Arguments for my position: The
inclusion of social media as
evidence in court is justified and should continue.
Argument #1: Can
provide accurate location details and times
Users of a platform are allowed to download all their data
from their time on the platform, including IP addresses used
used to log onto a platform, that contains location
data(DiBianca 1).
"Depending on the posting history of the person or of the
person's connections, a wealth of information about that person
may be accessed..."(Carlson 1041).
" For example, in a 2010 New York case, a plaintiff claimed
that injuries confined her to bed, but the court admitted
evidence from the plaintiff s Facebook and MySpace pages showing
her leading an active life."(Goodfellow 33).
Argument #2: Rules in place to prevent misuse of the platform
It is already known by Masinter and York that rules have been
and will continue to adapt and evolve as technology
advances(Masinter, York 1).
Evidenced used in litigation have to be confirmed to be
relevant to the case whether it be regular evidence or digital
information(Carlson 1042).
Sources Carlson,
Siri. “When is a Tweet
not an ‘Admissible’ Tweet? Closing the Authentication Gap in the
Federal Rules
of Evidence.” University of
Pennsylvania
Law Review, vol. 164, no. 4, 2016, pp. 1033–1065.Type:
Scholarly, Database: JSTOR
DiBianca,
Margaret (Molly).
“Discovery and Preservation of Social Media Evidence.” Business Law Today, 2014, pp. 1–4., Type:
Scholarly,Database: JSTOR
Goodfellow,
Simon R. “Social
Media as Evidence: Navigating the Limits of Privacy.” Family Advocate, vol. 37, no. 4, 2015, pp. 32–34., Type:
Scholarly,Database: JSTOR
Masinter,
Paul J., and
Bryant S. York. “Game of Twitter—Social Media and Its Impact on
the Practice of
Litigation.” Business Law
Today,
2016, pp. 1–4. Type:
Scholarly,Database: JSTOR