At a seminar about Internet safety, the District’s IT Director gave a presentation designed to illustrate the permanent nature of social-media posts and how your posts could be embarrassing if published by third parties. One of the slides in the Director’s presentation, titled, “Once It’s There—It’s There to Stay",” showed a photo of a student in a bikini and standing next to a life-size cut-out of the rapper Snoop Dog.
The Director found the picture by browsing students’ Facebook pages for pictures to use in his presentation. Paper copies of the presentation, including the slide featuring the student’s picture, which also identified her by name, were distributed to attendees.
As you may imagine, the student, Chelsea Chaney, was not happy about her cameo. She filed suit against the district and against the IT Director, alleging violations of her constitutional rights protected by the 4th and 14th Amendments, as well as state-law tort claims. The District moved to dismiss.
First, the plaintiff contended that the public display of her picture constituted an unlawful search and seizure in violation of the 4th Amendment. In order for the 4th Amendment to apply, there must be a reasonable expectation of privacy. Here, the court held that no reasonable expectation of privacy could exist in the picture because the plaintiff had voluntarily made it available to her friends and, because of her Facebook settings, to her friends’ friends, as well. By doing so, Chaney surrendered any reasonable expectation of privacy in the picture. Thus, the 4th Amendment claim was dismissed.
The court reached the same conclusion with respect to the 14th Amendment claim. The 14th Amendment protects an individual’s interest in avoiding the disclosure of personal matters and in making certain decisions. But the constitution does not create a blanket right of privacy. Nor does it create a right to be free from public embarrassment or damage to reputation.
So, what are the lessons to be learned from this case? Well, if nothing else, it serves as yet another reminder about the permanent and public nature of social-media content. Once you post it, it is out of your hands and you have no legal recourse if it is republished to others.
From an employment-law perspective, there is another twist. The District had various social-media and Internet acceptable-use policies, each of which would seem to have been violated by the IT Director. For example, District employees were required to notify a student’s parents prior to “use of and interaction with a student’s social-media page.” Here, the Director searched students’ pages for content he could use in his presentation.
Call me crazy but this seems like a major lapse of judgment on the part of the IT Director. It’s one thing to give real-life examples but altogether a different thing to use as one of those examples an actual student who will be present in the audience. Seriously? As if high school is not hard enough, man.
Chaney v. Fayette County Pub. Sch. Dist., No. 3:13-cv-89-TCB (N.D. Ga. Sept. 30, 2013).