Skip to main content

Parents, Privacy, and Facebook: Legal and Social Responses to the Problem of “Over-Sharing”

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Book cover Core Concepts and Contemporary Issues in Privacy

Part of the book series: AMINTAPHIL: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice ((AMIN,volume 8))

  • 1037 Accesses

Abstract

This paper examines whether American parents legally violate their children’s privacy rights when they share embarrassing images of their children on social media without their children’s consent. My inquiry is motivated by recent reports that French authorities have warned French parents that they could face fines and imprisonment for such conduct, if their children sue them once their children turn 18. Where French privacy law is grounded in respect for dignity, thereby explaining the French concerns for parental “over-sharing,” I show that there are three major legal roadblocks for such a case to succeed in U.S. law. First, U.S. privacy tort law largely only protects a person’s image where the person has a commercial interest in his or her image. Secondly, privacy tort laws are subject to constitutional constraints respecting the freedom of speech and press. Third, American courts are reluctant to erode parental authority, except in cases where extraordinary threats to children’s welfare exist. I argue that while existing privacy law in the U.S. is inadequate to offer children legal remedy if their parents share their embarrassing images of them without their consent, the dignity-based concerns of the French should not be neglected. I consider a recent proposal to protect children’s privacy by extending to them the “right to be forgotten” online, but I identify problems in this proposal and argue it is not a panacea to the over-sharing problem. I conclude by emphasizing our shared social responsibilities to protect children by teaching them about the importance of respecting one another’s privacy and dignity in the online context, and by setting examples as responsible users of internet technologies.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 79.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Softcover Book
USD 99.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Compact, lightweight edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info
Hardcover Book
USD 129.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

Notes

  1. 1.

    The original video of the “Star Wars Kid” remains on YouTube, as well as the comments posted in response to it.

  2. 2.

    For the purposes of this paper, I use “child” to denote a relationship (i.e., with a parent), and “minor” to denote a person under 18.

  3. 3.

    Richards and Solove (2010), p. 1916 think that this case embraced Warren and Brandeis’ view, even if it was not exactly the tort they had in mind, whereas Prosser’s appraisal of it divorces it from Warren and Brandeis, and from the other privacy torts altogether.

  4. 4.

    Unlike Warren and Brandeis, who were highly educated in the European tradition, it is not surprising that Jerome Frank, a notable legal realist, would articulate a tangible basis for privacy, rather than privacy as protecting the intangible attributes of the self that make up one’s personality.

  5. 5.

    For a particularly powerful statement of this view, see Bloustein (1964).

  6. 6.

    For the doctrinal adoption in the law, see American Law Institute (1979, §§ 652B, C, D, E).

  7. 7.

    Aside from celebrity children, children typically lack a commercial interest in their image, and while the privacy rights of celebrities is related, it is outside the narrow scope of this essay. Moreover, even intimate or embarrassing images of children are unlikely to be considered highly offensive to a reasonable person, unless they are of a clearly sexual nature or depict abuse. Again, although related, this paper is not concerned with such cases, as they would constitute independent criminal activity.

  8. 8.

    In light of how quickly online information can spread, if parents share images of their children with others who then download and share it themselves, the question of suppression then involves the freedom of speech of these other individuals as well. Some acts of appropriating and sharing images of children is illegal, however, as when pedophiles download children’s images and upload them onto to pedophilia sites. Because this is the domain of the criminal law, I am not focusing on it here.

  9. 9.

    In every U.S. state, children of all ages have the right to consent on their own to testing and treatment of sexually transmitted infection (STIs). See Hasson (2013).

  10. 10.

    I thank Ann Cudd for bringing this similarity to my attention.

  11. 11.

    The following cases upheld broad parental authority: Troxel v. Granville (530 U.S. 57, 2000); Parham v. J. R (442 U.S. 584, 1979); Quilloin v. Walcott (434 U.S. 246, 1978); Wisconsin v. Yoder (406 U.S. 205, 1972); Pierce v. Society of Sisters (268 U.S. 510, 1925); Meyer v. Nebraska (262 U.S. 390, 1923). For a general discussion, see Hamilton (2006).

  12. 12.

    For a discussion of these concerns, see PH (2014), Balingit (2015), and Scholastic Choices.

  13. 13.

    Erikson (1950) identified adolescence (or the period between ages 13 or 14 to about 20) as the period of the fifth psycho-social crisis, “Learning Identity versus Identity Diffusion,” where the child, now an adolescent, learns how to answer questions about his or her own identity, thus making it an impressionable stage of ego-development.

  14. 14.

    For a discussion on this topic, see Szalavitz (2010) and Weissbourd (2014).

  15. 15.

    See Bilton (2014) for a deeper discussion of Facebook’s recent efforts in this area.

References

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Renée N. Souris .

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Souris, R.N. (2018). Parents, Privacy, and Facebook: Legal and Social Responses to the Problem of “Over-Sharing”. In: Cudd, A., Navin, M. (eds) Core Concepts and Contemporary Issues in Privacy. AMINTAPHIL: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice, vol 8. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74639-5_12

Download citation

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-74639-5_12

  • Published:

  • Publisher Name: Springer, Cham

  • Print ISBN: 978-3-319-74638-8

  • Online ISBN: 978-3-319-74639-5

  • eBook Packages: Law and CriminologyLaw and Criminology (R0)

Publish with us

Policies and ethics