Facebook & Derogatory Remarks/Cease and Desist?

[LdiJ]

The cited statute is clear. If one is not AUTHORIZED to access the NETWORK (ie: Facebook's NETWORK) then one has violated the statute.

I understand that there is no realistic chance that FB is going to press the issue or that the "authorities" are going to press the issue, but the fact remains. It is against the law.

I honestly think that you are taking the term "authorized" in a direction that is not intended by the law.

 

[Ohiogal]

I honestly think that you are taking the term "authorized" in a direction that is not intended by the law.

Actually he is not. But if you think you are correct, prove it with something other than your goldfish said it is so.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Regardless of if it is a "law", or only a "rule", the fact is that the OP is knowingly allowing the children to violate it. Welcome to the modern world of self-entitlement. I see it almost daily, with the biggest violations being parking and crossing during the "don't walk" signal. How do these people teach the children right from wrong when they dont follow that rules themselves?

I regularly have to tell Little Miss Pro Se that some of the "little things" that The Ex does, and/or allows, are wrong.

Most recently it was parking in a fire lane with a BIG sign that said "No Parking", because "We'll only be here a minute" isn't a valid excuse...

LMPS regularly gets emails from her friends asking her to "join" them on Facebook. She knows the rules, so she has another year to go to be able to do so, and I have explained that her friends parents shouldn't have allowed them to have an account there either. She seems to get it.

My .02...

 

[stealth2]

Eh... I honestly consider involvement with social networks to be within the realm of parental discretion. Akin to cell phones, email, movie ratings, etc. It really should be up to *me* to decide what my kids are ready for. Under age-appropriate supervision, of course.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

Eh... I honestly consider involvement with social networks to be within the realm of parental discretion. Akin to cell phones, email, movie ratings, etc. It really should be up to *me* to decide what my kids are ready for. Under age-appropriate supervision, of course.

While I want to agree in principle, I don't own one of those sites, so the TOS is the TOS.

Same as here.

Rules be rules...

 

[frylover]

Eh... I honestly consider involvement with social networks to be within the realm of parental discretion. Akin to cell phones, email, movie ratings, etc. It really should be up to *me* to decide what my kids are ready for. Under age-appropriate supervision, of course.

Ditto, ditto (said twice because of 10 character "law" )

 

[stealth2]

While I want to agree in principle, I don't own one of those sites, so the TOS is the TOS.

Same as here.

Rules be rules...

And if it were to become an issue, I'd take responsibility.

I actually agree with OP. Better she knows what's going on than not. My response to any questions regarding what Dad's posting? "Sometimes when people are angry or upset, they say things they don't mean. Always remember that both your Dad and I love you very much."

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

And if it were to become an issue, I'd take responsibility.

I actually agree with OP. Better she knows what's going on than not. My response to any questions regarding what Dad's posting? "Sometimes when people are angry or upset, they say things they don't mean. Always remember that both your Dad and I love you very much."

Again, I want to agree in principle, BUT...

Where is that boundary? Do we only follow the rules(since it's not a law, it doesn't matter, right) when we agree with them? Does that actually extend to laws, too?

I am slightly taken aback by this response.

Just sayin'...

If your children respect you, they WILL tell you.

 

[stealth2]

Again, I want to agree in principle, BUT...

Where is that boundary? Do we only follow the rules(since it's not a law, it doesn't matter, right) when we agree with them? Does that actually extend to laws, too?/QUOTE]

There is difference between rules and laws. We obey the law. Rules? Are more flexible. For example, I CAN choose to break the rules and take my <17yo (no longer) to a rated R movie. that is within my discretion. I consider social networking rules to fall within that sphere.

Now, to be fair, my two are 17 & 19 (nearly a year more, now). However, I do actually still have their passwords and account IDs.

If your children respect you, they WILL tell you.

No kidding. My kids are both very open with me. Certainly, there are things I don't know. But, the important stuff? I think I do. Because contrary to popular belief, I am both my kids' parent AND their (adult) friend. There is really nothing they can't bring to me. And they know it.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

There is difference between rules and laws. We obey the law. Rules? Are more flexible. For example, I CAN choose to break the rules and take my <17yo (no longer) to a rated R movie. that is within my discretion. I consider social networking rules to fall within that sphere.

Now, to be fair, my two are 17 & 19 (nearly a year more, now). However, I do actually still have their passwords and account IDs.



No kidding. My kids are both very open with me. Certainly, there are things I don't know. But, the important stuff? I think I do. Because contrary to popular belief, I am both my kids' parent AND their (adult) friend. There is really nothing they can't bring to me. And they know it.

We are back to my previous comment of "I want to agree in principle, BUT...."

The OP's children are both under 13. Period.

I still balk when I allow LMPS to watch a PG-13 movie. But I do occasionoally allow it.

But it is a "guidance", not a "rule"....

To each thier own, but advising someone to ignore the rules is a bad idea.

Again, MY .02...

 

[stealth2]

The line between rules and guidelines is much lower than between either and law. The former two remain in my purview as a parent.

 

[ProSeDadinMD]

The line between rules and guidelines is much lower than between either and law. The former two remain in my purview as a parent.

Again, back to "agreed, BUT"....

Are Facebooks rules yours to ignore? Ifnso, where is the line? Are school rules yours to ignore also? Court "rules"(which is why we are here, right?)? Where is the line?

Again, welcome to the age of entitlement....

 

[stealth2]

Again, back to "agreed, BUT"....

Are Facebooks rules yours to ignore? Ifnso, where is the line?

Absolutely. As long as I accept the consequences therein.

Are school rules yours to ignore also?

Again - Absolutely. As long as I accept the consequences therein.

Heck, I can even ignore the "rule" of "2 per customer" at the supermarket by having someone else buy another 2, etc for me. Or even go through the like more than once.

Court "rules"(which is why we are here, right?)? Where is the line?

Different. Court orders are closer to the law than arbitrary rules set by FB or the school.

Again, welcome to the age of entitlement....

Silly drivel, son.

 

[mommymushbrain]

Wow. I didn't mean to set off a debate.

As for my email, I have since added a notation in which the facebook accounts which were created at his house and used at his house against my personal wishes, inserting the other email copy when I initially addressed these concerns with him.

I will stand in the fact that I would rather "allow" these accounts than to have them shut down and then the next time they go to dad's they make another that is even more hidden and I don't know what my kids are spewing online. Other than not allowing them on facebook at our house, I cannot see any other punishment that would fit that crime without impeding on the whole "dad's house, dad's rules" mantra.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a Arkansas-Alabama game to watch on TV.

Go Hogs!

 

[frylover]

Wow. I didn't mean to set off a debate.

As for my email, I have since added a notation in which the facebook accounts which were created at his house and used at his house against my personal wishes, inserting the other email copy when I initially addressed these concerns with him.

I will stand in the fact that I would rather "allow" these accounts than to have them shut down and then the next time they go to dad's they make another that is even more hidden and I don't know what my kids are spewing online. Other than not allowing them on facebook at our house, I cannot see any other punishment that would fit that crime without impeding on the whole "dad's house, dad's rules" mantra.

Now if you'll excuse me, I have a Arkansas-Alabama game to watch on TV.

Go Hogs!

Go Hogs.....for today only! (I'm in La! Go ANYBODY except Bama!)