Parents Of Caroline Wimmer Disgusted By Social Site's ImmunityBy John Slattery

NEW YORK (CBSNewYork) — The outraged family of a local murder victim is taking on Facebook.

It was a paramedic who took the crime scene photos, and posted them on the site, but is Facebook, itself, to blame?

It’s a case of what the family is calling “disrespecting the dead,” reports CBS 2’s John Slattery.

Martha and Ronald Wimmer think that the photographing and posting of their daughter’s brutalized body is just more than they can stand.

“This is on the second anniversary of our daughter’s death. I just want to get by, day by day,” Martha Wimmer said.

Her daughter, 26-year-old Caroline Wimmer, was strangled with an electric cord. The convicted killer, Calvin Lawson, got 25 to life. One of the first on the scene, former emergency medical technician Mark Musarella, used his cell phone camera to snap a grisly photo of the corpse, which he then uploaded to Facebook. He pleaded guilty to official misconduct and lost his job.

A civil suit now names Musarella and Facebook.

“I found my daughter. I seen what she looked like. She was horrible. And I know that people at night are looking at it,” Ronald Wimmer said.

Because Facebook is a not-for-profit community bulletin board, it’s protected by a 1996 law, The Communications Decency Act, that gives the social networking giant immunity. The Wimmers’ attorney said what Facebook did was wrong.

“Just like a jewelry store cannot resell stolen property, neither can Facebook,” attorney Ravi Batra said.

The victim’s older sister was equally upset.

“Of the pictures on Facebook … for anyone to see, it kills me,” Christina Criscitiello said.

Later this week a bill is expected to be introduced in Albany that will attempt to reign in the broad immunity Facebook currently enjoys.

A spokesperson from Facebook said, “We haven’t been served or seen the complaint so we have no comment at this time.”

Do you think Facebook should be held liable? Please offer your thoughts in the comments section below.

Comments (189)
  1. kathy Kim says:

    It would be difficult for FB to track all the disgusting photos that are posted. They are responsible to remove all the known offensive ones immediately!

  2. Louie Kablouie says:

    facebook really needs to get this picture removed. they need to do the right thing here, It’s simple, remove this picture.

  3. J. Malm says:

    Facebook is protected against what their users post. The photo or its posting isn’t illegal anyway so it’s a moot point, but here is the law that provides immunity nevertheless:

    17 U.S.C. § 512 : US Code – Section 512: Limitations on liability relating to material online—-000-.html

  4. Sonny B. Southerland, Sr. says:

    I understand that the family is hurting, but to lash out at Facebook is not the answer. I would sue the ex-EMT worker’s enpolyer. I recently lost my son “Emmanuel J. Felix”, the killer shot him just before his 21st birthday, in Hazleton, PA on (02-15-11), my birthday.
    I do think “certain” people should be cecked out before they are allowed into the good communities across the USA. But let’s help “Caroline’s” family to heal, because the pain never goes away… I know….

    1. Ted says:

      When your the captain of the ship your responsible for what happens, face book has sloppy guidelines trying to please everybody, now they might get a wake up call of major proportions

  5. Mary J says:

    Another law named after a victim , do any of these laws EVER work and stop more crimes. Do not Pass Caroline’s Law !!! Yes it was stupid, but its not going to do a thing to stop it in the future, there are tons of sites that show this kind of horror. FB has more money than God, she will lose.

  6. Shel says:

    Where was this paramedics mind posting something so horrific knowing it was wrong to do and a horrible sight for the family or other loved ones to have to see hon facebook. Why would someone of his profession do something so idiotic. Because simply he has a twisted side and isn’t all there in the acts of taking his job seriously or empathy for this young lady and her family. If the tables were turned I bet he would do the same as her family. However, I do not believe it Facebooks fault it takes an insaine person to post a picture as he did.

  7. fred says:

    its not FB’S fault unless they were told about it

  8. Burnie says:

    Sadly this is a reality thats happening too much. Officials taking pics in the morgue or in crime scenes. It has gone to the level of people themselves passing accidents and posting nude pics of women. There are many sites posting the dead online and its gone all the way to children. I guess the human morale stops thinking well its dead so its not a person, is what seems to be the attitude. There needs to be laws about it all. Sadly there are minimal laws regarding allot of it and minimal laws with sexual actions or corpses. Most time its just petty crimes or most states dont have laws at all. They need to crack down on this.

  9. Sherri says:

    There should be a way for people to flag a photo as “inapporiate” and Facebook would check into it and remove the photo or the person’s account if it was deemed to be illegal or beyond the bounds of human decency. Have we really one so far down the road that we can’t agree on what this means? This is degrading to society and brings us all down when we coorporately allow something this egregious to continue and Facebook faces no responsilibility. I see Facebook not as at fault per se because the photos got posted, but because they unappologetically are defending this guy and refuse to create a way to remove such trash. There is a path which has no end if we let this stuff go unchecked. The evil man can devise is without bounds.

