Final Project

4 Tips for Staying Ethical on Social Media

Social Media has changed the ways in which many professionals in the justice field are forced to tread lightly, in hopes of being both morally and ethically acceptable to the public. Social Media has quickly become a useful tool to use for various reasons in the field of justice, yet it can be risky. Here are four tips for anyone interested in law when it comes to ethics and social media, according to jdsupra.com. 

1. Social media has the potential to reach individuals in multiple jurisdictions - Lawyers must be careful about sharing content in jurisdictions where they are not licensed to practice law. American Bar Association (“ABA”) Model Rule 5.5(b)(2) prohibits lawyers from sharing information that would make the public believe that they are admitted to practice law in a jurisdiction where they are not licensed. Best practices include refraining from offering legal advice over public platforms, including disclaimers stating that a post is not meant to form an attorney-client relationship or provide legal advice, providing transparency about licensure.

2.  Advertising legal services over social media is a gray area - When a lawyer knows someone needs legal services and they try to solicit their business for pecuniary gain, ABA Model Rule 7.3 generally prohibits live person-to-person solicitation, which is defined as “in-person, face-to-face, live telephone and other real-time visual or auditory person-to-person communications where the person is subject to a direct personal encounter without time for reflection.” Under the ABA rule, this does not include content that is clearly geared toward the public at large, chat rooms, text messages, or other written communications that people can easily disregard. Defining what type of content that people can easily disregard is where the issue lies. However, if the social media user can ignore, block, or delete the content Rule 7.3 likely will not apply. On the other hand, a situation where the lawyer sends repeated direct messages would surely implicate this rule. Regardless, this is an area where it is very important for lawyers to know their state’s stance on advertising ethics, because many states disagree about what constitutes live person-to-person contact.

3. Ethics come into play with preservation, collection, and disclosure of evidence in discovery - Social media comes up in several contexts during the discovery phase of litigation. Lawyers should implement the following practices: preserve and disclose relevant documents in their original format, use proper collection methods to ensure that the evidence is authentic, and refrain from connecting with opposing parties, witnesses, jurors, and judges involved with their cases.

4. Lawyers have an ethical duty to provide competent representation and keep client data confidential - ABA Model Rule 1.1 requires lawyers to provide competent representation to their clients, which includes keeping informed about the benefits and risks associated with relevant technology. This includes social media usage, features, and any social media developments in the future. ABA Model Rule 1.6 requires lawyers to keep client information confidential unless the client provides informed consent. To keep data confidential, lawyers should conduct social media communication with clients through private messaging, refrain from posting confidential data about a client or case on public platforms, and only conduct communication and case activity over private or secure networks.

Freedom of Information Act

One Word

On Monday, April 22, the supreme court spent hours upon hours discussing the definition of one particular word, in reference to the Freedom of Information Act. That word is "confidential". The discussion is determining if that word refers to anything that is intended to be kept secret, or if it refers to only the information that is likely to cause harm if it were to be publicized. 

According to USA Today, the federal government and a retailers' trade group, the Food Marketing Institute, argued for a broad definition that would leave ample room to keep data from the public. Media organizations and public interest groups favored a more narrow definition requiring harm that would make confidentiality harder to come by.

Federal appeals courts nationwide have adopted the latter meaning by narrowly interpreting one of the law's FOIA exemptions. "Trade secrets and commercial or financial information" can be withheld from the press or public, they said, if that would result in competitive harm.

Despite a string of court decisions and congressional statutes relying on that narrow definition, however, the nine justices of the Supreme Court weren't so easily convinced, which could spell trouble for the Sioux Falls Argus Leader in South Dakota, a Gannett newsroom (as is USA TODAY) that's spent a decade seeking "confidential" data on the federal food stamps program.

From the outset, the oral argument shaped up as a contest between the court's five conservative justices and its four liberals. To wrest the data it seeks from the government, the newspaper and its backers would need to win at least one conservative to its cause. That did not appear likely, particularly when Associate Justice Neil Gorsuch – like his predecessor Antonin Scalia, a stickler for words' definitions and statutes' texts – noted different sections of the FOIA law use "confidential" differently.

