that something has gone wrong. This begs the question, if someone says something terrible on social media, and it is reported but nothing happens, who is responsible for the fall out? It’s an increasingly important topic across the world; this isn’t just limited to the United States.

City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon, et al

In 2009, the Supreme Court of California heard a case that discussed the rights to free speech in text messaging between employees. Employees of the City of Ontario, California filed a claim in district court against the police department, city, chief of police, and an internal affairs officer. They believed that their Fourth Amendment rights were violated when their text messages on city-issued pagers were reviewed. The city did not have a text-messaging policy; however, it did have a general “Computer Usage, Internet, and E-mail” policy. Those employees felt as if that particular section did not cover their pagers. The court held that the city employees had a right to privacy in their text messages because there was no specific language about text messaging in the city’s policy.

This, along with several other cases about Cloud privacy has prompted many to ask the question: are Supreme Court justices too out of the loop to fully understand the severity of the problem? Most–though admittedly not all–Justices don’t interact with social media to a great extent. Perhaps one or two may have a Twitter account, but those are often controlled by members of their team. President Obama, who is largely considered more modern with technology, is the first sitting President to have a Twitter account, but there are questions about just who actually runs it.

 Anthony Elonis v. United States

This case concerns a Pennsylvania man, Anthony Elonis, and his post of violence-filled rap lyrics aimed toward his ex-wife. He didn’t use his own name, but rather the pseudonym Tone Dougie. His rap suggested that he should use his wife’s “head on a stick” in his Halloween costume. He used images that haunt the public mind, saying that he was going to terrorize a school as “Hell hath no fury like a crazy man in a kindergarten class.” Some of the other lyrics were extremely troubling:

There’s one way to love you but a thousand ways to kill you. I’m not going to rest until your body is a mess, soaked in blood and dying from all the little cuts. Hurry up and die, bitch, so I can bust this nut all over your corpse from atop your shallow grave. I used to be a nice guy but then you became a slut.

He also rapped about killing federal agents. Tara Elonis, his ex-wife, felt threatened by the song. The court had to judge “whether the threatening speaker intended to harm anyone or whether the listener was genuinely afraid of being harmed.” Nancy Leong pointed out in the Huffington Post that, “because the Internet filters out voice and demeanor cues, online statements provide less information about the seriousness of the statement, and are thus more likely to be reasonably interpreted as threats.“

Elonis didn’t seem to be too upset at first, posting on Facebook: “Did you know that it’s illegal for me to say I want to kill my wife? It’s illegal. It’s indirect criminal contempt … I also found out it’s incredibly illegal, extremely illegal, to go on Facebook and say something like the best place to fire a mortar launcher at her house would be the cornfield behind it …”

The case is ongoing and it has incited intense emotions from both sides of the fence.

The Good

What are the benefits of having freedom of expression on social media? Surely, it is a way for some people to vent their anger without feeling self-conscious, nervous, or upset without resorting to violent actions. Everyone has a right to say what they think. We’ll never know, thankfully, if Elonis would have followed through on the threats in his rap.

Retweets, liking, or even posting your own status can be as effective as screaming at the top of your lungs at a protest. Lately, Facebook has been full of posts that educated everyone on topics relating to racism and the plight of African Americans in modern day America. There are always a few feminist pieces floating around. LGBTQ statuses, articles, and debate appear often, as well. Looking into the comments of these pieces, it is easy to see a cross section of what people believe about the topic. After all, the best way to argue for something is to know why people are arguing against it.

Social media has also become a home to those people who post positive things about topics from body-positive Instagram campaigns to equal media representation groups on Tumblr.

The Bad

To quote Uncle Ben from Spiderman: With great power, comes great responsibility. Unfortunately, many people do not understand their responsibility to fellow man. People who don’t believe in the status quo (or those who believe in the previous status quo that is now shifting to another) can stir up some pretty harsh feelings. People have the right to believe whatever they want, but these more extreme views on politics, racism, sexism, and homosexuality can start verbal sparring matches that help no one.

People have been using social media to post threats that haven’t been taken seriously for years. Stricter online controls would help alert the authorities in some cases, and even protect the innocent. Social media can be used for internet bullying, which in some cases is worse than the traditional verbal bullying. Online gossiping and social media platforms allow the bullying to continually exist–a problem for both the bully and the bullied.

Conclusion

Social media is one of the best inventions of the last century. It allows us to stay in contact with people we would have left behind, and it allows us to preserve our memories in a time capsule. However, it can also make or break a person depending on how someone reacts. Truthfully, the problem isn’t a freedom of speech issue, but rather one of morality. Can we take morals and apply them to the virtual world?

Resources

Primary

Supreme Court: City of Ontario, California, et al v. Quon et al

Constitution: First Amendment

Constitution: Fourth Amendment

Additional

Slate: Are Facebook Threats Real?

Huffington Post: Constitutional Rights in the Digital Age

The New York Times: Do Online Death Threats Count as Free Speech?

Salon: The Supreme Court’s baffling tech illiteracy is becoming a problem

Business Insider: This Guy’s Facebook Rants Put Him In Prison, And The Supreme Court Will Hear His Case Today

Truth Out: This Time, “Free Speech” Cannot Prevail

ABA: United States v. Anthony Elonis – Third Circuit

Index on Censorship: 10 Countries that have Social Media Banned

The New York Times: Chief Justice Samples Eminem in Online Threats Case

First Amendment Center: Social Networking

Bloomberg: The 8 Most Important Cases in the New Supreme Court Term

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Freedom of Speech and Social Media appeared first on Law Street.

Last Monday night St. Louis County Prosecutor Robert McCulloch delivered a combative 25-minute address in which he seemed to blame social media for some of the fallout between the death of Michael Brown on August 9, 2014 and the announcement that police officer Darren Wilson would not be indicted for shooting him.

McCulloch focused his attention on the role of social media covering the story, blaming it for misleading the public and creating a martyr out of Brown from the start. He was particularly cutting to the people of Ferguson who witnessed or didn’t witness the event saying that, “within minutes various accounts of the incident began appearing on social media.” He continued on to say that the posts, mostly on Twitter, were “filled with speculation, and little, if any solid, accurate information.” His statement did little to quell the fire on social media platforms like Twitter, Tumblr, and Facebook. In fact, it might have ignited a deeper fury in the hearts and minds of those who were blogging about the incident.

Social media has been a key part of the nation’s involvement in the Ferguson case since the day it happened. Protest footage was shown online as it developed through YouTube, Twitter, and Facebook posts. If that spark of anger ever dissipated, a well-timed hashtag could bring it back, and when the evidence was released, people joined together to comb through the details for more information.

What would have happened if social media hadn’t been around for Ferguson? It’s unclear, but the impact of social media cannot be denied–it changed the face of a county, the life of a man, and the start of a movement.