    1. Kem says:

      How did FB ‘unapologetically” defend this guy? Is there any indication that FB was aware of this? They did not even get served, so why should they comment on something withuot the FACTs, much like what you are doing..making comments without the entire FACTS. It really disgusts me that an attorney would bring such a baseless lawsuit, thinking that a big corporation like this will just settlle. Well, I hope FB fights this to the end. I don’t use FB, but as a fellow attorney, it really disgusts me that these scavengers bring these frivolous lawsuits.

    2. Brian says:

      Maybe check your facts before you go blurting your ignorance into the public field? Facebook has a button to report inappropriate photos. What’s degrading society is people who parade around their dead daughter’s picture as a court case so they can make some easy money.

    3. Ashley says:

      There is a way to flag a photo as inapporiate on Facebook. And I’m sure that’s what someone did and it was taken down. The thing is once something has been put on the internet it’s there forever no matter how quickly the people at FB acted. Facebook is not defending this guy what-so-ever and this isn’t their fault. I can understand where the family is coming from but there really isn’t anymore FB can do.

  10. Yaspar says:

    Facebook is a stupid waste of time, and I hope it gets shut down for good.
    EMTs and paramedics are creeps who can’t pass the psych. test to become a cop, and aren’t smart enough to become a physician. Believe me, I know all about them. Never trust an EMT or paramedic!! There is not a compassionate bone in their bodies, just a power trip, that keeps them from becoming a real police officer. (BTW, I don’t trust police officers either.) I hope the girl’s daddy gets his hands on this POS and gives him what he deserves. ‘Sparky

    1. Sparky is a nut! says:

      You are an idiot who is ignorant! There are ar elot’s of good EMT’s, Paramedics and Police Officers. I hope you do not ever need either 3 in your lifetime. How about posting your real name and address too, so they all will konw who you are when they need to come and help or save your sorry butt?

    2. NJR says:

      Look at his picture…he was an NYPD ESU cop, who was cross-trained as an EMT.

  11. Moral Truth says:

    If she never got herself mixed up with that type of person, this may not have ever happened. Those people are bad news.

    And thats the moral truth

    1. flipadoo says:

      Moron Truth, did I miss something? Where in the story does it say anything about the murder victim being “mixed up with that type of person”? What type of person? The kind that will strangle you with a power cord?

      Moron, do you really think if she had thought her life would end she would have hung out with her own murderer?

      What a moron you are, Moron Truth

      1. Moral Truth says:

        she let the guy in her house

        And thats the moral truth

  12. cosmicwxdude says:

    Just another reason to avoid farcebook on all levels. I hate it and will NEVER have an account.

    1. Lore says:

      Lol, this has nothing to do with someone joining or not a social-network-site. How many times in the news we see stupid people posting pics they shouldn’t and getting in trouble?! Plenty… so it’s not Facebook’s fault that again another ignorant person posted something sensitive.

  13. Bill says:

    If Facebook can track down, and remove, every photo of breastfeeding mothers, they can certainly remove the one photo of a dead girl that has been pointed out to them.

    1. Lore says:

      It’s not Facebook’s fault. The person that posted should be liable and take responsibility.

  14. C Pace Lattin says:

    Really, Facebook is a “not-for-profit”? Do reporters even look over what they report. Facebook is a for-profit social network.

    “Because Facebook is a not-for-profit community bulletin board, it’s protected by a 1996 law, The Communications Decency Act, that gives the social networking giant immunity.”

    1. AAA says:

      Wrong. Before you write something stupid, like you just did..wht don’t you just STFU? If a whole team of lawyers, and a judge just said “They are immune due to that law,” Then HTF can what you so stupidly suggest be true? Moron!

  15. Ben Dover says:

    Facebook is not liable. This is another case of lawyers going after the deep pockets.

    They know that Mr. Musarella does not have enough resources to go after.

    Facebook cannot censor every photo that hits their system. That is the whole point of Facebook.

    Facebook cannot be held liable for this action.

  16. Landon Klahr says:

    Nice to see a highly-trained and skilled public servant like Mark will show up if you have an emergency. I’m sure the union he belongs to will rise to his defense; after all, he was just exercising his rights. Throw him and his cell phone into Attica for a year–the first picture he snaps will be his last.

    1. Landon STFU says:

      No, the article said he was fired. Why bring unions into this? Are you a shill?

  17. Chad says:

    Anyone who thinks Facebook is liable should should consider what would happen if he had taped the photo to your mailbox or the bumper of your car? Should you then have to give up your hard earned money to this family?

    1. mcwnyc says:

      YES they both should have to pay as much as it takes so both are left penniless! This is a matter of decency

      1. Retired Chief says:

        We’ll arrange for the photo to be taped to your car. Then we’ll let the family sue you penniless just to see how “holier-than-thou”! you remain.

    2. Amy says:

      You make a great point. I already didn’t think facebook is liable but that was a great anaolgy.

  18. Bart Dude says:

    Since 1920, our good liberal friends in Hollywood have been bending over backward trying to destroy the human sensitivities in all of us. There are a LOT of twisted folks out there, and a lot of them are EMTs. Hold a public hanging of the guilty EMT. Literally. And redraft laws of the Internet. Impose censorship and high standards of review and decency. Don’t let the Hollywood filth machine off the hook. But as it stands, it is the EMT and the EMT only. Period.