It wasn't clear that all the liberal justices supported the media outlet's FOIA arguments, either. According to USA Today, associate Justice Elena Kagan agreed not everything can be deemed confidential, but assurances of confidentiality the government has given private companies might carry more significance.


Associate Justice Stephen Breyer hypothesized that information could be held from the public if it's "confidential for a legitimate reason: Release would hurt the company, or release would hurt the government. We sort of naturally think that if people are going to keep something confidential, that there's a reason for it," she said. "You don't just say, 'I don't want to disclose because I don't feel like it.' " 

Global Media Law or Ethics

Europe's New Copyright Laws

Europe will be passing new laws in the near future that will impact the users of YouTube and Facebook. These new rules will help determine the use of content that is shared throughout the sites. Proposed over two years ago, the new laws had taken that long to be passed and were approved through English Parliament only a month ago. They require that host user-uploaded content to cut licensing deals with creators so they are paid when people share their content online. 

According to Recode, The law would apply to music and film producers, but also to newspapers and magazines, according to the European Commission’s FAQ page. The move is meant to hold tech platforms accountable for the content its users share, and to try to return some of the billions of dollars in revenue that Facebook and YouTube make each year to the people who actually create the content that appears on those sites. 

Some things are still unclear, however, such as how the law will be implemented and what the companies involved will need to do put these laws into action. YouTube, for example, already uses an  which attempts to avoid any copyrighted materials being stolen and used. Facebook offers something similar called Rights Manager.  

The EU wants to use a similar technology throughout various countries in an attempt to make sure copyrighted materials are not stolen throughout Europe. However, the European Commission FAQ page has stated that it will not be using any matching filters that are used in other algorithms in the new one created by the new laws.

Facebook and Google are not pleased with the proposed rules. For starters, each European Union member country will implement the rule in its own way, which could mean tech companies need to abide by a different set of guidelines in each country.

Then there is concern that while trying to comply, tech companies will take a heavy hand with moderating what is allowed and what isn’t. Google’s senior VP of global affairs Kent Walker wrote a blog post published last month titled EU Copyright Directive: one step forward, two steps back. 

In a statement from one of the association’s policy managers, the CCIA echoed Walker’s concerns. “Despite recent improvements, the EU Directive falls short of creating a balanced and modern framework for copyright,” the statement reads. “We fear it will harm online innovation and restrict online freedoms in Europe.”

While Monday’s approval by the European Commission has brought the copyright rules back to the surface, they may not affect consumers for a while. Each EU member country has 24 months to create laws that enforce the rules.

Misinformation and Fact-Checking

WhatsApp's New Fact-Checking Service

The country of India is adding a new addition to WhatsApp, a new fact-checking algorithm. According to Reuters, users of the popular messaging app can forward any messages to the new "Checkpoint Tipline," where a WhatsApp team, specifically designated for this, will assess each message and determine if they fit in any of these four categories: true, false, misleading, or disputed. The prupose of creating this new update was to determine any misinformation, particularly anything related to the elctions that are set to start the 11th in India. 

The messaging service has come under much scrutiny lately, particularly in India and Brazil. WhatsApp has received claims of spreading false and misleading info through India concerning politics, criminal activity, and possible illegal business transactions. The application was also accused of being used to spread false information regarding last year's Brazilian Election.

WhatsApp is partnering with Proto, a local Indian internet provider, to help create the new algorithm. The founders of Proto, Ritvvij Parrikh and Nasr ul Hadi, stated that the goal of the new additon to the application is to "“study the misinformation phenomenon at scale,” and that “As more data flows in, we will be able to identify the most susceptible or affected issues, locations, languages, regions, and more.” 

According to The Verge, "A total of five languages will be supported by Checkpoint Tipline — English, Hindi, Telugu, Bengali and Malayalam — and the service will support misinformation spread in the form of text, videos, and images. Separately, WhatsApp also recently tested adding the ability for users to reverse image search images in an apparent attempt to allow users to verify their authenticity."

The company is also working with two companies other than Proto to help battle misinformation, Dig Deep Media and Meedan. Meedan, in particular, is well-known for their check platform, which was used to combat the spread of false information in France and Mexico. 