Twitter

From the moment the shooting happened and continuing through today, Twitter has had a lasting impact on the general public’s memory of Ferguson and the events that followed. Tweets from Alderman Antonio French kept everyone abreast of what was happening, and were the source for information on the scene. The story spread far and wide, and may have been what some witnesses used when they discussed the event before a jury. Comments were made on everything from the extensive media coverage to the altercation between local police and a Washington Post reporter.

The near-constant trend of #Ferguson has not stopped since August, with nearly 3.5 million tweets around the planet in the three hours after the decision was delivered to the public.

That opening statement sounds like, "None of this would be a problem except the Internet."

— James Poniewozik (@poniewozik) November 25, 2014

People didn’t just use Twitter to talk– it was used to promote action as well. According to the Social Media Listening Center at Clemson University, the incident in Ferguson and the hashtags #MichaelBrown, #Ferguson, #DarrenWilson, and #BlackLivesMatter had the highest response to any event since they started monitoring the service. Listening Center Director Joe Mazer said that 90 percent of the Twitter mentions were negative toward Officer Wilson and the Ferguson Police Department. He said key influencers of the conversation were members of the media and the forces on the ground, or the people in and around Ferguson.

Much of that response was to organize protests, educate others, and spread the word about both sides of the case. Movements started on Twitter and many more grew because of it. In a country where people often say we don’t participate in government, simple sentences in 140 character increments have done what political leaders haven’t been able to do in quite some time: bring groups of people together through their feelings of injustice and anger.

#StoptheParade

Twitter took things to another level when activists in NYC took to social media and encouraged people in and around the city to gather together to interrupt the Macy’s Thanksgiving Day Parade. They used the hash tag #StoptheParade to plan the protest that was to bring the injustice from the grand jury result to the eyes of those enjoying the parade. While it unclear how many people were involved in its inception, or even who started the movement, it quickly moved from hundreds of tweets on Twitter to posts on Facebook and Tumblr. As the movement grew, a map was released to show protesters just where to gather.

We moved #stoptheparade to 12am due to weather here’s the facebook group + info http://t.co/AzuTGdyHTw pic.twitter.com/TI2M5tHEWJ

— VHS dad (@versacenudes) November 27, 2014

Though mainstream media didn’t cover the protests instead of the parade, videos and images flowed onto Twitter and Instagram showing peaceful protesters we well as those who got a little more physical. It seemed like the NYPD got word of the event, as there were many officers lining the streets specifically where protesters planned to meet.

Tumblr

Much of what is happening on Tumblr is similar to what is happening on Twitter, though there are of course longer posts with some more detailed analysis of court documents and personal responses. However, there is one thing that is very different: the Ferguson National Response Network. The network stems from an idea that protesters had before the indictment announcement, which is a system that allowed interested parties to sign up to receive SMS messages about the announcement. This was especially helpful to those who worked during the announcements. As that movement grew, there was a demand to continue this collection of activities, so they created the Network Response Team. The Tumblr page allows submissions for peaceful demonstrations, allowing other people to join in so that the event is a success. There have been more than 70 events and counting planned through the page.

Online Fundraising

Social media and internet resources weren’t just a refuge for those fighting against Wilson. There were two fundraising campaigns set up to raise money for the police officer when it became apparent that he probably wouldn’t return to the line of duty, either through indictment or from resigning. The sites were set up through GoFundMe, but they were eventually halted. There was also a Facebook page called “Support Darren Wilson,” which raised more than $430,000. That too was halted with only a parting message stating that interested parties should “Please redirect Badges for Darren to the Ferguson PD. Thank you for your continued support. We understand that there will be many unanswered questions and concerns and we will update supporters as soon as we have the answers.” Another site, Support Officer Wilson, has raised more than $235,000, but it also stopped accepting donations without an explanation. There were reports that the administrators of the pages were receiving threats over their participation.

So, was social media’s role in Ferguson good or bad?

The Good

Social media is great at getting information out quickly about ongoing events. One could just set his or her browser to “Ferguson” and it was almost a real-time display of the events. Networks are only able to cover one aspect at a time, but social media has access to the collective information. It also allows for the continued planning of events that need larger groups of people as a sort of grassroots campaign.

Social media also allows people to search for information that is relevant to them. While the major news networks were all turned to the events in Ferguson, communities in New York City and Philadelphia also had their own protests. By using Twitter, one would just have to search to see where the protests were–either to join in or avoid them during travel.

Finally, it is obvious that social media encourages everyone to be more active and aware of the world around us. Without social media, we would only be privy to the information released by the news media, much of which has been slanted toward one direction or the other. It allows us to have educated debates, understand the details, and make our own decisions.

The Bad

Social media may have hurt the legal proceedings in Ferguson more than it helped. Those involved claim that witnesses who were around the scene on the street claimed to have seen Brown with his hands up, however many of their accounts seem to have come from Twitter rather than their own experience. Former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani even went on record to say that those witnesses should have been sued for perjury. While some argue that this is just looking for a reason not to persecute Wilson, the truth remains that many eyewitness accounts didn’t match up.

Social media may have also played a part in the violence, stoking anger and fear in the hearts of those involved. We can all agree that the violence and looting that has erupted, though understandable to some, has left many with a bad taste in their mouths and is almost undermining the cause. Social media has a time and place, and if we can use it responsibly, it will help shape the way we receive, discuss, and process news.

Resources

Primary

Twitter: #Ferguson Tag on Twitter

Mail Chimp: Darren Wilson Verdict Text Message Service

Twitter Reverb: Real Time Display of Tweets

Additional

Bustle: Ferguson’s Prosecutor Blamed Social Media for Misinformation, Entirely Ignoring the Mission and Necessity of Social Media

LA Times: Fundraising Web pages for Ferguson cop still closed; it’s unclear why

Washington Post: Grand Jury Reaches Decision in Case of Ferguson Police Officer

Washington Post: How Social Media Freed Reporter

Mediaite: Indictment Announcement from Ferguson

WYFF4: Social Media Listening lab sees record posts on Ferguson

Ferguson Response: Ferguson National Response Network

Talking Points Memo: Here Is How The Prosecutor Described The Michael Brown Shooting

Talking Points Memo: Rudy Giuliani On Ferguson Decision: I’d Prosecute Witnesses For Lying (VIDEO)

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Ferguson and the Effect of Social Media Activism appeared first on Law Street.

In recent weeks, celebrity Chelsea Handler has created quite a virtual stir by posting revealing photographs of herself on the popular photo-sharing app Instagram, which were subsequently taken down for violating the company’s mature content policy.

Handler’s photos being removed by the site’s admin would seem to be a cut-and-dried case–the second item on Instagram’s Basic Terms is “You may not post violent, nude, partially nude . . . pornographic or sexually suggestive photos or other content via the Service.”

However, the star’s next move was to point out the gender politics at play because men’s nipples are acceptable to show on the site. Here’s a quick rundown of Handler’s Instagram drama that aired on CNN.

