Net News

Winklevoss Twins Drop Facebook Supreme Court Bid

Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss and partner Divya Narendra have decided not to appeal to the U.S Supreme Court the decision of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April not to overturn their $65 million settlement with Facebook. The case has been dropped, and the Winklevoss' and Narendra, founders of ConnectU, have accepted the settlement.

After announcing in May that they would appeal Ninth Circuit's decision (see, “Winklevoss Twins Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Facebook Case,” www.ljnonline.com/issues/ljn_internetlaw/9_6/news/155329-1.html), the twins and Narenda filed with the Ninth Circuit on June 22 that “after careful consideration,” they would not ask the case to be heard by the High Court.

In a statement, Facebook said: “We've considered this case closed for a long time, and we're pleased to see the other party now agrees.”

The Winklevoss' gave no further comment on the withdrawal of the case, but speculation is that because the original settlement awarded them $45 million in Facebook stock and Facebook continues to grow, the value of the settlement has increased as well and will continue to grow with Facebook's value.

The twins are not finished with Facebook in the courts, however. As this issue was going to press, wire services reported that the Winklevoss' and Narenda announced in a report filed with the District Court of Massuchussetts that they would move for discovery on whether Facebook “intentionally or inadvertently suppressed evidence” during settlement proceedings. Facebook's outside counsel, Neel Chatterjee, told Reuters: “These are old and baseless allegations that have been considered and rejected previously by the courts.”

' Steven Salkin, Managing Editor

New Jersey is a step away from creating an educational alternative to criminal prosecution of juveniles who transmit explicit photos of themselves or other minors over the airwaves ' otherwise known as “sexting.”

The measure, A-1561/S-2700 (www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/S3000/2700_U1.PDF), would call for the Attorney General and the courts to develop a diversionary program, in view of testimony that teenagers who send out the images do so out of a psychological vulnerability, not a criminal mindset.

The Senate version was reported favorably, by a 5-0 vote, by the Law and Public Safety Committee on June 13 and then referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. The Assembly approved its version in a 78-0 vote on March 14 and the state Senate approved the bill 39-0 on June 29, sending the bill to Gov. Chris Christie. According to the governor's spokesman, as of the end of June, he has not indicated whether he will sign the bill or not.

Teenagers who are admitted to the program would learn about legal consequences of transmitting explicit photos as well as non-legal consequences, such as the loss of job opportunities if a nude photo of an applicant is floating around.

The program also would discuss unforeseen consequences of sharing sexually explicit materials due to the infinite audience of the Internet, and the connection between bullying and sharing of explicit materials.

Eligibility for the diversionary program would be limited to juveniles who have not previously been convicted of offenses such as sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child, or luring or enticing a child.

County prosecutors would have the discretion to admit minors into the program. Program participants must not have known that their actions constituted a crime, and the benefits of admitting them would have to outweigh the harm done to society by abandoning the prosecution. Successful completion of the program would entitle the juvenile to avoid prosecution.

The bill was first introduced by Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt (D-Camden), in June 2009, three months after the Passaic County Sheriff's Department brought child-pornography charges against a 14-year-old girl who posted nude pictures of herself on MySpace. The girl was given probation and counseling. In the Legislature's 2009-2010 session, the bill never got a hearing in committee.

The statement to Lampitt's bill says: “The teenage practices of sexting and posting sexual images online are nationwide problems that have perplexed parents, school administrators, and law enforcement officials. Prosecutors in several states have charged teenagers who have engaged in these behaviors with criminal offenses, including distribution of child pornograpy.”

Usually, such offenses would be prosecuted in New Jersey under N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4, endangering the welfare of a child.

But the bill's supporters say punitive measures should be avoided because teenagers who send nude photos often act out of a lack of confidence or need for approval.

Last year, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Miller v. Mitchell (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7857709161035562802&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), upheld a restraining order enjoining a district attorney from prosecuting a teenager who had posed for such photos. The photos had been taken by her friends at a slumber party and sent to a schoolmate's cell phone.

In that case, the district attorney in Wyoming County, PA, threatened prosecution of juvenile sexters for violating Pennsylvania's child-abuse law unless they participated in a morality education class set up by the District Attorney's Office, the Juvenile Probation Department, and other entities. The Third Circuit upheld an injunction barring the prosecutor from bringing child pornography charges against girls who refused to attend the class.

The Third Circuit found no probable cause to bring charges. As a result, any decision to prosecute the teenagers after they refused to take the class would constitute retaliation against them for asserting their First Amendment rights, the court found.

Lampitt, and the sponsors of S-2700, Democrats James Beach of Camden and John Girgenti of Bergen, did not return calls about the legislation.