According to The Verge, "The Checkpoint Tipline is just one of a range of changes WhatsApp has made to its service to combat the spread of misinformation. The service has also limited the number of times a message can be forwarded to five, and now also applies a label to any forward messages."

The encrypted nature of WhatsApp makes it a particularly difficult platform to regulate however, since not even the organization itself can view the messages that are being sent. Facebook recently announced that it has removed 549 Facebook accounts and 138 Pages for coordinated inauthentic behavior in India, but WhatsApp’s end-to-end encryption means tracking down similar behavior on the messaging service is much harder.

Exploiting a News Story

Exploiting Traumatized Victims 

Journalists, generally speaking, have a morally and ethically challenging job. On one hand, their main goal is to gather and report news, generally by any legal means necessary. However, many issues come up when questioning people involved. For example, if a woman was recently raped, does the reporter interview her and ask questions that involve the rape, or do they leave it be and rely solely on hearsay and rumors. These are the morally challenging things that every reporter goes through. Such is the case with many different public shootings. 

Sadly, it is fairly common for at least one public shooting shooting to happen in the United States, whether it be in a school, movie theater, public park, or even a church. Many shooters will simply target a place close to their residence. Regardless, there are usually several people hurt, or even killed. This is where a journalist comes in. They get paid money to get the full story from the responders, witness(es), and the victims. However, many victims of shootings either end up traumatized, injured, or grieving over the loss of another who was caught amidst the gunfire. 

In my opinion, should the journalist question any victims of shootings? Yes. However, I personally believe that all journalists should have some sort of crash course on how to properly conduct interviews with traumatized people, if they do not already have one of those. As such, the victims will, hopefully, not be affected too negatively by the actions of a reporter snooping too much into their mind after such an event just transpired.  

A specific example of exploiting victims is when a CNN reporter attempted to interview a distraught woman during the events of Hurricane Harvey. According to ijnet.org, the woman yelled at the reporter the following: “Y’all try to interview people during their worst times. That’s not the smartest thing to do. People are really breaking down and y’all sitting here with a camera and microphones trying to ask us what the f--- is wrong with us.” However, the reporter stated to the broadcasting company that the woman agreed to go on camera, but seemed that “The exhaustion and the emotion in her voice conveyed just how dire the situation has become for some Houstanians.”

This particular example is a prime example of exploitation in the media, in which the victim is clearly not thinking straight and, yet, the reporter is still attempting to get the full story. While I agree that this should be done, in order for the rest of us to be informed, I still think this could have been approached another way. It should also be noted that some reporters simply do not care about the health and safety of the victims, and are only focused on getting the full story, at ANY cost.   

Copyright and Fair Use

Japan's Amendment for Copyrighting

For many years, there have been laws and regulations controlling copyright infringement and preventing plagiarism from becoming an issue, particularly in education systems. The only exception to the rule is if the copyrighted material is either given willingly for someone else to use, if the material is used for educational purposes, or a limited amount of the material is used. All of these circumstances is referred to as fair use.

At the beginning of 2019, Japan made an amendment to the Copyright Act of Japan, it aims to improve and expand the limits that fair use has in place, particularly within the use of technology. According to lexology.com, these are the new guidelines, as stated below:

"1 Use of copyrighted works where their use is not perceivable.

Under the amended Copyright Act, companies will be able to record (reproduce) copyrighted works on databases so that the data can be used for the purpose of developing artificial intelligence (AI). Here the use will be permitted only so long as the AI uses the data for its machine learning purposes and the copyrighted work will not be perceivable when used. Further, copyrighted works can be used for the purposes of data verification, such as document search services and plagiarism checking services.

2 Ancillary use of copyrighted work on computers.

Companies may also reproduce copyrighted works for the purpose of caching on computers or for backup purposes.

3 Insignificant use of copyrighted works in relation to computer processing.

Internet search services are intended to be covered by this exemption. It has also been left intentionally vague so that it may cover new computer processing services that have yet to come into existence. The exemption may be relied upon so long as the use does not unfairly harm the interest of the copyright holder. The amended Copyright Act also provides various other exemptions such as: allowing easier access of copyright materials to persons with disabilities; museums and libraries will have slightly more flexibility on use of certain copyright materials; and some changes to treatment of orphan works where national and local governments will have more freedom to use such works." 

