Social Media & Public Opinion

Posted on March 6, 2013 by David Canton

Social media is often touted as an important influencer on public opinion and political causes. The Pew Research Centre just released an interesting survey called Twitter Reaction to Events Often at Odds with Overall Public Opinion.

From the report:

At times the Twitter conversation is more liberal than survey responses, while at other times it is more conservative. Often it is the overall negativity that stands out. Much of the difference may have to do with both the narrow sliver of the public represented on Twitter as well as who among that slice chose to take part in any one conversation.

So why is the twitter conversation often inconsistent? The report cites a number of reasons.

Those who get news on twitter – and particularly those who tweet news – are very different demographically from the public
The overall reach of twitter is modest – just 13% of adults said they ever use Twitter
Twitter users are considerably younger than the general public
The twitter audience is broader than the sample of a traditional national survey. People under 18 participate in twitter, while national surveys are limited to adults 18 and older. Similarly, twitter conversations also may include those living anywhere in the world.
Twitter users who choose to share their views on events vary with the topics in the news. Those who tweeted about the California same-sex marriage ruling were likely not the same group as those who tweeted about Obama’s inaugural or Romney’s selection of Paul Ryan.

Social media in general, and twitter in particular definitely influence public opinion and decision makers. But on any given topic it can’t be relied upon as a reflection of public opinion.

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton/

Sharing private information brings legal issues with it

Posted on February 4, 2013 by David Canton

For the London Free Press – February 4, 2013

Read this at lfpress.com

Social media has opened the floodgates for the public dissemination of information about our private lives. Websites such as Facebook, Twitter, Instagram and Pinterest provide an unprecedented ability to share our thoughts, photographs, activities, interests and relationship status with thousands of users around the world.

This sharing brings legal issues with it when unintended users are able to access one’s apparent “private” information.

Recent Ontario court decisions illustrate the uncertain state of the law as to whether social media content should be available as evidence in legal proceedings.

In the case of Stewart v. Kempster, the plaintiff was in a car crash that she claimed caused significant and permanent physical injuries. The plaintiff alleged her enjoyment of life had decreased greatly since the accident.

The plaintiff had regularly posted photographs on Facebook for her friends and family to see. The defendant wanted those photographs admitted as evidence in the trial to rebut the plaintiff’s claim that the crash reduced her activities. Although the plaintiff had an expectation that the Facebook photographs would not be seen by unintended viewers, the court had to consider whether the interests of justice outweighed such privacy interests.

The court refused to order production of the plaintiff’s Facebook photographs. It reasoned that the plaintiff did not have any photographs that were publicly accessible, did not intend to rely on any photographs to demonstrate her pre-collision health, and had only allowed 139 “friends” (out of approximately one billion Facebook users) to access the photographs. Before deciding that, the court reviewed the photographs to determine whether they were even relevant.

In making its decision, the court referred to an earlier decision in Murphy v. Perger where the court did order a plaintiff’s Facebook photos to be produced. The plaintiff in Murphy had also been involved in a car crash and claimed she suffered significant reductions to her enjoyment of life. The court considered the privacy interests involved and ultimately ordered production of the photographs for several reasons:

The plaintiff had posted photographs on the publicly accessible portion of her Facebook account that led the court to infer that similar photographs would be posted on the private portion of her account.

The plaintiff relied on photographs taken prior to the crash to demonstrate the impact of the crash on her prior lifestyle. It would therefore have been unfairly prejudicial to not show photographs depicting her post-collision condition.

The plaintiff didn’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy in her photographs because she permitted 366 people to access her private content and allowed public access to other photographs.

These decisions show that the law evolves to address new technologies. Social media sites allow users to set security settings, but this does not automatically ensure that “private” content will be forever sealed away.

Social media users should take a moment to think before they post because they may run the risk of exposing their private lives to the public spotlight — or at the very least to someone on the opposite side of a lawsuit.

www.harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton

Perspective is everything

Posted on August 22, 2012 by David Canton

Today’s Slaw post

Jordan Furlong published a good piece today about the importance of fact checking for blogging lawyers, and “…the enormous damage you could do to your reputation by producing inaccurate or insufficiently credited material.”

