Posting Evidence Against Yourself?

Don’t post evidence against yourself.

If you are involved in a family law suit–divorce, child custody, child support– be conscious and cautious about what you post online. It is easily available to everyone. And even if you go back and remove it, someone may have printed or recorded it in some permanent way, or friends and family may have reposted it, commented on it, or shared it with others.

The same applies if you are applying for a job or just hoping to make a good impression on new friends. The first thing we all do when we want to find out about someone is to “Google” him or her. Think about what you want people to see about you before you text, send e-mail messages, post to Facebook or other social media, or share information about yourself online in any way. It could spread wide and be available for a very long time.

The First Amendment gives us the right to free speech, but it does prohibit what we say, write, and post from being used against us in or out of court.

In a recent blog post, attorney Karen T. Willitts tells of recent court cases that lead to outcomes the poster probably didn’t intend. You can find the entire article at:

Quotes from that Post:

Social Media in the Law: What You Say (or Post) Can Be Used Against You Do citizens have a right to free speech?

Yes, but that does not necessarily mean that you should not be cautious about the kind of information that you post on the Internet on social media websites.  People forget that their comments, even if meant innocently or innocuously, and even if intended to be private, have a way of finding their way into the public space. In the context of family disputes, it is increasingly common that social media postings can be used against a litigant in court.  For example, a litigant asserting an inability to meet support obligations because of reduced income may find that photos, comments and postings on social media may be used against that litigant to show that his or her income is higher than alleged or that the obligor litigant’s lifestyle suggests an income that is more than that litigant admitted in court.

Comments are closed.