Because of these new laws, many hackers, as well as anyone else attempting to use any sort of copyrighted material posted on the internet, will no longer be able to use any loopholes that have been previously found to steal, copy, or do anything else of the sort with anybody's work that has been published.

Reporter's Privilege

South Dakota's Shield Laws

Many journalist's, especially in this day and age, have come under tremendous scrutiny simply for attempting to do their jobs. However, the legislature of South Dakota is taking measures to make sure that reporters will still have their right to free press without coming under fire from everyone else. Many reporters have an ongoing issue dealing with reporter's privilege, which is a reporter's protection under constitutional or statutory law, from being compelled to testify about confidential information or sources. 

In early February, South Dakota's House of Representatives voted in favor of HB 1074, which, according to freemansd.com, 'would block courts, the Legislature and other public bodies in South Dakota from holding in contempt journalists who assert the privilege. It would also make information obtained in violation of the law inadmissible in legal proceedings. It’s a measure that should become law." It should also be noted that South Dakota is not the only state to implement an act such as this. Thirty-nine other states already passed similar acts well before South Dakota jumped on the bandwagon.

Gov. Kristi Noem has been pushing for a shield law that covers reporters for quite some time, especially with the rise of absolute hate that many reporters are receiving throughout the state. In August of 2018, Noem paid a visit to the South Dakota Newspaper Association and spoke with their representatives, pushing wholeheartedly for a shield law based, solely, for the purpose of protecting reporter's privilege. 

A media law professor, Johnathon Peters, was asked to give a reasonable explanation behind why this is such a critical issue. This is his response, which was published in the Columbia Journalism Report: "Generally, any person who is asked or ordered to testify (or produce documents) at a legal proceeding is required to comply. If the person doesn’t, she’s subject to a contempt finding, which means a judge could put the person in jail, or fine her, or both. The penalty’s chief purpose is not to punish—it’s to extract compliance. 

However, there are exceptions called privileges. The most famous is the attorney-client privilege that exempts an attorney from testifying against a client about confidential communications. Many states recognize similar privileges for medical doctors, therapists, religious advisors, and spouses. They all stem from the belief that there’s a public interest that justifies the exclusion of testimony by certain people against others.

Journalists have argued that they should have a privilege for roughly analogous reasons. They rely on sources to provide the news they publish, and those sources might not share sensitive or critical information in the absence of anonymity—out of fear that they’ll be punished for sharing it. ... There’s a public interest in encouraging the disclosure of newsworthy information.

If journalists are, or are seen as, investigative arms of the government or private interests, then the public might lose faith in their reporting and be loath to trust them with information."

Plagiarism and Fabrication

Plagiarism Strikes in China

Plagiarism has been a problem for decades when it comes to publications in journalism, term papers, books, and so many other written documents. According to the Marriam-Webster Dictionary, the definition of plagiarism is "to steal and pass off (the ideas or words of another) as one's own, to use (another's production) without crediting the source, to commit literary theft, to present as new and original an idea or product derived from an existing source," (Plagiarism Definition). 

The punishment for plagiarism is, generally, quite harsh, as it is considered a highly unethical violation. For most educational establishments, such as universities and public schools, plagiarism usually results in suspension or expulsion. For any businesses or careers involving any sort of writing, any form of plagiarism results in, at the very least, losing your job and, possibly, being reported to the authorities.

For obvious reasons, any reported cases of plagiarism are, understandably, a big deal. Such is the case for Chinese actor, Zhai Tianlin, who was stripped of his doctorate and removed from his current PhD program after admitting that he committed plagiarism while attending the Beijing Film Academy. Tianlin had become a mainstay in China for his work for Chinese films and television reality shows, specifically his 2017 work on the show The Birth of an Actor. 

According to inkstonenews.com, plagiarism has been an enormous issue in China. A study in 2009 discovered that approximately 30,000 different educational institutes deal with plagiarism every day. A study done in 2015 was used to identify different reasons behind all of the unethical choices made, including the low salaries made by most students, prompting them to use plagiarism to increase profits made from universities for their work on published papers for incredibly prestigious journals.

