Mother Sues After Bebo Story Hits Press 305
slick_shoes notes a story out of England: a woman named Amanda Hudson is suing six national newspapers for defamation and breach of privacy after they ran stories based on her 15-year-old daughter's exaggerated claims about her party, published on her Bebo site. The party was held at the family's £4m villa in Spain, and the daughter's account claimed that jewelery had been stolen and furniture and a television set thrown into the swimming pool; in addition there were claims of sex and drug use. The mother says that this was all falsehood and exaggeration. A number of newspapers picked up claims and photos from Bebo and ran them nationally. From the article: "The case is expected to have far-reaching consequences for third parties who use or publish information from social networking sites. Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites."
Editors? (Score:5, Insightful)
> Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites
Isn't that what newspaper reporters and editors are for?
Rich teenage girl parties are news? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that some party thrown by a rich 15 year old girl is national news is kind-of depressing. Am I missing something?
Re:Editors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Fact checking is so last century. In the NEW and CONNECTED world of WEB 2.0, flash-mobs in the blogosphere fact check everything for you!
Re:Rich teenage girl parties are news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Buy a dictionary.. (Score:2, Insightful)
Hey, bitch - buy your daughter a damned dictionary and have her look up the meaning of the word "publish".
Then you look up the word "parent" and do your fucking job (hint - it doesn't involve suing a third party when your spawn does something stupid).
typical irresonsible parent (Score:5, Insightful)
The only relevant fact that newspapers needed to check was that it was actually the 15-year old daughter that put it up for the world to see. Other than that, as the legal guardian, if the mother didn't want her daughter to post this information, she should have been a better parent.
There might actually be a case others have against the mother for defamation of character, since she is responsible for the actions of her daughter, and her daughter might have defamed them.
I wish parents would stop blaming other people for their own failings. Until their children come off age, what the kids do and what happens to the kids is the parents' sole responsibility.
Re:Editors? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think that having incorrect information would tend to dissuade customers from parting with their money
Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to BS (Score:5, Insightful)
Newspapers have always had the responsibility to verify their stories, why should that change simply because the information's off the web?
Re:would it make a difference (Score:4, Insightful)
A newspaper or TV station should ALWAYS identify it's source. This attitude that seeing it online is somehow equivalent to being an eyewitness is silly and dangerous. I hope they lose this stupid case just so we can get some journalistic integrity back for when it matters.
Re:Rich teenage girl parties are news? (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact that newspapers published the account is not "news for nerds." The story is just background for what actually is important news - namely that there could be precedent in the UK for holding news organizations accountable for publishing second hand information without fact checking.
I wonder if the "compromise" will be that from now on newspapers will add "as reported on [insert blog name here]" on every such story meaning that they would pass responsibility for accuracy to the original source.
Re:What an age we live in. (Score:5, Insightful)
Publishing something does not make it a fact. It simply makes it published. If the information is not true, you can still get your pants sued off, as these newspapers are finding out.
That's why you should always check your sources. Learn to protect yourself from libel suits.
Re:Editors? (Score:5, Insightful)
You'd think that having incorrect information would tend to dissuade customers from parting with their money
You'd think, but sadly, no.
Re:Editors? (Score:5, Insightful)
If that was true most of the tabloids would have gone bankrupt years ago.
Re:Editors? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Editors? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Freedom of speech doesn't mean freedom to BS (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Editors? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sadly for the plaintiff the account came from a member of the family in a published journal (her daughter's website). How many times have there been stories of say Slashdot which were questionable. Then the comments started to fly.
Still it all boils down to the daughter's web posting. It's close enough a legitimate source for a judge to toss it. If a journalist made it up out of whole clothe that's one thing this is from a direct source.
Who may be a liar.
Re:Editors? (Score:2, Insightful)
We'll have to agree to disagree on that one. Tabloids occasionally print the truth. And they occasionally do fact checking... more than can be said for the "establishment" mouthpieces that are the newspapers and media "outlets" of today. All they reprint is the "government press release" because we know they never lie to anyone, right?
Ummm (Score:4, Insightful)
"The case is expected to have far-reaching consequences for third parties who use or publish information from social networking sites. Lawyers say it could place a duty on all second-hand users to establish the truth of everything they want to republish from such sites."
