Users looking to post a nude photo or video to Reddit will soon have to do something they’ve never done before–get consent!

Reddit is taking a stand against revenge porn and sexual exploitation by making revisions to its digital privacy guidelines that will become effective March 10. The user-curated news and social networking site is banning sexually explicit images or videos where those photographed or filmed haven’t given their permission. These changes come as a somewhat delayed response to Reddit’s major role in the massive iCloud hack of celebrity nude photos in August.

Yesterday morning Reddit executives addressed their mission to protect users’ digital privacy in a post writing:

Last year, we missed a chance to be a leader in social media when it comes to protecting your privacy — something we’ve cared deeply about since reddit’s inception. At our recent all hands company meeting, this was something that we all, as a company, decided we needed to address.

No matter who you are, if a photograph, video, or digital image of you in a state of nudity, sexual excitement, or engaged in any act of sexual conduct, is posted or linked to on reddit without your permission, it is prohibited on reddit. We also recognize that violent personalized images are a form of harassment that we do not tolerate and we will remove them when notified

The “missed chance” the post is referring to was when a subreddit called “TheFappening” was created to link to curate all of the criminally obtained images procured in the 2014 celebrity photo hack. Some of the celebrities targeted included Jennifer Lawrence, Kate Upton and Olympic gold medalist McKayla Maroney, whose images may have constituted child pornography since they were taken while she was reportedly underage. The subreddit garnered thousands of followers in just one day and stayed live until September 6 when it was banned by the site after being widely chastised.

The whole nude photos leak controversy definitely led to some backlash against Reddit, including this entertaining flowchart by New York Magazine:

Should we ban that subreddit? A flowchart by Reddit admins: http://t.co/RhS9wKEyI1 pic.twitter.com/Tz54dsWdr8

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) September 9, 2014

But all that’s changing. Now, if you feel like you have been a victim of involuntary pornography a new section added to Reddit’s privacy policy asks you to send an email to contact@reddit.com with a link to the image or video in question and they will “expedite its removal as quickly as possible.”

The real question is whether or not other social sharing sites will join Reddit in improving their digital privacy policies. Tumblr will be one of those sites to watch, as it was also used to distribute the controversial and illegal leaked nude photos. While the site nicely urges members to not upload sexually explicit content in its community guidelines, it essentially operates as a unofficial porn site in many ways–nude photos and videos are regularly and eagerly shared. Adopting a policy like the one Reddit is looking to implement would drastically change its microblogging platform and potentially anger users. Still a precedent needs to be made to protect both women and men from having their personal photos become public either unknowingly or unwillingly.

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 Reddit Finally Prohibits Revenge Porn 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.

On Sunday September 21, a recently appointed UN ambassador gave a speech on gender equality that received a standing ovation. That ambassador was Emma Watson, the 24-year-old woman most know for playing Hermione Granger in the Harry Potter films. Her topic was feminism and a campaign the UN is launching called “HeForShe,” which Watson will spearhead. You can watch the entire speech below.

Since Sunday, Watson’s speech has gone viral, garnering support both for her cause and for feminism itself. I was especially pleased to see one of my own Facebook friends share the video with the caption: “Worth the watch, for both men and women! Gave me a whole new perspective on the word ‘feminist’.”

Good! That was the point. Watson shares not only the true definition of feminism, but says that thinking of feminists as “man haters” needs to stop. She said that becoming a feminist should be “uncomplicated” and did not narrow her audience to just women. It was a brilliant speech, and completely deserved the standing ovation.

As is to be expected, what with the internet being the internet, she has also received negative feedback. Some users of 4Chan have created a website threatening to reveal sexually explicit pictures of Watson, claiming that they will somehow demean or demolish her feminist views. Rush Limbaugh (who I think should be taken off air immediately) said in his September 23 broadcast: “I know exactly what she’s talking about here, and it’s youth speaking, it’s youthful idealism speaking.  I mean, the truth is every man knows that women run things…That’s been the problem with feminism all along.  Feminism has sought to change basic human nature, and you can’t do that no matter what you do.”

Wow. Thanks for the vote of confidence, Rush!

Other anonymous critics on sites like Reddit, tumblr, and Imgur agree with Watson’s views on feminism but take issue with the name “HeForShe,” arguing that the preposition “for” implies that men will do all the work and women will sit idly by as males react to her call for action. Still others complain that Watson’s celebrity is giving her an unfair advantage on issues like gender equality; that someone less famous or less attractive should have been able to stand up there and give the speech to the same effect.

Each of these arguments stems, I think, from a place of fear. People don’t like change, and with Watson’s speech taking on the momentum it already has, gender equality has made an enormous leap forward. This is threatening to those who are so entrenched in their male-dominated world that they wouldn’t see it change for anything. To those people I say: too damn bad! Society has changed a thousand times over, and it certainly isn’t done.

Let’s address each of these critiques briefly, so I can point out where they have veered off from logic.

