With all the warnings I give about saying too much online, it's also important to remember that what we say offline has consequences as well.
Senior Judge Warren W. Eginton of the United States District Court for the District of Connecticut was recently reminded of that fact by the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. Now, it's important to keep in mind that Judge Eginton has been practicing law since 1951, when he graduated from Yale Law School. He's been contributing to the profession for more than 60 years. So he's entitled to make a few mistakes, and still deserves heaps of respect.
But this is a blog about social media and the law, so I can't help but take note of what happened when Judge Eginton aired his opinions about social media while in the process of handing out a sentence to Laura Culver, who was convicted of producing child pornography of a minor child under her custody and control. In justifying his decision to impose a sentence of eight years instead of the recommended six years, Judge Eginton referenced "Facebook, and things like it, and society has changed." He speculated that the proliferation of Facebook would facilitate an increase in child pornography cases, and said he hoped Facebook founder Mark Zuckerberg was "enjoying all his money because . . . he's going to hurt a lot of people . . . ."
Culver failed to challenge these statements in the district court. When raised on appeal, however, the Second Circuit found them to be so plainly erroneous and significant as to justify vacating the sentence and remanding the case for resentencing.
The government argued that Judge Eginton was merely concerned about the extent to which various new technologies may facilitate child pornography, rather than Facebook specifically. "In that sense," the appellate court acknowledged, "Facebook was a reference to the internet, using synecdoche." And, of course, the amount of such content on the internet as a whole is repulsive. "But the government [cannot] explain," the Second Circuit continued, "the role of new technology in this case. Culver did not use the internet to commit her crime, and it should not have played a predominant role in her sentencing."
Fortunately, the incident didn't put Culver back on the streets. And the appellate court went on to note that Culver's crime was "particularly abhorrent" and may very well justify the prolonged sentence. But the court needed assurance that the sentence was based on the facts of this case, not on fear of the world that social media is creating.