It’s worth noting that in the video, they showed a screenshot of the removed post that Handler tweeted, as Twitter’s guidelines are less strict. This ability to reach more than five million Twitter followers without censorship is probably why this specific case of Instagram content removal has garnered so much attention.

And Chelsea Handler isn’t the only famous face to come into conflict with Instagram’s restrictions.

Singer Rihanna’s account was mistakenly shut down after posting photos from a cover shoot for Lui magazine, prompting the fed-up star to leave the site altogether. Actor Scout Willis was banned from the site after posting a photo of a jacket she designed that depicted the torsos of two topless women. Grace Coddington, Creative Director for Vogue, was banned in May for posting a line drawing of herself topless.

Coddington’s image has since been restored to her again-functional Instagram account.

The sheer variety of reasons relating to nudity and the female nipple that people have been banned from Instagram, even temporarily, has sparked conversation among those who would follow Willis’ lead and #FreeTheNipple, or more specifically, erase the stigma that makes the female nipple something to be hidden or censored while males can go shirtless in public or in the media without reproach.

Willis then took her protest to the streets by walking around topless, arguing the fact that something legal in New York City isn’t allowed on Instagram. Newsy explains in the video below.

Willis went on to explain for herself in an article for XOJane, in which she remarks that this censorship doesn’t just apply to celebrities, though their cases are the most obvious examples. She writes, “My situation was in no way unique; women are regularly kicked off Instagram for posting photos with any portion of the areola exposed, while photos sans nipple–degrading as they might be–remain unchallenged.“

In light of the site’s controversy, should nudity continue to be banned on Instagram?

What’s the Argument for Enforcing the Guidelines?

Ultimately, Instagram has laid out its policies in black and white in its ever-ignored Terms and Conditions section, including its right to “modify or terminate the Service or your access to the Service for any reason, without notice, at any time…” Those who run Instagram have the power and the prerogative to dictate how the site is to be utilized by users.

And that’s not to say there’s no reasoning behind Instagram’s guidelines pertaining to nudity and inappropriate content.

In an age where Internet trolls can hide behind their keyboards, the rules can be the difference between a safe space for users and a cyber-bully’s haven. This is especially true for celebrities, whose lives are constantly up for scrutiny in the media and who are often subjected to online harassment, threats, and criticism.

Instagram CEO Kevin Systrom defended the company’s policies in an interview with BBC Newsbeat, saying, “Our goal is really to make sure that Instagram, whether you’re a celebrity or not, is a safe place, and that the content that gets posted is something that’s appropriate for teens and also for adults.”

While only 11 percent of teens had Instagram in 2012, according to Pew Research, this is a demographic the company would be foolish to ignore. By censoring nudity on the site, Instagram is ensuring it won’t be a social media outlet that parents should fear, as 62 percent of parents worry about the kind of content available to their children on the Internet.

The idea of what’s appropriate for viewing can also be applied on a global scale, as in the past few years Instagram has achieved growing success worldwide. According to the site, upward of 65 percent of users are outside the U.S. With a variety of users, creating a standard to minimize discomfort for those in areas that are more conservative is a good way to make sure Instagram can flourish there uninhibited by social restraint.

Against the Guidelines

If a person is offended by the site’s content, he or she could simply unfollow the offending user. For example, if a user is conservative for religious, social, or personal reasons, it might not be the best idea to follow Chelsea Handler, as she is known for her brash and pulls-no-punches comedy.

And even under the nudity guidelines, unfollowing still might be necessary because what is deemed inappropriate by the site’s admin (and by those who flag photos for review because of inappropriate content) seems arbitrary and ambiguous. Take, for example, the cover shoot that caused problems between Rihanna and Instagram. She was featured relaxing in what one assumes is a chair on a beach you can’t see in a hat and pink bikini bottoms. Her nipples are clearly shown.

However, there’s been another photo shoot recently, and it’s caused a lot of buzz–Kim Kardashian posed nude for Paper Magazine. Its photos have been shown across media platforms (sometimes with censoring, sometimes without), including on the star’s Instagram.

Kardashian wasn’t banned, even temporarily, and the content has not been removed. There are no female nipples involved, but there is certainly nudity.

One might question if there were an exception because the photo shoot could be considered art or fashion, but recalling Rihanna’s magazine cover, Scout Willis’ jacket, and Grace Coddington’s drawing invalidates that theory.

Even within Handler’s own account there is ambiguity, but again it comes down to the female nipple as opposed to nudity in general. In one photo that has gone uncontested, Handler is sitting wearing only underwear, but it is taken from an angle that obscures her breasts. In another photo, her naked butt is fully visible and shown side by side with the Kim Kardashian photo above. In the caption, Handler challenges the site with, “Your move, Instagram.”

While they are a central focus for celebrities taking a stand, nipples aren’t the only source of ambiguity on the site, though. Earlier this year, blogger Meghan Tonjes posted a photo of her underwear-clad butt on her Instagram as a statement of body positivity with the hashtag #honormycurves.

Given that her photo is not unique on a site where butt selfies are, indeed, a thing, Tonjes believes her photo was flagged for inappropriate content because of her plus-sized body type. This experience led Tonjes to launch a body positivity campaign on Instagram and YouTube, beginning with the response video included below. In her response, Tonjes shows a variety of photos that haven’t been removed from Instagram that look no different (or, debatably, even more inappropriate) than those images that have been taken down.

[Note: The video automatically skips to around the six-minute mark, but she begins explaining her situation around 55 seconds in.]

Instagram eventually restored the photo to Tonjes’ account with an apology, but not before she could expose some very blatant double standards in the admin’s judgment, as well as the judgment of those who flag photos for inappropriate content because of personal discomfort rather than an overarching problem. Tonjes also points out that there is no appeal process for when content is removed in which a user can defend themselves or their photos.

Conclusion

It is clear that Instagram has some unhappy users, some of whom have decided to terminate their accounts altogether. Should the site acquiesce, which would placate some users and potentially draw in new ones, and risk losing some of their more conservative following?

One potential alternative would be to find a more fair way to enforce the rules the site clearly wants to keep, so those whose photos are removed feel less targeted and alienated. It seems the problem isn’t in the use of guidelines per se, but is rather in the vague nature of the terminology “inappropriate content” and what exactly is considered “nudity” or “partial nudity.” If these terms were clearly defined, the company would have a much more solid argument for enforcing their Terms and Conditions.

Or the site could continue unchanged because ultimately the business has been expanding regardless of a little outrage.