He says in part:

But you need to be careful about exaggerations: overstating what a case means or what a lawyer said, overemphasizing a warning or a guideline for dramatic effect, that sort of thing. If you get called out by a commenter or another blogger for exaggeration, it will make readers doubt the veracity of everything else you’ve said. The sexy headline or sound bite just isn’t worth the gamble.

This line of reasoning can be extended to the way we practice as well.

Most lawyers are good at putting a spin on the facts to put a client’s position in the best light, or to argue a client’s case. After all, our role as advocate and negotiator is to get the best result possible for our clients. But we always have to keep it in perspective.

One of the things social media has taught us is that taking over the top, overly aggressive or specious positions can quickly result in a total loss of credibility. It is not unusual for recipients of demand letters to post them on the web and ridicule them.

And while the facts – and indeed the law – may not always be clear, we have to be open minded about the other party’s perspective. In the end, even if one does not agree with the other party’s position or version of the facts, trying to understand it can often help facilitate a resolution. If you decide after due consideration that the other party is just plain wrong, unreasonable, or inconsolable, you can at least factor that into your advice. And if you decide it is your own client that fits that description, that helps too.

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton/

Social-Media Legal Practice

Posted on August 15, 2012 by David Canton

Today’s Slaw post:

I would like to thank my colleagues at Harrison Pensa for being Firm Guest Bloggers on Slaw this week. Their articles focus on emerging issues both in substantive law, and the practice of law itself.

I’d like to share some thoughts on the emerging field of social media law, which includes both of those aspects.

Social media has created many challenges for business, including disparate issues such as violations of copyright, trade-marks, confidential information, and privacy, as well as pushing the boundaries on things such as defamation and employer control over employee actions.

Businesses, including law firms, are racing to use social media to build brands and make connections with customers.

Lawyers looking to practice in this area need to be in the game themselves to get a better understanding of how it all works, the rules that are involved, and how the law fits into its practical use. It is not unusual, for example, to see clients put at risk because they don’t follow Facebook contest rules. Or to respond to negative social media in a traditional way that can do more harm than good – known as the Streisand Effect.

Being in the game also helps lawyers understand their clients’ realities, and offers a check and balance against the many self-appointed social media experts dispensing advice.

Lawyers can’t really give good contextual legal advice if they just dabble in social media as opposed to living in it.

It is not a practice area that is for everyone, and certainly not for lawyers who don’t enjoy technological innovation or who like the law and its application to remain consistent.

But it is a natural area for someone like me, who likes technology and innovation, and is a geek at heart. I started blogging almost a decade ago, was a fairly early twitter adopter, and enjoy the constantly changing nature of the tools, and the new aspects of law that these innovations bring.

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton/

Olympics Social Media Sideshow

Posted on August 1, 2012 by David Canton

Today’s Slaw post:

Every two years for the past few years I’ve written something before the Olympic games about the IOC’s social media and web rules, which are overly controlling, out of touch, and behind the times. This year is no exception. Even though we are just a few days in, there have been several stories vying for the most outlandish social media excess medal. For example:

Carmi Levy wrote an article just before the games began entitled The IOC’s social media anti-lesson for business that starts off with:

As the final hours tick down until the 2012 Olympic games get started in London, you can call the International Olympic Committee anything you want. Except social media-savvy.

Last week, the IOC touched off a bit of a firestorm when it released a four-page document outlining proper use of social media tools like Facebook and Twitter during the games. In an age when tweeting from a smartphone is more natural for some than picking up the phone, some of the limitations are laughable

Two athletes so far have been expelled from the Olympics for racist tweets. I don’t have a lot of sympathy for those athletes, though. Despite what anyone might say about over-reaching social media rules, there are things that it is simply imprudent to say, and they should know better.

Then there is the NBC – Twitter – Guy Adams debacle. Some people have been very vocal about what they perceive to be poor Olympic coverage by NBC. One journalist in particular has been tweeting rather prolifically about it. Twitter shut down his account after NBC apparently complained, which led to a huge protest. But the reason given for cancelling the account didn’t hold up, and he is tweeting again after the complaint was withdrawn.

http://harrisonpensa.com/lawyers/david-canton/