In January of 2019, Tianlin was accepted into another PhD program at the Guanghua School of Management at Peking University. However, Chinese users of different plagiarism programs started looking back at the prestigious actor's past works, seeing if he truly earned his way through all his educational programs. Sure enough, one user found that a paper he had published for his master's degree had 40% plagiarism written throughout the essay, which had been published by a professor at Huangshan College.

According to inkstonenews.com, "At first, Zhai’s management agency denied the accusations – but mounting pressure eventually led to the celebrity posting an apology to Weibo last Thursday. On Saturday, Peking University said that it was expelling Zhai from the two-year doctoral research program to which he had been admitted. And three days later, the Beijing Film Academy revoked Zhai’s PhD, obtained last year, and his former professor Chen Yi’s teaching qualifications. Even China’s Ministry of Education condemned Zhai’s behavior at a press conference on Friday, and stressed a zero-tolerance approach to academic misconduct, state media CCTV reported."

Since the accusations and his removal from the university, Zhai Tainlin has remained quiet, refusing to talk to reporters and not receiving any offers for any other acting gigs.

  

Advertising Ethics

The Best a Man Can Get?

In the world we live in, men are generally seen with "Fragile Egos" and "Leaders of the Household". Generally speaking, that has been historically accurate. Men have been the providers while women usually stay at home and take care of children. However, in the last 70 years, give or take, women have removed that stereotype and taken many jobs that were considered masculine. Lately, particularly in the Trump era, a new phrase has risen up among millennials known as Toxic Masculinity, or Hegemonic masculinity. This is defined as "a practice that legitimizes powerful men's dominant position in society and justifies the subordination of the common male population and women, and other marginalized ways of being a man," (Hegemonic Masculinity Page). 

Only a few weeks before Super Bowl LIII, Gillette released an ad for a new razor. However, after seeing the ad, many white men were upset with it, claiming that it puts the negative stereotype of toxic masculinity on white men. The ad shows boys being bullied by other boys, a man inappropriately touching a woman's shoulder during work, and suburban dads standing shoulder to shoulder with grills, stating the quote that everyone hates: "Boys will be boys," with a smile on their face. 

The ad has caused an incredible amount of controversy among social media, particularly Twitter. Most of the comments are pointing out the sexism and racism, stating there's no such thing as toxic masculinity and that the ad is targeting white men and making them look bad. 

GIllette, obviously, has denied any allegations towards any sort of targeting or providing any idea of a stereotype. This hasn't stopped any social media from causing an infinite storm of negative comments about it regardless. The biggest issue with all this being that it is nearly impossible for a company who has released an advertisement filled with issues that many people struggle with. The ad was designed to only advertise their products to the public, not attempting to offend any person in any way. 

Many call these accusations ridiculous. However, Gillette should have known better than to advertise a product with such controversial topics in this day and age, especially with all the "snowflakes" that have suddenly sprouted up in the last ten years. Even so, this ad is much more than a simple "people need to toughen up" kind of issue.

Surprisingly, this is not even the first commercial to advertise a product with questionable ethics in the advertisement. According to Vox, "This is not the first time a Procter & Gamble brand has attempted to sell personal hygiene items by situating them in dubious feminist narratives. It previously did so with the 2014 “Like a Girl” campaign, which promoted Always tampons and invited teenagers to “run like a girl” in order to demonstrate internalized misogyny (Vox Article). The company’s deodorant brand Secret also has a running “Stress Test” campaign, which shows women getting ready to confront sexism in business meetings." Last summer, Nike's attempt to launch its thirtieth anniversary "Just Do It" featuring Colin Kaepernick. The campaign was immedietely flamed by social media users after the fiasco involving the quarterback refusing to stand for the National Anthem before a football game.

Overall, with the inclusion of the controversial moments in their ad, Gillette has made a terrible mistake with their latest ad. Despite their attempts to save their reputation and the fact that they have not technically done anything wrong, due to the rise of such an immature and soft generation that has been raised, Gillette will never have the chance to be free of this mistake that, quite possibly, has ruined the company's sales.