Resources

Primary

Instagram: Instagram Terms of Use

Instagram: Press Page

Pew: Teens, Social Media, and Privacy

Pew: Teenage Life Online

XoJane: I am Scout Willis And This Is The Only Thing I Have To Say About Walking Topless Down The Streets of New York Last Week

Additional 

BET: Rihanna’s Instagram Account ‘Briefly Disabled’

Independent: Instagram Defends Nudity Rules After Scout Willis ‘Nipple Ban’ Topless Protest

Independent: Grace Coddington Banned From Instagram for Posting Topless Line Cartoon

Independent: Scout Willis Topless Instagram Protest

BBC: Instagram Defends Nudity Rules After ‘Nipple Ban’ Protest

Buzzfeed: This Woman’s Butt Selfie Was Banned From Instagram, So She Fought Back

Kelsey Kennedy

Kelsey Kennedy is a freelance editor with degrees in Magazine Journalism and Performance Theatre from the University of Missouri, Columbia (MIZ!). When she isn’t out exploring New York, she loves getting far too invested in characters on the page, stage, and screen. She ultimately wants to make a difference in the world and surround herself with creative people. Contact Kelsey at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post The Instagram Nudity Problem: What’s the App to Do? appeared first on Law Street.

Previous fun facts about French life have let us in on a little secret: French people are picky. Each French city’s mayor or maire possesses the authority to establish policies that maintain public order. In Paris, rules vary according to arrondissement, or district.

So, the French are detail oriented. They like their rules and that’s okay.

However, their latest regulation—on copyright—is so strict that it’s funny. La Tour Eiffel, the Eiffel Tower’s official website states that although snapping some photos of the famous landmark is alright in the daylight, pictures are off limits when the sun goes down. My deepest condolences to anyone who ever dreamed of having a nighttime Parisian wedding photo shoot. The website explains, “its various illuminations are subject to author’s rights as well as brand rights. Usage of these images is subject to prior request from the “Société d’Exploitation de la Tour Eiffel.”

The structure of the Eiffel Tower itself is in the public domain. What isn’t in the public domain is the show put on at night during which different color lights are projected onto the landmark. That, instead, belongs to an artist who takes liberties and utilizes style to determine which lights, colors, speed the illuminations take place. Therefore, a reproduction of the work would require permission—and perhaps compensation—of said artist.

Essentially, it’s a time issue. The Eiffel Tower was built long before pretty lights were shone on it. This EU Information Society Directive includes a clause asserting that buildings in public spaces are to be in the public domain. However, France is one of the countries that refrained from adopting the directive into its law.  Italy and Belgium also refused the directive and retained their stricter policies. Belgium experiences the same issues with its Atomium, delineating on its website that “the image of the Atomium is protected and can only be used under certain conditions…Prices depend on whether it is to be used for a cultural, educational or commercial purpose.”

One must ask: when copyright law restricts something so large, so famous, and so iconic, how can it truly be enforced?

Wikipedia pages are being careful about it. Atomium pages include censored images or photographs of Atomium models. Poor Instagram will probably never see the legal light show. Illegal, however, can be found by a simple search of #eiffeltower. Google Images is chock-full o’ examples.

Ultimately, the regulation probably isn’t causing any tourists severe angst. That doesn’t, however, detract from the fact that it is copyrighted and nighttime Eiffel Tower pictures constitute infringement. We may take for granted our ability to legally Instagram post Lady Liberty at 3:00am with abandon.

The post Your Nighttime Eiffel Tower Pictures Are Illegal appeared first on Law Street.

Signing onto your Facebook or Twitter account has become a social media oversharing gram of Russian Roulette with engagements, weddings, pregnancies, stomach viruses, break ups, make ups, Taylor Swift lyrics, celebrations, political opinions, moves, and that weird ingrown hair in that girl who lived down the hall from you freshman year that she’s pretty sure is infected but she’s going to ask her “Nurse Friends” just in case.

No matter where we post — Facebook, Twitter, Tumblr, Instagram, SnapChat — it’s all the same: we are sharing some of our private thoughts and feelings that at best will embarrass us later in life, and at worst can cost us jobs and relationships.

Everything we post on social media from pictures to snippets of lyrics gives us a glimpse into our inner person and our outer person, including where we are physically at any time. In fact, many people have actually been arrested because they posted where they were on Facebook or Twitter right after committing a crime or because they filmed themselves doing something illegal and then posted it. What makes these people think they can post something so stupid on social media? It’s quite simple.

Social media promotes oversharing and under-thinking.

No, I didn’t just knock the Scentsy wax all over the bathroom wall because I was dancing to “Shake it Off.” #thatwouldbestupid #TS1989

— Noel Diem (@NoelDiem) November 2, 2014

Who is Oversharing?

Pamela Paul at The New York Times seems to sum up most feelings about social media:

“UNLESS you are my best friend or my husband, I don’t need to know the macabre symptoms of your gastrointestinal virus. I don’t need to know about how much candy anyone, other than me, has eaten. As for my ex-boyfriend, I don’t need to hear about his wife’s ability to Zumba.”

Walking through the park, grocery shopping, or grabbing your coffee at Starbucks can undoubtedly include social interactions; however, there is rarely a time when waiting for your laundry to finish up in the dryer in the laundry room you start spouting unsolicited updates to someone else in the room, no matter how close you may be. Certainly there are people who are oversharers in real life, but they don’t comprise a large portion of the population.

On social media, however, oversharing seems to be the norm. It’s difficult to figure out why we share everything on social media — is there something about those white boxes that we think won’t judge us? Is there a cleansing feeling when you share something somewhat embarrassing? Do we think someone will find us alluring when we share something completely private about our lives? Just recently we discussed the legal implications of social media when criminals reveal themselves to law enforcement — but is there a rhyme or reason to why we share completely strange information about our daily lives on social media but wouldn’t dare utter it at the dinner table?

Psychology Behind Oversharing

Sharing our private thoughts, feelings, and opinions with others in a non-threatening way actually activates the neurochemical reward system in our brains, according to a Harvard University study. In essence, sharing something simple on social media makes us feel good, much like buying a new pair or shoes, taking a long run, or going on a really great first date.

But more interesting is the report of Elizabeth Bernstein in the Wall Street Journal when she declared that our desire for more people to know about our private lives is actually because of reality TV and our own social anxieties.

“This effort is known as ‘self-regulation’ and here is how it works … When having a conversation, we can use up a lot of mental energy trying to manage the other person’s impression of us. We try to look smart, witty, and interesting, but the effort required to do this leaves less brain power to filter what we say and to whom.”

While our brains reward us for oversharing on Facebook, that still doesn’t necessarily explain why we expose sometimes embarrassing or harmful information about ourselves on social media.

Why Do We Overshare?

Professor Russell W. Belk from York University in Toronto took on this topic in his paper “Extended Self in a Digital World.” He suggests that we are not truly ourselves on social media, but rather trying to portray ourselves as more “perfect” forms of ourselves by filtering what we allow people to see. We do this to impress one person, a group of people, or even confuse ourselves about who we truly are.

“When we’re looking at the screen we’re not face-to-face with someone who can immediately respond to us, so it’s easier to let it all out—it’s almost like we’re invisible,” says Belk of the “disinhibition effect” that online sharing helps promote. “The irony is that rather than just one person, there’s potentially thousands or hundreds of thousands of people receiving what we put out there.”

