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

  • Renée N. Souris
Part of the AMINTAPHIL: The Philosophical Foundations of Law and Justice book series (AMIN, volume 8)


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.


  1. Allen A (2015) Who’s watching you? The New Philosopher. Accessed 16 June 2017
  2. American Law Institute (1979) Restatement (second) of torts, 3rd edn. American Law Institute Publishers, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  3. Balingit M (2015) Millions of teens are using a new app to post anonymous thoughts, and most parents have no idea. Washington Post. Accessed 16 June 2017
  4. Bilton N (2014) Meet Facebook’s Mr. Nice. New York Times. Accessed 16 June 2017
  5. Bloustein E (1964) Privacy as an aspect of dignity: an answer to Dean Prosser. N Y Law Rev 39:962–1007Google Scholar
  6. Chazan D (2016) French parents ‘could be jailed’ for posting children’s photos online. The Telegraph. Accessed 16 June 2017
  7. Children’s Online Privacy Protection Act of 1998, 15 U.S.C. 6501–6505. Accessed 16 June 2017
  8. Erikson EH (1950) Childhood and society. Norton, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  9. Flint H (2014) French privacy laws: how strict are they? The Telegraph. Accessed 16 June 2017
  10. French Legislation on Privacy (2007). Accessed 16 June 2017
  11. Hamilton VE (2006) Principles of U.S. family law. College of William & Mary Law School Scholarship RepositoryGoogle Scholar
  12. Hasson MR (2013) Youth rights and the shrinking power of parents. In: The Family in America. Ethics and Public Policy Center. Accessed 16 June 2017
  13. Hiniker A, Schoenebeck SY, Keintz JA (2016) Not at the dinner table: parents and children’s perspectives on technology rules. Paper presented at the proceedings of the 19th ACM conference on computer-supported cooperative work & social computing, San Francisco, February 27–March 2, 2016.
  14. Lee J (2015) Parenting & “sharenting”: the opportunities and risks of parenting in the social media age. University of Michigan Institute for Healthcare Policy and Innovation.“sharenting”-opportunities-risks-parenting-social-media-age. Accessed 16 June 2017
  15. McCarthy JT (2000) The rights of publicity and privacy. Thompson Reuters, EaganGoogle Scholar
  16. Meet the anonymous apps that are bringing cyberbullying to your teens’ school. Scholastic Choices. Accessed 16 June 2017
  17. PH (2014) Anonymous social networking: secrets and lies. The Economist. Accessed 16 June 2017
  18. Prosser W (1955) Handbook of the law of torts, 2nd edn. West Publishing, St. PaulGoogle Scholar
  19. Prosser W (1960) Privacy. Calif Law Rev 48:383–423CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Richards NM, Solove DJ (2010) Prosser’s privacy law: a mixed legacy. Calif Law Rev 98(6):1887–1924Google Scholar
  21. Saarinen M, Ladousse J (2017) Privacy in France: overview. Accessed 16 June 2017
  22. SB 568 (California Business & Professions Code Sec. 22581)Google Scholar
  23. Solove DJ (2010) Speech, privacy, and reputation on the internet. In: Levmore S, Nussbaum M (eds) The offensive internet: speech, privacy, and reputation. Harvard University Press, CambridgeGoogle Scholar
  24. Steinberg N (2017) Sharenting: children’s privacy in the age of social media. Emory Law J 66:839Google Scholar
  25. Szalavitz M (2010) How not to raise a bully: the early roots of empathy. Time.,8599,1982190,00.html. Accessed 16 June 2017
  26. Tribe LH (2015) Equal dignity: speaking its name. Harv Law Rev 129(16):16–32. Accessed 16 June 2017Google Scholar
  27. Turkle S (2011) Alone together. Basic Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  28. Turkle S (2015) Reclaiming conversation: the power of talk in a digital age. Penguin Books, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  29. Warren S, Louis B (1890) The right to privacy. Harv Law Rev 4(5):193–220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Weissbourd R (2014) Bullying prevention: the power of empathy. Huffington Post. Accessed 16 June 2017
  31. Whitman JQ (2004) Two western cultures of privacy: dignity versus liberty. Yale Law J 113(6):1151–1221CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. YouTube. Star Wars Kid. Accessed 16 June 2017

Copyright information

© Springer International Publishing AG, part of Springer Nature 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.American UniversityWashington, DCUSA

Personalised recommendations