Protecting Children of Divorce Against Weaponized Social Media, Part 1: Exploring the Harmful Effects
In his three-part series, Gus Dimopoulos uses recent decisions such as and 'Kassenoff v. Kassenoff' and 'Walsh v. Russell' to discuss the detrimental effects of social media on children in divorce cases and the importance the above rulings have on protecting children of divorcing parents. Part Two in this series will look at how social media companies and the courts are falling short on providing protection. Part Three will examine what's being done about it.
November 21, 2023 at 10:00 AM
5 minute read
Social media has become the latest weapon in divorce battlegrounds. Scorned spouses share photos, videos, or inappropriate and confidential information on social media channels, like Facebook and TikTok, to air grievances about a spouse, gain leverage in a divorce proceeding, or simply to inflict embarrassment or hurt.
Inevitably, such public vitriol works its way back to litigants' children, who either view it on their own social media feeds or learn about it from their friends or classmates. It's especially concerning when posts include information about the divorcing couple's children, such as their names, images, and likeness. Those posts potentially breach a child's trust, privacy and safety, and can cause detriment to his or her wellbeing.
While litigants often cloak their use of social media in the protections of the First Amendment, free speech isn't unlimited. It's important to make a distinction around disparaging or hateful social media posts made during a divorce that are likely to harm vulnerable children, and, regrettably, the Legislature and court administration have failed to enact prophylactic measures to protect them. Furthermore, the New York courts have been slow and largely ineffective in responding to specific instances of such social media abuse.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllThe Majority Upholds Retroactive Application of Clickwrap Arbitration Agreement
7 minute readCorporate Confidentiality Unlocked: Leveraging Common Interest Privilege for Effective Collaboration
11 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Judicial Ethics Opinion 24-81
- 2Mental Health Issues Don’t Get a Holiday
- 3'It's Got to Be a Wake-Up Call:' Atlanta Attorney Hopes $16M Verdict Spurs Training Changes at Hotels
- 4FTC Bans 'Junk Fees' in Live-Event Tickets and Short-Term Lodging
- 5California Legal Awards Moving to Mid-Summer Date in 2025, Adds New Categories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250