Belk’s observations are confirmed in another study by Gwendolyn Seidman of Albright College and published in Computers in Human Behavior. She examines how people use Facebook to express their “true selves” in a way they normally wouldn’t be able to in real life.

But re-pinning something about a workout we will never do, altering our selfies with four or five different filters, or rating a book on Goodreads that we didn’t actually read isn’t harming anyone, right? Not so fast, Belk asserts that there are potential harms:

“The resulting disinhibition leads many to conclude that they are able to express their “true self” better online than they ever could in face-to-face contexts. This does not mean that there is a fixed ‘true self’ or that the self is anything other than a work in progress, but apparently self-revelation can be therapeutic, at least with the aid of self-reflexive applications.”

Oversharing Can Be Good

Many argue that social media can take the place of a Confessional in our lives — we can truly figure out who we are by revealing our innermost secrets to the general public.  Belk believes that through this we may be expressing our true selves because we are creating ourselves as we post, like, and share:

“It appears that we now do a large amount of our identity work online. For the Internet constantly asks us “Who are You?” “What do you have to share?” Coupled with new self-revealing proclivities, this incites more open self-extension than in a pre-digital world.”

Many view social media as a way to collaborate and receive confirmation of our feelings. Getting likes on a photo on Instagram affirms our skills as a photographer but also of the thing photographed — typically ourselves. A like on Facebook has taken the place of a “ditto” in real life. We are no longer working alone to create our reality, but are forming it from our relationships with people on social media — those we know, and those we don’t know, as is the case with some social media websites like Tumblr.

We also have to take into consideration that perhaps people aren’t oversharing at all — maybe we have just grown sensitive to knowing all of that information all of the time. We share an awful lot as a society, and maybe it is just how accessible that information is.

In fact, as Jen Doll notes at the Wire, “[N]o one gets criticized specifically for undersharing. No one says that word. People just say ‘boring.’”

Conclusion

You can’t just say that people are oversharing without setting a limit for what is the right amount of sharing. We have more capabilities at our fingertips to understand the people in our lives. That same website that allows you to “meet” your roommate’s girlfriend without ever seeing in her person and make a snap judgment on whether or not she’s worthy is the same website where you will have to read details of someone’s food poisoning.

Belk summed it up — we are creating our identities through our oversharing. Maybe not just our identity as singular people, but our identities as a generation.

Resources

Primary

Computers in Human Behavior: Expressing the “True Self” on Facebook

Bankrate: Oversharing on Social Media Can Cost You

Additional

Huffington Post: Oversharing: Why We Do It and How Do We Stop?

Bankrate: Oversharing on Social Media Can Cost You

The New York Times: Don’t Tell Me, I Don’t Want to Know

Atlantic: The Selfish Meme

CNN: When Oversharing Online Can Get You Arrested

Law Street Media: Social Media in the Courtroom: What is Admissible?

The New York Times: Social Media, a Trove of Clues and Confessions

Wire: In Defense of Oversharing a Little Too Much Information

Huffington Post: Are You Oversharing on Social Media?

Noel Diem

Law Street contributor Noel Diem is an editor and aspiring author based in Reading, Pennsylvania. She is an alum of Albright College where she studied English and Secondary Education. In her spare time she enjoys traveling, theater, fashion, and literature. Contact Noel at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Social Media Oversharing: Why Do We Do It? appeared first on Law Street.

Writing about technology and its many uses has never been more important to me than today.  The civil disobedience, sadness, and anger expressed in Ferguson, Missouri by its residents and sympathizers would most likely have gone unnoticed by the majority of the nation if it weren’t for social media outlets like Youtube, Twitter, Vine, and Facebook.  To attribute the proper value to these technologies, we must first identify the root cause of the demonstrations which have led to a militarized police force and the enforcement of pseudo-martial law.  This post in no way condones, encourages, or repudiates any of the methods used by law enforcement or protesters, nor does it seek to pass judgment on the incomplete police investigation concerning the death of Michael Brown.  Instead, this post will point out what has happened, and highlight the use of technology to keep the public informed when formal media outlets were unable to.

On August 9th, a recent high school graduate and prospective college student by the name of Michael Brown was killed by a member of the Ferguson Police Department.  There is much speculation surrounding the death, including the order of events leading to it.  Because an official investigation is ongoing, the only thing we know for certain is that Michael Brown, although unarmed, was shot and killed by a Ferguson Police officer.  The people of Ferguson, left heartbroken and mourning, decided to commemorate Michael’s death with a candlelight vigil in the same neighborhood where Mr. Brown was killed.  However, the Ferguson police made an appearance at the vigil, bringing with them police dogs and brandishing high powered assault weapons. In response, the crowds’ emotions turned from grief, to outrage, and escalated to protest as documented by Vine and Youtube uploads as well as Tweets and Facebook posts.

In the midst of the protests, a handful of opportunists taking advantage of high emotions and tension destroyed the property of privately owned businesses by looting, vandalizing, and setting said businesses on fire.  This small group of criminals turned a peaceful protest into a riot, causing the St. Louis County Police Department to take over law enforcement in the area by using a strategy of militarized policing.  Characterizing the entire group of protesters as looters and rioters led to the denigration of the entire protest. This allowed the looters to become scapegoats, which subsequently justified militarized police aggression.  The denigration of a group of people and scapegoating resulting in justified aggression are all characteristic of systemic oppression.

Whether knowingly or unknowingly, St. Louis County PD increased tension when it informed Ferguson residents that neither the autopsy nor the identity of the officer involved in the killing of Michael Brown, would be released to the public.  As protests continued, the peaceful crowds were met with heavily armored trucks and tanks, high powered assault rifles, snipers perched ready and waiting, tear gas, and rubber bullets. The protesters were told by police standing in front of tanks and using loudspeakers, that their right to peacefully assemble was not being denied.  Although a curfew was not set, police made it clear that they wanted protesters off of the streets by nightfall and used tear gas and rubber bullets to push non-compliant protesters back. In some cases, as documented by Vine videos, police shot tear gas canisters into residential areas, including the fenced in backyard of a protester that refused to go inside his home, although he was protesting on his own property.

Police detained journalists and shot tear gas at a news crew they saw filming them.  After the news crew ran away from their van and equipment to escape the tear gas, police were photographed removing their cameras and pointing them toward the ground so they could no longer record police activity.  This is where the pseudo-martial law comes into play. To be clear, martial law was at no time officially declared, but if it looks like a duck and quacks like a duck, then it’s a duck. Disallowing the press to report activity; intimidating protesters with visuals of military-like riot gear; requiring protesters that are peacefully assembling to return to their homes by nightfall; detaining reporters without cause; and the use of militarized police enforcement are all characteristics of martial law.

