SOCIAL MEDIA LAWSUITS

Ronald and Martha Wimmer, the parents of a NY murder victim, are suing Facebook after a paramedic pleaded guilty to taking a picture of their daughter's corpse and posting it on the social media website.  The picture has since been removed from Facebook.  However, the Wimmers have told CNN they want their daughter's picture back.  The parents are suing Facebook in hopes of making Facebook turn over the image, identify who may have downloaded the image, and prevent further dissemination of it. 

Facebook's spokesperson, Andrew Noyes, says the case is without merit and claims that Facebook will fight it vigorously.  Legally, he may be right.  Facebook could be protected by the 1996 Communications Decency Act, which states, "...no provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider."  Generally speaking, the Act protects websites from liability stemming from the publication of information provided by another content carrier or website. 

The rapid rise of social media has resulted in the litigation of several legal issues in the areas of privacy, intellectual property, ID theft, defamation, and self-incrimination.  And, there is little to no legal precedent for many of the social media related issues being raised.

To learn more about the various legal issues involving social media sites, check out Jeff Louis' article "Social Media Lawsuits:  Your Posts and Pics Can Screw You."  Louis discusses issues involving intellectual property use and theft, defamation, and self-incrimination.  Louis appropriately warns us that during the social media age, it is critical for social media users to be familiar with the laws, and how they pertain to social media.  He reminds us that the things we post on social networks and blogs can potentially follow us for the rest of your lives.   

GOING TO A STRIP CLUB CAN BE DANGEROUS BUSINESS

While reading up on lawsuits around the country, I learned of some cases involving strip club patrons suing clubs for personal injuries sustained as a result of some, ummm...dangerous shoes.

In October, a Florida man won a $650,000 judgment (yes, I said $650,000) against the Cheetah strip club, after being struck in the face by a dancer's shoe.  He claims to have suffered broken bones and chronic double-vision after the shoe made contact with his eye.

Seems as if the $650,000 judgment has given hope to other unfortunate strip club patrons...An Ohio man has filed a $25,000 lawsuit for injuries he claims to have sustained from a high kick gone wrong - the dancer's boot flew off and him in the face.  As a result, he says he had to undergo nose surgery because he could only breath out of one nostril.

An Indiana man is also claiming to be a victim of a stripper shoe assault while frequenting PT's Showclub.  He claims he was standing about 20 feet away from the stage when a dancer's shoe flew off and struck him in the mouth.  According to his lawyer, he had to get veneers and temporary caps because the shoe chipped four teeth.  He says he may even need a root canal. 

Other litigants have not been so successful with their cases.  In the late 90's, a physical therapist from Florida sued the Diamond Dolls club for $15,000, for injuries he says he sustained after being hit in the face by Playboy cover girl Tawny Peaks' size-69HH breasts.  The case was eventually aired on "The People's Court", where former New York mayor Ed Koch presided over the televised trial.  Judge Koch eventually ruled in favor of Ms. Peaks, after a female court officer examined Peaks' breasts in private and determined they were too soft to have caused the alleged injuries.

Several other personal injury cases have been filed against strip clubs, almost all of them involving platform shoes.  So, next time you decide to frequent a strip club, watch out for flying shoes!

DO-GOODERS BEWARE!!

Unfortunately, scam artists are getting really good at taking advantage of those of us wanting to lend a hand to those less fortunate.  In a press release today, Oregon Attorney General John Kroger warned Oregonians to beware of scammers exploiting the recent tragedy of the Japanese earthquake for their own financial gain.  Kroger warned the public of hackers who are "...using alleged video footage of the disaster in Japan linked to malware and online surveys that are designed to extract personal information.  For example, one report describes a video linked to a scammer's Facebook account.  By clicking on the video, the viewer's personal information shared on Facebook becomes available to the scammer."

Here are some tips offered by the Attorney General's Office to help you steer clear of getting scammed:

• Be sure you're contributing to a legit organization registered with the Attorney General's Office by searching the department's online database or calling (971) 673-1880.  You can also visit GuideStar or Charity Navigator to get detailed information about charities and their performance.
• Donate to established charities.  Make sure the charity has been around before the disaster.
• Do not respond to email requests from supposed disaster victims.  Unless you know someone in Japan, these requests are almost always scams.  Also, be wary of donation requests or videos posted on social media sites, such as Facebook.
• Do not give out any of your personal information over via phone, text or email.  Legitimate charities are willing to receive a contribution by check.  Do not send contributions with a "runner," by wire or overnight parcel pick-up service.
• Beware of calls, emails and texts requesting fast money.  If you're unfamiliar with the charity, always ask for written materials.  No legit organization will insist that you donate immediately.  Also, watch out for solicitors who employ dramatic, emotional or heart-tugging stories.

If you would like to make a contribution to Japanese earthquake victims, here is a list of legitimate charities:

• American Humane Association
• AmeriCares
• Convoy of Hope
• Doctors Without Borders
• International Federation of Red Cross and Red Crescent Societies
• Oxfam Great Britain
• The Salvation Army in Japan
• Save the Children
• ShelterBox
• World Vision
• International Medical Corps

Ballot Measure 11

The Oregon Criminal Justice Commission recently released a controversial report regarding Ballot Measure 11, a citizens' initiative establishing mandatory minimum sentences for certain felony person crimes.  Oregon voters approved the ballot in November, 1994.  BM 11 applies to all criminal defendants, ages 15 and up, which means juveniles who are at least 15 years old, are tried as adults for certain crimes.  Person crimes falling under BM 11 include Assault, Robbery, Sodomy and Manslaughter.  Those sentenced under BM 11 are ineligible for probation, parole and early release from prison.

Proponents of the Measure felt that judges were being too lenient when it came to sentencing of violent offenders.  While the opposition felt judges should use their discretion when sentencing individuals.

In it's Report, the Criminal Justice Commission found that the Measure has shifted power to the prosecutors, by giving them the upperhand in plea negotiations involving lesser crimes.  The Commision further concluded that BM 11 hasn't worked.  However, prosecutors and many victims' rights advocates believe BM 11 is an effective tool and has drastically reduced violent crimes.

I am curious to hear what you, the general public, think of BM 11.  Is it effective?  Should it be abolished?  Let's hear what you think...