By: Jessica Nahmias
The newest disclaimer on Facebook could be this: “Your Facebook page may be used against you in a court of law.” In what the Toronto Star considers a “precedent-setting decision”, an Ontario man was ordered to answer questions about the content of his Facebook page in an ongoing court battle.
John Leduc claims he was injured in a car accident back in 2004. He sued Janie Roman, the woman with whom he had the accident, for damages, claiming his quality of life had been impacted since the accident.
Roman and her lawyers believed content posted on Leduc’s Facebook page contained information to prove that his quality of life, had not, in fact, been impacted in a negative manner.
Justice David Brown of Ontario’s Superior Court of Justice said Leduc must submit to cross-examination by Roman’s lawyers about the content of his page on the argument that, “Facebook profiles are not designed to function as diaries; they enable users to construct personal networks… with whom they can share information about themselves,” concluding that Leduc’s Facebook page, “likely contains some content relevant to the issue of how Mr. Leduc has been able to lead his life since the accident,” The Toronto Star reported.Assume this case took place in the USA: - What privacy rights can Leduc claim in order to maintain the privacy of his Facebook page? - Is there an expectation of privacy when one uploads photos, videos, or text to Facebook, Myspace, Twitter, Blogs, etc? - Should courts have the power to compel people to divulge the information on their Facebook pages? Should the content on these sites be valued evidence in a court of law?
No comments:
Post a Comment