The use of militarized law enforcement has been noted and called into question by government officials on both sides of the political spectrum.  Outrage by people following the activity in Ferguson on social media forums was voiced both nationally and internationally.  Photos, Vine and Youtube videos, as well as tweets and Facebook posts were the source of the outrage that led to protests in major cities throughout the country and internationally in cities like London.  There was even advice given in the form of Youtube videos to protesters in Ferguson by Palestinians on how to stay protected from tear gas.  As a result of public backlash against militarized policing, the Governor of Missouri, Mr. Jay Nixon, announced that Missouri Highway Patrol would take over law enforcement in Ferguson, and try to set a different tone.

The tone set by Missouri Highway Patrol was one of peace and understanding. Captain Ronald Johnson described his personal connection to not only Ferguson but to the killing of Michael Brown. The change in police technique was noted by formal media outlets as well as social media postings which reported MHP officers walking with protesters instead of standing against them. These officers were not dressed in riot gear nor did they use methods such as tear gas or rubber bullets in their interactions with Ferguson protesters.  In addition, the Ferguson Police Chief has announced they will comply with one of the requests of the protesters, to release the identity of the police officer who shot Michael Brown. That identity was released earlier today.

Not only did social media keep the public informed of minute by minute occurrences in Ferguson, but social media users also pointed out what they believed to be disparities in formal media coverage with hashtags on Twitter and Instagram like #IfIWasGunnedDown.  This particular hashtag was used to show ways in which news coverage portrays black victims by displaying unflattering images as opposed to more positive looking images to influence character assassination of the victims.  Other hashtags like #Ferguson were used to allow social media users to quickly find information related to the Ferguson protests.  While social media is an amazing platform that can be used to inform the public, it also showed differing public opinions.  Some users voiced support for the use of military-like force against protesters and used the incident of looting as evidence for its need.  Others voiced disapproval that such force was being used and accused militarized police enforcement of inciting more anger among peaceful protesters.

It’s unclear what will happen in Ferguson but it should be appreciated that people were able to inform the public, voice their opinions, and urge a public discussion on topics such as race relations, militarized policing, civil liberties, police brutality, and what people consider to be justice or injustice.  Social media opened up the problems of a town with a population of 21,000 to the world, causing people to come together in solidarity and peaceful protest.  If it weren’t for the openness of the Internet here in the US, we may have never known what was happening in Ferguson.  Whether you agree or disagree with what is going on in Ferguson, we can all take heart in knowing we were all able to use social media and technology to be informed and come to our own conclusions.

Teerah Goodrum

Teerah Goodrum is a Graduate of Howard University with a Masters degree in Public Administration and Public Policy. Her time on Capitol Hill as a Science and Technology Legislative Assistant has given her insight into the tech community. In her spare time she enjoys visiting her favorite city, Seattle, and playing fantasy football. Contact Teerah at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post #Ferguson: How Social Media Kept America Informed appeared first on Law Street.

Memes are fun–they’re customizable, shareable, and all over the internet. But they do bring up some important questions about copyright laws and photo ownership. For example, many of you have probably seen the “confused face girl” meme that has gone viral all over social media. While most people find this meme utterly hilarious, a news story spread last week that the “face” of the meme–a girl named Keisha Johnson–wasn’t laughing. In fact, she supposedly tried to sue Instagram for $500 million for copyright infringement and defamation because people keep using a picture of her posted on Instagram as a meme. This story ended up being a fake, created by the satirical news outlet OD Gossip, but news organizations who didn’t know any better still picked it up.

Thanks Hundike

Here were the made-up details of Johnson’s legal battle:

The 16-year-old Alabama native was just hanging out with her friends when one of them took a bad photo of her and uploaded it to Instagram. Almost instantly, the photo went viral and was shared on millions of profiles, including those of celebrities. In addition to turning the photo into a meme, people everywhere have been posing for their own “confused face” photos in apparent attempt to mock Johnson. Clearly embarrassed by the photo, Johnson said, “my face looked ugly like I was about to throw up. I look nothing like that in real life… I’m really a bad b*tch!”

While this made-up girl named Keisha Johnson did not, obviously, sue Instagram for $500 million, the story and resulting press attention got me thinking: what would happen if someone were to actually sue Instagram? Well, according to the Instagram terms and conditions that every user must agree to before they sign up for the social media site, people who use the network are responsible for the content that they choose to share.  Now in fairness, in the hypothetical story, Johnson was not the one who posted the photo. However, according to the terms, her friends would have been 100 percent responsible for choosing to embarrass their friend. So hypothetically, if the girl in the photo were to sue someone, it’s her friends who are responsible for deciding to post a bad photo of her, not Instagram.

The site OD Gossip also released another fake story about another fake lawsuit–this time over a selfie that was turned into a meme. According to OD Gossip, “Makayla Edwards,” known more commonly as the topless boy/girl face a** meme, has also decided to file a defamation lawsuit against Instagram. Just like the story about Johnson, this is a hoax, but there have been millions of photos posted to people’s Instagram accounts making fun of the meme. The photo has also popped up on sites like Facebook and Twitter.

Now as previously established, the fake “Makayla Edwards” cannot sue Instagram for people choosing to repost her photo. But, is there anything stopping her from suing the people who reposted her photo? In order to figure this out, I looked into copyright laws and how they apply to social media selfies.

First, it’s important to understand the basic copyright laws for online images. Copyright attaches to a work, in this case an image, as soon as it is created. Unlike with patents and trademarks, people do not need to apply for a copyright, it’s automatic. So once you create an image–by drawing it, creating it on the computer, or by taking a photo–you have the rights to do whatever you want with it. This includes reproducing it, displaying it publicly, altering it, selling it, and distributing it.

But most of us don’t create our own images, we use ones created by others. In order to legally use someone else’s image, you must get express permission from the copyright owner and, once you get permission, give them proper credit for the image. Now, there are ways that you can legally use a copyrighted image without getting permission, such as by using one with a creative commons license, but these likely do not apply to social media photos.

So what are the rules when it comes to social media, where people constantly and publicly post their photos for anyone to see? According to Social Media Today, images posted on social media sites are still bound by copyright. This means that if you want to use or re-post someone else’s photo on Facebook or Instagram, you need their permission.

So these made-up lawsuits are not completely ridiculous–they probably could happen, although for way less money. However, if anyone has a reason to sue, it’s the person who took the picture, not the girl in it. And they wouldn’t be suing Instagram, but the millions of people who re-posted the photo without permission. Still, next time you snap a silly selfie, or take a bad picture of a friend, these rules are something to keep in mind.

—

Brittany Alzfan (@BrittanyAlzfan) is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Shawn Ahmed via Flickr]

Brittany Alzfan

Brittany Alzfan is a student at the George Washington University majoring in Criminal Justice. She was a member of Law Street’s founding Law School Rankings team during the summer of 2014. Contact Brittany at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Memes and Selfies: Internet Trends Bring New Copyright Issues appeared first on Law Street.

Hey y’all!