' Charles Toutant, New Jersey Law Journal

Winklevoss Twins Drop Facebook Supreme Court Bid

Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss and partner Divya Narendra have decided not to appeal to the U.S Supreme Court the decision of a panel of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit in April not to overturn their $65 million settlement with Facebook. The case has been dropped, and the Winklevoss' and Narendra, founders of ConnectU, have accepted the settlement.

After announcing in May that they would appeal Ninth Circuit's decision (see, “Winklevoss Twins Ask U.S. Supreme Court to Hear Facebook Case,” www.ljnonline.com/issues/ljn_internetlaw/9_6/news/155329-1.html), the twins and Narenda filed with the Ninth Circuit on June 22 that “after careful consideration,” they would not ask the case to be heard by the High Court.

In a statement, Facebook said: “We've considered this case closed for a long time, and we're pleased to see the other party now agrees.”

The Winklevoss' gave no further comment on the withdrawal of the case, but speculation is that because the original settlement awarded them $45 million in Facebook stock and Facebook continues to grow, the value of the settlement has increased as well and will continue to grow with Facebook's value.

The twins are not finished with Facebook in the courts, however. As this issue was going to press, wire services reported that the Winklevoss' and Narenda announced in a report filed with the District Court of Massuchussetts that they would move for discovery on whether Facebook “intentionally or inadvertently suppressed evidence” during settlement proceedings. Facebook's outside counsel, Neel Chatterjee, told Reuters: “These are old and baseless allegations that have been considered and rejected previously by the courts.”

' Steven Salkin, Managing Editor

New Jersey is a step away from creating an educational alternative to criminal prosecution of juveniles who transmit explicit photos of themselves or other minors over the airwaves ' otherwise known as “sexting.”

The measure, A-1561/S-2700 (www.njleg.state.nj.us/2010/Bills/S3000/2700_U1.PDF), would call for the Attorney General and the courts to develop a diversionary program, in view of testimony that teenagers who send out the images do so out of a psychological vulnerability, not a criminal mindset.

The Senate version was reported favorably, by a 5-0 vote, by the Law and Public Safety Committee on June 13 and then referred to the Senate Budget and Appropriations Committee. The Assembly approved its version in a 78-0 vote on March 14 and the state Senate approved the bill 39-0 on June 29, sending the bill to Gov. Chris Christie. According to the governor's spokesman, as of the end of June, he has not indicated whether he will sign the bill or not.

Teenagers who are admitted to the program would learn about legal consequences of transmitting explicit photos as well as non-legal consequences, such as the loss of job opportunities if a nude photo of an applicant is floating around.

The program also would discuss unforeseen consequences of sharing sexually explicit materials due to the infinite audience of the Internet, and the connection between bullying and sharing of explicit materials.

Eligibility for the diversionary program would be limited to juveniles who have not previously been convicted of offenses such as sexual assault, endangering the welfare of a child, or luring or enticing a child.

County prosecutors would have the discretion to admit minors into the program. Program participants must not have known that their actions constituted a crime, and the benefits of admitting them would have to outweigh the harm done to society by abandoning the prosecution. Successful completion of the program would entitle the juvenile to avoid prosecution.

The bill was first introduced by Assemblywoman Pamela Lampitt (D-Camden), in June 2009, three months after the Passaic County Sheriff's Department brought child-pornography charges against a 14-year-old girl who posted nude pictures of herself on MySpace. The girl was given probation and counseling. In the Legislature's 2009-2010 session, the bill never got a hearing in committee.

The statement to Lampitt's bill says: “The teenage practices of sexting and posting sexual images online are nationwide problems that have perplexed parents, school administrators, and law enforcement officials. Prosecutors in several states have charged teenagers who have engaged in these behaviors with criminal offenses, including distribution of child pornograpy.”

Usually, such offenses would be prosecuted in New Jersey under N.J.S.A. 2C:24-4, endangering the welfare of a child.

But the bill's supporters say punitive measures should be avoided because teenagers who send nude photos often act out of a lack of confidence or need for approval.

Last year, the Third U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, in Miller v. Mitchell (http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=7857709161035562802&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr), upheld a restraining order enjoining a district attorney from prosecuting a teenager who had posed for such photos. The photos had been taken by her friends at a slumber party and sent to a schoolmate's cell phone.

In that case, the district attorney in Wyoming County, PA, threatened prosecution of juvenile sexters for violating Pennsylvania's child-abuse law unless they participated in a morality education class set up by the District Attorney's Office, the Juvenile Probation Department, and other entities. The Third Circuit upheld an injunction barring the prosecutor from bringing child pornography charges against girls who refused to attend the class.

The Third Circuit found no probable cause to bring charges. As a result, any decision to prosecute the teenagers after they refused to take the class would constitute retaliation against them for asserting their First Amendment rights, the court found.

Lampitt, and the sponsors of S-2700, Democrats James Beach of Camden and John Girgenti of Bergen, did not return calls about the legislation.

' Charles Toutant, New Jersey Law Journal