Aren't journalists supposed to do this ANYWAY?
Re:Editors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Actually the ONLY way they can get away with it and NOT lose the lawsuit is to have said throughout the story "the young, 15 year old girl's blog CLAIMS that... etc etc."
If they said "and in related news, etc mansion was host to a party and etc got high, knocked up and smashed a TV" that's libel/defamation. Claims have to be attributed as such. Only verified information can be claimed to be true. I wager most newssources wouldn't verify shit they run anymore than most consumers of said news sources would actually VERIFY the news sources reports.
Prime example. Remember Die Hard 4? Remember the scene where everyone watches the bad guys take out the capitol? (or was it the white house?) Remember how the people near there go outside and see it is okay and still standing? What about all the other poor bastards who have no way of verifying or cannot be bothered or have had their government run communications get taken out? (Hence why i recommend everyone have a CB radio or ham rig in their home, even without repeaters, the chain effect works enough to cover a whole region of concerned individuals.)
Verification, personal inquiry are both important factors of stories, and journalists have discovered that yellow journalism works. Why report a "claim" as a "claim"? Because it keeps the libel cases away from your door.
Definitely didn't RTFA (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Editors? (Score:5, Insightful)
Pff. You guys need to learn how the business works.
Day 1: "Daughter claims rich family had a drunken orgy party!"
Day 2: "Mother claims daughter told an 'embellished' story about the party"
There you go. A story and a retraction. Both of which are perfectly legal and true. The mother can sue all she wants, but what she should be doing is stringing up her daughter by her pinky toe. Instead, we end up with...
Day 3: "Family sues newspapers for reporting embellished story"
Even more sales! (Cha-ching!)
Re:Privacy? What privacy? (Score:2, Insightful)
Whoa there.
If I post a picture on the internet, sure anyone can see it, but I still retain right of publication (or the perhaps the site that it is posted on depending on the legal mumbo jumbo).
If I put up a poster on a University Bulletin Board with a picture of my house saying big party, that does not give you the right to scan it in and use the picture in a news story about about the big party. You can take your own, but that is still my picture.
Same if I post a short story or poem on the internet, sure its public, anyone can see it, but its still mine.
Re:typical irresonsible parent (Score:3, Insightful)
If I publish libel, and you republish MY libel without ensuring its veracity, then you are ALSO liable for libel.
That's true provided I have reason to doubt the information. If I can reasonably assume that the information is true, I'm not libeling you. And if you report the information yourself, I'm not libeling you if I repeat it. So, if you yourself say that you hold orgies at your home, it's not libel if I report that, even if it's not true.
The child was not the one who published the newpapers.
The child published the information initially, and the only way she could do that is with the consent of her parents. Therefore, legally, her parents are responsible for the published information, whether it's true or not.
It is not a defense to the publisher of libel that another party is ALSO guilty.
Nobody is guilty because there is no libel at all. Any harm that's come to the family because of this is due to their own stupidity.
Re:typical irresonsible parent (Score:3, Insightful)
And, what, pray tell does "come of age" mean, exactly? 18? Bulls*it. A 15-year old teenager knows exactly what he or she is doing when they post the crap that that woman's daughter posted.
Additionally, even if she was an excellent parent, her daughter could have easily posted that at a friend's house, at school or from her cell phone. You can be a good parent, but you can't monitor your kids 24/7.
The daughter should be held responsible in this case. "Kids" need to learn to take responsibility for their actions because if they don't figure that out now, they never will.
Journalistic standards in UK (Score:3, Insightful)
Money Making Scam (Score:3, Insightful)
This could be a money making scam -
1) Post fake lurid posts on social networking site
2) wait for press to pick up on lurid posts
3) claim the posts are fake and sue for defamation.
4) Profit
No ??? needed.
How long will it take (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:If my child (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm not going to get all "PC" on you, I'm actually going to bust out some child psychology.
In research on parenting behavior, methods of control have commonly been divided into three categories. The first type of control is the use of power by parents. Such techniques, in which parents attempt to force or pressure their children to behave in certain ways, are associated with children who are less socially competent. When parents use power to control their children, the children are likely to see their choices as governed by external forces. They do as they are told but only as long as there is a power to make them. They may become passive or rebellious.