Like it or not we live in a social media world — it is sometimes shoved down our throats when we don’t want it to be. No matter what show I watch, especially the news, everyone has a Facebook, Twitter, Instagram, YouTube, Vine, or Pinterest logo popping up on the screen attached to the handle of whomever is speaking at that moment. Don’t get me wrong, I love social media, but I wonder how far we have allowed this phenomenon to take us that soon-to-be married couples are considering Social Media Prenups.

I tend to be a fairly private person and I don’t post every move I make on Facebook. My Twitter, on the other hand, is an outlet for everything that is going on, but I try to keep it as anonymous as possible for others involved. With that said, there are plenty of people out there who put their entire lives on Facebook and Instagram. I think it’s great if you are one of those people, you are braver than I am. But where do you draw the line?

I always thought a prenuptial agreement was something that was drawn up for a couple on the incase that the marriage might go south and the individuals need to protect themselves during the fallout. When did dictating what a person can or cannot do during the marriage based on social media become a thing? Why would you marry someone who did not respect your verbal wishes of keeping certain things private and between each other and not put it out for the whole world to see? This concept of a social media prenup screams a lack of respect for one another’s privacy and wishes, so maybe you shouldn’t marry that person if he can’t do the simplest of things. Not to mention that respect should be a deal breaker. If you don’t respect the other person then why are you with them?

I love social media, but this is getting out of hand. Penalizing your spouse for posting a picture, really!?! That’s unnecessary drama just waiting to happen. I do understand that if the marriage ends and your now-ex decides to post awful pictures and sexual videos or slander your name, you have every right to penalize them and that should be something included in a prenup — or even just a simple contract for married couples. But just because your husband posts a picture of you that you think doesn’t look good should not warrant a fee. Simply ask him to take the photo down! And if he refuses, y’all have bigger issues than a bad photo on the internet.

According to ABC News, people are also creating “love contracts,” which are essentially something that promotes a way of communicating and understanding one another’s boundaries. I think it’s a good idea but attaching a financial penalty to posting a bad photo is just insane, petty, and childish. Laying out a plan and understanding ways of better communication should be something every couple does before getting married.

Go out and enjoy life. Share it on Facebook, Instagram, Twitter, YouTube, or Vine. Just don’t cross a line that you know would upset your significant other. Respect your relationship and respect social media.

—

Allison Dawson (@AllyD528) Born in Germany, raised in Mississippi and Texas. Graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University. Currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative.

Featured image courtesy of [Quinn Dombrowski via Flickr]

Allison Dawson

Allison Dawson was born in Germany and raised in Mississippi and Texas. A graduate of Texas Tech University and Arizona State University, she’s currently dedicating her life to studying for the LSAT. Twitter junkie. Conservative. Get in touch with Allison at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Don’t Jump on the Social Media Prenup Bandwagon appeared first on Law Street.

The advent of social media has meant that the average person documents his or her activities to a far greater extent than previous generations. On Instagram, we might sneak a photo at work. On Tumblr, we might yawn out a recap of our emotional well being. On Twitter, we might spit out spontaneous thoughts and capture everything we like, share, comment on, and much more on Facebook. Collectively, all of this activity narrates a quite detailed story about our lives.

A major question emerges from this new, sweeping social presence: should all of this sharing warrant celebration or fear?

A recent federal case provides a nice angle to explore this issue. In Vasquez v. Metro-North, an employee of Metro-North Railroads sued the company after he injured his wrist at the workplace. Vasquez, the employee, claims Metro-North aggravated his injury by asking him to return back to work before he fully recovered. To rebut Vasquez’s claim, Metro-North points to social media photographs of Vasquez lifting weights after his injury and claims that if he can perform that activity, then he can do what he needs to do at his job.

Should Metro-North be permitted to use photographs of Vasquez from social media in a court trial about a worker’s injury?

One key fact concerns whether the photographs were publicly accessible or private. Could courts allow one party to access the private photographs and information contained on the other party’s social media sites? Certainly, a different sentiment emerges if the user makes the information publicly available as opposed to if the person shared it to a small group of people.

But, should it matter? If the issue in a trial concerns finding the truth, should one party be able to selectively search through private social media information of the other party in the pursuit of justice? If Vasquez really attempted to milk the system, it might benefit society to find a corrective for such free riding, even if that corrective involves accessing the private social media information of another party.

Alternatively, this raises heavy privacy concerns and we might be uncomfortable with the potential for abuse. A photograph lacks exactitude and access to social media accounts might confuse juries with an abundance of mildly relevant crumbs. Vasquez argues that though he could life weights during the time in question, his wrist would not allow him to perform his job functions. Does weight-lifting really parallel the functions anyone performs at a job such that it can reveal anything meaningful about a person’s capacity? It is difficult to know.

More clear is the notion that this issue might not have surfaced even five years ago. Only in the modern social media age do we casually photograph ourselves at the gym and post it with a relatively certified timestamp. And only now do we have to worry about how this sharing might come back to serve a more twisted purpose.

—

Imran Ahmed is a law student and writer living in New York City whose blog explores the legal implications of social media and the internet. Contact him via email here.

Featured image courtesy of [tpdave via Pixabay]

Imran Ahmed

Imran Ahmed is a writer living in New York. Contact Imran at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Your Gym Selfies Might Be Used Against You in Court appeared first on Law Street.

In recent years, social media has become intrinsically linked with daily life. From dining to retail to business to politics, almost every public figure or company uses some sort of social media. Whether it’s Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, Pinterest, Youtube, or one of the many other options, social media isn’t just for individuals anymore, it’s for businesses, too. It’s estimated that 73 percent of Americans who regularly use the internet are involved in social media and networking in some capacity.

Working in social media is actually a viable and legitimate job for many people right now. An AOL jobs post from January 2014 projects that this year a Social Media Strategist will make about $61,000, require a bachelor’s degree, and points out that “the more social media followers a company has, the more their products and services are recognized.”

So, how are law firms doing with this? Well, a firm called Good2bSocial tried to answer that question this winter. Good2bSocial is a consulting firm that helps other companies expand their social marketing, particularly in the legal field. They worked together with AboveTheLaw to attempt to figure out how exactly the legal industry, particularly leaders in the industry, are doing with social media. The results were that big law firms are doing a pretty miserable job with it.

A white paper called “The Social Law Firm” by Good2bSocial was released last December, and followup articles have been released since then. The white paper itself requires a (free) subscription to Good2bSocial’s site, but if you don’t feel like reading the entire thing, I’ve summed up some important points below.

The study essentially analyzed the social media practices of the Am Law 50. It was conducted through surveys and questionnaires and an analysis of existing social media sites for each of the firms.

The study pretty much finds that while many law firms use social media, and use it extensively, they don’t use it in the most efficient or creative ways. The use of social media is described as a “token effort,” because law firms create social media sites to say that they have them, and so that they’re searchable, but don’t take advantage of the potential that those sites offer. Good2bSocial points out that social media takes real strategy separate from basic marketing. While law firms are creating substantive and interesting content, they are not using social media to promote such content as much as they could be.

