Youtube and minors

[Sequence]

I recently posted on a youtube video, that was done allegedly by a 9 year old boy. Because I am an ahole, i jokingly called the kid a "little fag**t." I then received an email from what i assume to be his mother, who is threatening legal action. Am I at risk?

 

[seniorjudge]

Anyone can sue anybody for anything at any time anywhere.

 

[Sequence]

i realize that. i can sue you right now. i want to know if i am at risk of LOSING, and under what reasons.

 

[quincy]

Why, if you assumed this was a 9 year old kid, would you want to write something like that? Geez.

Anyway, what the boy and/or his mom could potentially sue you for is defamation. The chances of her winning such a suit and you losing such a suit is anyone's guess, but I'd say she'd probably lose. But, if she brings a suit against you, for whatever reason, and even if she loses, you will still spend a bundle of money defending yourself in court. So you, basically, lose either way.

If you can delete your nasty little missive, I recommend it. It could mitigate damages in the event of a suit, and it is also the right thing to do.

 

[Sequence]

i read one of your earlier comments about opinion, and opinion with intent to damage. i was just expressing an impromptu opinion with no motive to damage his reputation. additionally, what sort of "charges" are you talking about in terms of defense. my father is an attorney who would represent me for free. any other charges?

 

[tranquility]

There is an exceedingly small chance you would "lose". They would have a hard time proving damages. You would claim the term was not saying the person was a homosexual, but was a jerk--or whatever. Finally, in this day and age, they would have a higher hurdle proving the claim a person was a homosexual is defamatory and would need to bring in other members of the community to say it was because it is probably not defamatory on its face.

 

[Sequence]

i would appreciate more replies and information!

 

[quincy]

Tranquility is right that implying someone is homosexual is not always considered defamatory anymore - it depends on the circumstances. But if a judge were to decide this was defamation per se, then "injury" is assumed. And "opinion" would be your defense...if it actually gets to court, which I strongly doubt. Opinion is something that does not imply fact and can be neither proved nor disproved. Your comment pretty much fits that description.

It is expensive to sue and if this woman checks with a lawyer, he will probably tell her she doesn't have much of a case anyway. As for costs, if your dad represents you for free, you would just be looking at damages awarded and possible court costs, if the woman wins the suit. Again, her winning is unlikely....but always possible.

Again, if what you quoted is all that you wrote, I doubt it will get to the court stage. Just delete the message, apologize, and hope this woman doesn't have a lot of time on her hands and a lot of money to throw away on a suit against you.

 

[Sequence]

Yes, calling him a "little ******" was the only thing i wrote directed towards him. It was an opinion, and about 20-30 minutes after it was posted, it had been removed, I assume, by the mother, which proves that exposure time was low. So I would have 3 defenses.

1. Homsexuality is not a inflammatory
2. It was an opinion not designed to hurt him
3. It was barely even up there long enough for people to view it, if anyone even did at all.


Opinions? Suggestons?

 

[quincy]

I would just stick with opinion as your defense. You are allowed to criticize and comment, and your comment does fall under opinion.

As far as being called a "fag**t", this 9 year old kid may think that implying he was homosexual is defamation per se - he may have had all his 9 year old buddies watching the video, and he may forever be teased by your comment. His mother probably has to deal with her son's deflated self-image, too, especially if he was really excited about being on YouTube. Also, the viewership of YouTube is so great that 30 minutes probably exposed your comment to a heck of a lot of people. It would have been better if you could have removed the comment before the mom, or whoever, did it, but it is good that it has been deleted. I wouldn't stress the length of time your comment appeared, however, unless it comes to mitigating damages.

And, if it DOES get to court, which I honestly don't think it will, don't say you didn't mean to hurt the kid. That was your intent, otherwise you wouldn't have posted something so mean-spirited. Just say you were stupid. THAT is far more believeable.

 

[Sequence]

Does the law differ from minors to normal adults? In the mother's response, she said the laws regarding freedom of speech is different for minors. Is this true?

 

[racer72]

Does the law differ from minors to normal adults? In the mother's response, she said the laws regarding freedom of speech is different for minors. Is this true?

The Constitutional guarantee of freedom of speech only applies to the limits the government can place against the citizens of the US. It does not apply to what one can say about another. If there was absolute freedom of speech, there would be no such thing as defamation. The kid's mother does have the right to defend her son and take appropriate measures.

 

[Sequence]

thats not what i was referring to. i was asking where libel laws are stricter when done against a minor, as opposed to an adult.

 

[quincy]

Well, freedom of speech is pretty much freedom of speech. I am not aware of anything in the Constitution that says freedom of speech applies to everyone but minors. Maybe the mother is referring to the control schools can have over what students write or say? Or the Communications Decency Act? That has been overturned as unconstitutional and replaced with the Child Internet Protection Act, which applies to school libraries, primarily. I don't know what the mother is thinking. The attempts to shield children from offensive material has pretty much been found unconstitutional. At any rate, YouTube is full of offensive material, so the mother is not doing a very good job of shielding her child, if she not only allows her child to view the videos but lets him appear in one.

I don't know what to tell you on this one, Sequence. Wait for other responses.

 

[Sequence]

Thank you! If anyone has anything else to say, I'd love to hear it!