A second type of control is love withdrawal, in which parents show disapproval for behavior that displeases them. It may include ignoring, shaming, or isolating the child. The use of love withdrawal shows mixed results in its effects on children; some studies have found it to be acceptable, whereas other studies have found it resulted in dependent or depressed children. New research on parents' use of psychological control may have identified what parts of love withdrawal are especially toxic. When parents use guilt or manipulation to control their children, the result is anxiety and depression for children. In contrast, when parents use reasonable monitoring and negotiated control of behavior, children are less likely to get in trouble.
The third type of control is induction. Induction includes reasoning with children and helping them understand the effects of their behavior on others. For example, a parent might say, "When you yell at your sister, she feels very afraid and sad. She feels that you don't like her." Induction is the type of control that is most likely to result in socially competent children.
There are also clear benefits for a child's moral development when a parent uses induction because induction teaches children to think about the effect of their behavior on others. Induction both activates and cultivates the child's own logic and compassion. Children raised with induction are more likely to have internalized standards for behavior, better developed moral sensitivities, and less vulnerability to external influence.
http://family.jrank.org/pages/1244/Parenting-Education-Content-Parenting-Education.html -- this isn't exactly a primary source but it rehashes things I learned in a "Human Development" class; I just don't feel like getting super academic on you and researching/citing the primary sources. If you really care about your children enough to give them the best childhood possible, you'll do that on your own anyway -- of course, maybe you won't, after all, you said it yourself, "I just don't care." Great attitude!
You don't know of a better way to parent a child because you were never shown how, but please, for the sake of your children, research parenting methods before having any. Don't do it the way your Father did just because that's all you know -- it is well known that power assertion is one of the least effective means for instilling intrinsic motivation into a child. What you want is for the child to internalize the reasons for their behavior, so that when they move out at 18 years old they continue to truly believe in and follow the lessons you taught them, instead of just throwing them to the wind 'cause they are out from under the harsh glare of mean ol' Dad.
Re:Editors? (Score:5, Insightful)
A Russian friend of mine once said that the difference between the east and the west is that in the east we always knew it was propaganda. :-)
Life Lesson About Privacy (Score:3, Insightful)
Looks like she learned about it the hard way. What you post on-line is public info.
The problem with 24hour news (Score:5, Insightful)
This is what you get when you have multiple 24-hour news channels and lots of news web sites itching to have something new. There's only so much real news, and not enough of it to even fill one TV channel with content. So they have to dig for crap. This is what you get.
Re:Privacy? What privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
But that's not what we're talking about here. The newspapers aren't being accused of plagiarism, they are being accused of defamation and invasion of privacy.
Actually, depending on the where you live and the quality of the reproduction, you may have the right to do exactly that. But again, that's not what we're talking about. If you disseminate information to the public at-large, I don't have the right to copy word-for-word what you said, but I can paraphrase it, report on it, etc.
Re:Yeah you just made that up (Score:4, Insightful)
Why is it ridiculous? What possible harm could a half glass of cider or whatever given to a child by a parent under supervision cause? If more parents gave their children small amounts of alcohol as they grow up (e.g. at the dinner table) then young adults would be more responsible towards alcohol as in countries such as France. By "more responsible" I mean less likely to go out 'on the town' and far surpass their limits.
Re:Privacy? What privacy? (Score:3, Insightful)
I took that as you did, but then applied context. You can't be sued for defamation and violations of privacy if you find someone's photo on a kiosk in the middle of town that you know for a fact that person put there themselves if you were to copy it and send it to people. You aren't defaming them for spreading facts they already distributed. You aren't violating their privacy if they published it publically first. The copyright claims hold merit, but aren't being persued. Probably because the photo, having been released publically for no cost, has little to no commercial value (at least according to the copyright holder that was giving it away for free first). And, as such, a claim for loss because of it wouldn't get much. And an injunction against printing it a week after the issue is out would probably not be effective either. So thought it appears the only real violation of law is a copyright violation, it is also the one where a win would have the least effect.
If the truth is that that's what she said (Score:1, Insightful)
If the truth is that that's what she said, couldn't they try and just report that? ("Girl claims ... blah blah on bebo")