Neighbor News
Tort Law In the Age of Social Media
Social media has changed the way we communicate, but to what extent are tech companies responsible for policing their users?
The integration of the internet into society is something that all industries have been forced to adapt to quickly, with numerous missteps along the way. Issues such as privacy, libel, and liability have all been run through the lens of the internet, particularly when it comes to social media. Never before has information been able to spread so much so quickly—whether true or false. Newer cases have started to test the limits of currents laws to adequately legislate on social media issues.
Social media companies protect themselves through Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides broad immunity to services when individuals claim them as a “publisher or speaker” of content. However, the lines become blurred in some cases where a social media company was targeted in some other role. Such was the case with Cohen v. Facebook, Inc., in which plaintiffs sued Facebook for allegedly allowing terrorists to organize attacks on the platform. They argued that Facebook was not policing its accounts and doing everything in its power to crack down on them, in contrast to Section 230 which primarily deals with content. The court found that the content was the cause of the plaintiff’s injury rather than the ability of individuals to create Facebook accounts.
Cases like these demonstrate the holes inherent in Section 230, written in 1996 before the advent of massive social media platforms such as Facebook and Twitter. Traditional tort principles are still in effect when social media platforms define their relationships with their users, as disclaiming any sort of special relationship (i.e. teacher/student, employer/employee) eliminates some of the ambiguity when it comes to these cases.
Outside of a social network’s liability, the internet has also tested the tort of defamation in exchanges between users. One such exchange occurred between tabloid columnist Ms. Katie Hopkins and political activist Ms. Jack Monroe. After Hopkins posted an inflammatory tweet directed at Monroe concerning the vandalism of war memorials, the conflict between the two escalated into defamation proceedings. The court’s judgment found Hopkins liable for damages, taking into account the context of the preceding conversation and the meaning behind the tweet that a hypothetical Twitter reader would be expected to understand.
Harder still to define is the harm caused by something like an inflammatory social media post. In Monroe v. Hopkins, while the damage was not considered severe, the court agreed that the posts could cause damage to third parties considering that Monroe is a public figure. The court also rejected the notion that tweets are less harmful to reputation due to their conversational nature.
When it comes to social media, the law is struggling to catch up to the nuances of how individuals conduct themselves. With social media comes a host of unspoken rules that can be difficult to legislate. However, modern cases are helping to set a precedent that allows for free speech without the impunity to launch personal attacks on others.
Originally posted on michaelchhabra.net