Just a few weeks ago, users of 4chan hacked the phones of female celebrities and leaked their nude photographs online. These same people are at it again, thinking that showing feminist, female celebrities as sexual creatures will somehow undermine their feminist message. The short answer is: it won’t. Just because a woman enjoys sex or flaunts her sexuality does not mean she can’t be a feminist. In fact, if a woman is so comfortable in her own skin that nude photos being leaked doesn’t even phase her, that’s a feminist I would hope people idolize.

As for Rush Limbaugh, he is a prime example of a man who sees his male-dominance being threatened and lashes out in any way possible. His claim that “Feminism has sought to change basic human nature” is bullshit. Human nature may be to blame for many of our baser instincts, like seeking out a mate or wanting to procreate, but one gender dominating the other actually comes — most often — from various religions. Ancient, pagan religions favor women above men, and religions like Christianity favor men. Over the years, society took those religious doctrines and accepted them as fact. Oh and losing the “man-hating” connotation that comes from the word “feminism” being “youthful idealism”? Wrong again, Rush. Feminism isn’t just for 24 year olds, and some of gender equality’s most prevalent spokespeople are decades older than Watson.

Next up, the problem with the name “HeForShe,” If you listen to Watson’s entire speech, you’ll hear her call on men AND women multiple times. She wants women to stop being afraid of calling themselves feminists, and for men to accept the title just as willingly. The name, to me, means that, since men are currently the dominant gender, men need to be a driving force behind changing that. It does not mean that women will sit idly by, it means that both genders will work together to achieve equality. As they should.

Finally, Watson’s celebrity makes me thankful she was the one to make that speech. In a perfect world, any man or woman could have made that speech and gotten the same response, but this is not a perfect world. I have said before that celebrities using their fame to support important causes should be admired, not shamed. Waton’s expansive fan base of both men and women made her the perfect person to make that speech, because those fans that truly respect her will hear it, believe it, and share it.

So, as a fan of Emma Watson and of gender equality, I intend to answer her call to action and continue supporting feminism. After you hear it, what will you do?

Morgan McMurray

Morgan McMurray is an editor and gender equality blogger based in Seattle, Washington. A 2013 graduate of Iowa State University, she has a Bachelor of Arts in English, Journalism, and International Studies. She spends her free time writing, reading, teaching dance classes, and binge-watching Netflix. Contact Morgan at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Answer Emma Watson’s Call for Gender Equality appeared first on Law Street.

A fight is brewing between law enforcement officials and Facebook, and it’s just gotten some new players in the form of other social media companies. New York City has been trying to use evidence posted on Facebook as proof of fraud committed by government employees. The city has now run afoul of some of the largest social network companies, who are arguing that the actions taken by the NYPD and prosecutors are violating their users’ Fourth Amendment rights.

It all started when the NYPD discovered that a number of government employees–including fireman, police officers, and others–had been taking disability payments without actually being disabled. Evidence of their fraud came from their Facebook accounts–some of the employees supposedly on disability were also engaging in clearly strenuous physical activities during the same time period. There were also private messages sent through the social network in which the alleged fraudsters admitted to their wrongdoing.

The investigators got a warrant to search the Facebook accounts of the employees that they thought were breaking the law, as well as accounts of their families, friends, and other acquaintances. While they did eventually succeed, it was only after Facebook argued strongly against the investigation. Facebook claimed that the search of private accounts is “unreasonable” and skirts Fourth Amendment protections. The company is now filing an appeal making the same argument–and they’ve got some friends backing them up. Foursquare, Kickstarter, MeetUp, and Tumblr have all decided to stand with Facebook. The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) and the New York Civil Liberties Union will also be getting involved.

This case is yet another example of how the intersection between new technology and existing laws can get quite messy. The warrant originally requested by the NYPD involved a grand total of 381 Facebook accounts–many of which were only connected tangentially. The requested accounts had interacted with those of the accused–nothing more. Facebook argued that the search of those 381 accounts was tantamount to searching roughly 400 homes. That argument is fair, but a bit stretched. If there was a crime committed, the NYPD would have the right to search 400 houses, as long as they could prove it was reasonable.

In response, Facebook’s Deputy Chief Counsel Chris Sonderby argued,

It appeared to us from the outset that there would be a large number of people who were never charged in court. The district attorney’s response was that these people would have their day in court. There are more than 300 people that will never have that chance.

But according to NYPD and prosecutors, they did just that–they provided almost 100 pages of documentation explaining why they were searching each account when they requested the warrant.

There’s also the question of what right Facebook has to the accounts in their system. They challenged the warrant on behalf of their clients, and there’s a lot of legal ambiguity as to whether they were able to do so. They most certainly could not have alerted their clients that they were being investigated–that would have been impeding an investigation. Facebook claims that this created a big problem for their attorneys–they couldn’t do anything to stop it on their clients’ behalf, and they couldn’t do anything to warn their customers to get them involved.

The fact that other social networks have now said they’re going to join this legal fight will go a long way. As electronic communications become more and more popular, existing laws may not be able to keep up. While the collective action of social media companies may be forming a powerful lobby, whether or not their arguments for privacy and Fourth Amendment rights will prevail is up to the appeals court.

—

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 [Nick Booth 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 Social Media Search Warrant Fight Heats Up 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.