Law firms have gotten that social media is important, it just really seems like they haven’t begun to understand how it works. The report states that “firms continue to view social media as nothing more than a distribution channel for firm news and press releases. This alone explains why firms achieve such low levels of engagement.” Uploading a pdf link to twitter isn’t engaging, it isn’t going to foster discussion, and it isn’t going to attract more followers.

Another mistake made by law firms, according to this study, is that they don’t have platforms in place to allow for coordination and collaboration within the firm, or in-house blogs. All of these things are not only attractive concepts for clients or potential employees, but also are helpful and engaging for current employees. The study does predict that this will all change, but that change is slow going and many firms are just beginning to scratch the surface of their social media potential.

The study does note that smaller firms are doing a better job with social media, but overall the conclusion remains that the field of law in general is lacking in social media prowess.

This begs an important question, though. Should law firms even care about social media, especially big, established firms like the Am Law 50? Social media is so crucial for places like retail stores, restaurants, or other product-based businesses because these places can attract new customers through the web. Is the same true for big law firms? Will interesting social media make clients more likely to visit that firm?

Well to be honest, I don’t know. Part of me wants to say absolutely not, these law firms have their niches and their reputations on which to rely. Engaging social media probably won’t have as large of an effect on their track record, as say, a good track record. On the other hand, though, social media can’t hurt. It could attract employees who find the idea of a collaborative social media experience within in the firm interesting. And as the business world changes, clients shopping around for new law firms may be interesting in finding lawyers who are as technologically savvy as they are.

The fact that smaller law firms are doing better with social media is very interesting. It’s unsurprising, given that I would assume smaller firms are more likely to try to actively attract new business, and are more willing to experiment with different outreach techniques.

In conclusion, Good2bSocial’s rundown was very interesting, but I don’t think social media will end up meaning that much for the Am Law 50 that were analyzed. The different nature of consumers of law services rather than other products make social media less of a necessity and more of a bonus. That being said, there’s much more to be gained by instituting a robust social media strategy than to be lost, and really, big law firms should consider getting on the bandwagon.

[Good2bSocial]

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Jason Howle via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Law Firms Are Bad at Social Media, But Does it Matter? appeared first on Law Street.

The popular picture-sharing social network Instagram has definitely cornered the market on sharing brunch memories and beach photos. But now there’s a new, surprising, industry developing from the network that originally made a name for itself with teenage and college-aged girls. Instagram has now become a forum to sell guns.

Gun regulations vary state by state, but many states do not have laws in place governing online sales. While companies and official sellers have laws that they must follow, individual private sellers are not necessarily held to the same constraints. For the most part, the ATF does not get involved in occasional private sales. They encourage sellers to go to a licensed dealer and get a background check for the people to whom they are selling; however, it’s not really enforced. This market, which is at least superficially anonymous, is almost completely unregulated. On Instagram, you can find everything from small handguns to assault rifles.

Sam Hoover from the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence, in a statement to the Daily Beast stated, “private sales to in-state buyers are almost completely unregulated by federal law. No background check and no record of sale are required unless state law fills this gap.” That is the venue through which most of these sales are made. Essentially, private sellers are selling firearms almost completely anonymously to people within their state who have no need to pass a background check or anything of the sort.

Online sites that are created for the purpose of sales—for example Craigslist or Ebay—have rules that prohibit the casual selling of firearms. But a site like Instagram, which has no innate sales function, does not have any rules of those sorts.

The issue isn’t that these types of sales are by any means illegal—the issue is that the vast majority of them are. Technology allows a forum for sales that laws never thought to outlaw. Before the Internet, if someone wanted to buy a gun privately, they would have to hear about the sale from a friend, or possibly go to some sort of semi-black marketplace. Laws weren’t created to prevent these kinds of sales, because they were relatively sparse. Now, with the Internet, these sales are incredibly easy to complete. Just searching Instagram for the keywords, or tags, that indicate sales, yields the ability to purchase firearms.

The actual magnitude of this marketplace is unknown—the Daily Beast reported as though there were many sales happening each week, while a Slate article disagreed and estimated that only a few sales happened in a given week. Regardless of who’s right, these sales do appear to happen. And if they happen on Instagram, a site that is a social network and by no means created for sales, there’s every possibility that they could be happening on other forums.

There have been a few select cases of legal action being pursued against sellers on Instagram. A few months ago, a rapper and DJ in Brooklyn, NY, talked about selling guns on Instagram and Youtube. Authorities went forward with a gun bust that resulted in a net raid of 254 guns. Because these were not simply occasional sales made between individuals, charges could be pressed. Unfortunately, that will not be the case with most of these gun sales.

—

Anneliese Mahoney (@AMahoney8672) is Lead Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

Featured image courtesy of [Brent Danley via Flickr]

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Follow Your Friends…And Arms Dealers on Instagram appeared first on Law Street.

The double standard of a generation. The ultimate oxymoron.

Each year major companies including Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Google, constantly revise their terms and conditions—making it even harder for users to monitor and control who is able to view their content.

It may come as a surprise to many, but these companies OWN everything you post. That’s right, what is yours, is theirs. Just recently, Google announced a change in privacy, allowing them to access Google+ profile pictures and comments as a mean of advertising. Likewise, Facebook announced this Wednesday that  content posted by teenagers, individuals ages 13-17, are now not only accessible to people who know their friends, but anyone who types in the right keywords.

This forbidding future allots cyber bullying, moreover the increased accessibility to child pornography, elicit content, and internet stalking.

The Internet is evolving. Privacy used to have some standards. Now it’s a savage free for all, even children are subject to.

All of this brings up a pressing question: If random people on the Internet have access to private user generate content, can the government?

Yes. No question. In fact, this has been happening prior to the current revisions in dot-com privacy policies.

In Policy Mic’s article, PRISM: The 8 Tech Companies Who Gave Your Data to the Government Have This to Say About the Scandal, Google states, “Google cares deeply about the security of our users’ data. We disclose user data to governments in accordance with the law, and we review all such requests carefully. From time to time, people allege that we have created a government ‘backdoor’ into our systems, but Google does not have a backdoor for the government to access user data.”

To break this quote down, Google basically said, “We do not hand your content to the government on a golden platter. They have to ask nicely, and then, only then, will give it to them what they want in a paper lunch bag—not gold”.

Different phrasing, same idea. This brings up the much-needed talk about legislation to protect the user. Congress needs to look into these corporations’ exploitation of user content.

This is unlike anything we have seen before, and there are relatively no laws protecting the users. Should there be? Absolutely. But that may result in a much different Internet, an Internet where you pay to use websites. One way or another you are paying, it just depends if you want to pay with your identity.

[NewYorkTimes] [PolicyMic]

—

Featured image courtesy of [g4II4is via Flickr]

Zachary Schneider

Zach Schneider is a student at American University and formerly an intern at Law Street Media. Contact Zach at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Privacy or the Internet: Choose One appeared first on Law Street.