  

Supermarket Tabloids

The Trouble with Tabloids

Tabloids have been around for over 100 years. The first known tabloid was created in the 1880's, and have been nothing but upgraded since then. Each publication, nowadays, represents the "juiciest gossip" that is happening at the time. However, it should be noted that many times tabloids are filled with flase, exaggerated, or "fake" news, making them much less believable. Their reputation has been ruined because of that, yet they are still extremely popular among the populus due to the world's interest in one thing: Drama! Tabloids are only interested in the drama happening now in Hollywood and the Music industry, as well as anything else relevant in pop culture.

There are so many different publishers of tabloids out there right now. Two of the bigger ones, Weekly World News and Daily Record both are two of the most well-known tabloid producers today. Both boasting a strong number of readers.

Weekly World News is an illustrated American publication of weird and curious stories. While presented as news, the stories do not necessarily reflect reality. Written for mass consumption, the stories often track topics of interest in contemporary American folklore. Popular conspiracy theories, such as UFOs, Bigfoot, Vampires, and so forth are regularly talked about. Other popular topics include government conspiracies, alien encounters/abductions, real-life superheros, and much more. Though there is a 99% chance these stories are nothing more than superstition to entertain, many still subscribe to the article and believe every word of it, leading to many becoming, in scientific terms, "Nutcases". 

Daily Record is a Scottish tabloid newspaper based in Glasgow. It is published six days a week, and its sister paper is the Sunday Mail. It has a close kinship with the British-based Daily Mirror, with major stories of British significance being reported in both titles. Most of its stories are catered to Scottish citizens, obviously. However, it does have other publications of the same name written in other parts of Europe such as Germany and France, which also cater stories to their specific region. The stories that are printed are in a mixed range. Some seem more serious. Others seem more like a hoax for entertainment. Nevertheless, it has kept a large European audience, helping to keep the tabloid affloat.

 

For whatever reason, despite their inconsistencies and their less-than-factual stories, tabloids are still extremely popular and considered top sellers for gossip. Why are tabloids so popular now? Nobody really has a straight answer. Some will tell you it's the only legitimate way to get information anymore. Others will simply say that they're for entertainment purposes. Regardless, you can't deny that tabloids are incredibly popular.

Bias in Cable News

CNN: A Left-Handed Slap to the Face

CNN has been one of the most well-known cable news broadcasts in America. The network has been running for nearly forty years, constantly stepping up its game in terms of the stories it broadcasts and the messages it sends. In fact, of the "big three" news networks (CNN, FOX, MSNBC), CNN is currently the most watched network of them, according to a chart from Semantic Scholar (shown below).

However, because of their popularity, CNN's viewers have decided to put all their trust in the network, as well as all of the opinions given by their news anchors and independent correspondents. According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, "Overall, we rate CNN left biased based on story selection that often favors the left. We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to misinformation and failed fact checks from guests and pundits. However, CNN’s straight news reporting would earn a High rating for factual reporting,"   

Even CNN's webpage is evidence of their bias (CNN News Page). Several of their stories such as "None of this is normal. Here's what the unprecedented move says about Democrats' new approach", and "Michael Cohen delays testimony, citing 'threats' from Trump", as well as many others, show the amount of "left-leaning" that the network has. In many of these articles, the writers show clear political bias towards trump and anything related to the president.

The writers are not the only ones who show their bias. Many news anchors also let their true colors show. Many videos on the CNN YouTube channel are enough to make some people question their reliability, or in some cases, enough to sway those who believe whatever they see on the television. Not only that, but journalists and other reporters have called out CNN directly, accusing them of bias (CNN Accused of Bias). Some have even gone so far as to record one of the executive producers of CNN explaining their complete bias towards President Trump (Video Below)

Videos, such as the one shown above, and broadcasts given by the newscasters themselves are also considered biased due to low fact checking, as previously stated, and as such, generally base many stories on their own ideals, beliefs, and values, whereas other popular news networks, such as CBS, ABC, or MSNBC, have been proven to, while not always completely basing their stories on their own ideals, have gone out and done the research needed to make their broadcasts that much more factual, or at least more factual than CNN, essentially slapping themselves in the face, so to speak.

Overall, while CNN does have one of the highest amount of views of any cable news network, they are an extremely biased network, leaning towards the left side with their news stories and articles. Their facts are usually based on their own opinions and have been proven to be unreliable, yet still, to this day, many still rely on CNN as their primary source of news and information.