Facebook is protected from liability by Section 230 that is based on the communication decency law so that it may immunize the website from obligations that result from information publication that has been provided by the third-party users. The site has liability protection for the content that has been posted by the third parties such that if a Facebook account holder post any information based on defamation act and there is no CDA protection, the site can face a lawsuit when the user post information that crosses the line (Engineering & Guile, 2015).
I think that Facebook, as well as other social network providers, are supposed to have full protection from liability when the user posts any discriminating information. If they do not have such protection, they would be forced by circumstances to invest in lawyers who would review the published content as well as fighting lawsuits hence resulting in severe financial damage. Section 230 requires a third-party user to be responsible for their action when they post incriminating information, and therefore they are supposed to act in a way that they cannot affect other social network users in any way. Thus, such law immunizes social networks from certain liability that result from information published in the case by another (Engineering & Guile, 2015).
Therefore, if any user provides defamatory as well as illegal content, section 230 will definitely shield Facebook and other websites from particular liability that originates from publication. Based on the terms of service provided by Facebook, they do not regulate the actions of the users on the social, and they should not be held responsible for any content shared by users.
Student’s freedom of speech in social media has limitations and not absolute. Regardless of the first amendment that dictates the freedom of speech for all, it was declared in court that disciplining the students does not violets the law if the school administration can show that the posted material had reasonable potential disruption. As a result, Schools have greatly restricted students’ speech on the online platform and ensured that they are trained to use the social network properly (Idowu, 2013).
In that case, the school district has been mandated to limit the freedom of speech among students if the speech is materially as well as substantial in disrupting the discipline and the work of the school. In that way, students have been made to develop an excellent online etiquette related to issues of their schools, and if they have any queries concerning their administration, they should approach the school heads concerning the matter (Idowu, 2013).
Moreover, regardless of freedom of speech being protected under the first amendment in the United States, there is restriction based on the speech content. Therefore, when the school administration tries to control the students’ speech based on the motivating ideology, it is permitted under the constitution. Therefore, this means some level of freedom of expression in social networks is not protected by the first amendment, for instance, a violent student threat against another, violet the law.
In that case, it will be precisely correct to claim that the school administration is not able to sanction a student for otherwise protected speech unless it can show that the statement substantially and materially interferes with the discipline in the school operation (Idowu, 2013). Moreover, they are many cyberbullying laws that prohibit embarrassing, disseminating private, false, personal or sexual information; as a result, anybody whether students or not violating such laws will face the lawsuit.
McKenzie Barker and Taylor Wynn used the social network to stalk a fellow student whereby they created a fake Facebook profile. In the pattern, under the name of that girl and then started to post an embarrassing picture as well as offhand comments convincing people that it was her. The two students each created Facebook account whereby they allowed other students to blog view the photos and leave comments about the victimized girl.
What they did was against the law since creating fake accounts and inflict harm to a fellow person is regarded as cyberbullying as the result the two students deserve to be persecuted in the court of law (Phillipson, Allan & Morgan, 2004). Moreover, the first amendment does not protect their freedom of speech and as a result, are supposed to be punished by the school administration. They are also faced with a severe crime of intensified stalking of an under 16 minors as well as cyberbullying since they made other people hate her.
Additionally, in the implementation of cyberbullying laws about that case, it would be upon the state to apply their laws; as the result sanction could vary from school intervention through expulsions or suspension to civil penalties or even a jail term for engaging in criminal behavior as well as felonies (Spivet, 2012). Majority of states in the United States mandates school administration to draft a formal policy that aids in identifying the practice and discuss the formal or informal ways of applying the disciplinary action. To reduce the cases of cyberbullying in schools, the administration is required to create anti-bullying policies.
- Engineering, N., & Guile, B. (2015). Information Technologies and Social Transformation. Washington: National Academies Press.
- Idowu, S. (2013). Encyclopedia of corporate social responsibility. Heidelberg: Springer.
- Phillipson, C., Allan, G., & Morgan, D. (2004). Social networks and social exclusion. Aldershot, England: Ashgate.
- Spivet, B. (2012). Using social networks. New York, NY: PowerKids Press.