  19. JoeK says:

    TORT REFORM NOW. This is a prime example of why this country needs Tort Reform now. Without Delay

  20. Don says:

    It is kind of like laying the blame for a shooting on the gun manufacturer, instead of blaming the sick individual that pulled the trigger. The sick SOB that posted the pictures should be punished, not Faceboob.

    1. J says:

      I have to agree here. They are attacking facebook because of deep pockets but no facebook employee posted those photos. If they failed to remove the photos after being notified then society as a whole needs to punish them. The med tech who took the pictures needs to have his head examined and then spend the rest of his life working off an debt that can never be fully repaid to that family.

      1. Bobotheclown says:

        But doesn’t facebook have the capability to take down any picture that it wants at its own discretion? This is an unauthorized picture of a murder victim being used as violence porn. It is an attack on the family, on the community, and the memory of the innocent victim who is forever dishonored whiole that picture remains. Why wouldn’t any site want to voluntarily remove this kind of repugnant image? Why would any site want to particiopate in the torment of a family in this way?

  21. no_slappz says:

    This is First Amendment all the way. The government has no power to stop the circulation of speech (photo) or act against the venue that cirulated it.

    The Pentagon Papers were stolen, yet published by the NY Times in 1971. The Times has been trying to recreate that triumph ever since.

    The current flap is over WikiLeaks. Every item publiished by WikiLeaks is stolen, but it appears there is no case against the founder of WikiLeaks

    1. Bobotheclown says:

      Not even close. You are confusing public speech (political speech) with privacy and the product of a crime. The victim was a private citizen and has a right to privacy. Certain types of images have always been subject to regulation and among them are pornography, violence against children, and abuse of corpse. In this case the picture is a product of a crime and its transmittal was a criminal act. Facebook had no way of knowing that and has a certain amount of cover from First Amendment guidlines. But in a civil suit Facebook will have to argue why it has a right to inflict emtional pain on the parents of a murder victim. In front of a jury. There is no question as to how such a jury will find,

  22. DML341 says:

    The most grievous transgression here is the murder of a beautiful young woman. Censoring FaceBook or any other communication forum can never address that loss. Because we allow free speech, know that there will always be stupid, unkind, factually incorrect and/or terrible things said. We have to learn to focus our attention on the positive – not the negative. Where is the website/FaceBook page celebrating this young woman’s life ? Joel Osteen has a great message from this past Sunday about choosing our focus.

  23. joe says:

    What about the manufacturer of the electrical cord? Is the family going to sue them too? i guess facebook has the deepest pockets, but Black and Decker has some money; why not also make them pay for the actions of others in misusing their product?

  24. Don I says:

    I can’t believe all the people defending facebook,you people should be ashamed of yourselves. You are the same losers that have to be on facebook 24/7 telling other people what doing 24/7 who gives a sh##. Weather facebook was wrong or not have a little compassion for the family, remember what goes around comes around.

    1. Elena says:

      Why should should anyone be ashamed of objectively stating that the corporation is not liable in this lawsuit?

      By the way, this is coming from someone who does not, nor ever will have, a Facebook account.

    2. Johnny M says:

      I have tremendous compassion and empathy for the family. But as horrendous as this is, Facebook had no way of knowing this miserable excuse of a human being had posted the pictures. I am 100% for making the responsible party pay and pay big time, but the entire responsibility rests with the paramedic. This really speaks to the depth of depravity that our society as a whole has fallen for someone to think that it’s perfectly ok to do something like. I know the family is hurting and wants someone to pay, I understand that, but unless Facebook had been notified and requested to remove the photo and failed to do so, they simply are not the guilty party here, and unfortunately, the guilty party has no money and probably never will have any money given his extreme lack of common sense, self restraint and respect for others.

  25. Jordan says:

    Sad Sad Sad so called reporting, as it took me all but seconds to find:
    And oh yeah its a Private Corporation, not a not-for-profit.
    Once again it proves the comment sections are better than the articles on most if not all so-called news websites.

    1. what the says:

      Did you really just use wikipedia as a source for your argument?

  26. keith says:

    It’s not facebooks fault at all cause of what one person did by posting the picture. There are millions of facebook accounts and you cannot look at every single picture posted there. Their jewelery store defense doesn’t hold weight, since you cannot hold the store responsible for unknowingly buying/selling stolen product. There are plenty of pictures on facebook that don’t belong there and unfortunately this is one of them, but it’s not facebook’s fault…this is just greed gone wild

    1. Frank says:

      Actually you can hold the jewelry store responsible and the money they made selling the item is confiscated.

      1. Ornlly Gumfudgen says:

        Right ya are but most of th commentators here are missin th point.

        Years ago, before th advancement of digital technologies that produced th Internet an allowed people like Facebook to market advertisin ta thair users which they don’t charge, if ya wanted ta see somethang like this ya had ta go ta a tabloid, magazine or newspaper. Ya even saw it sometimes on th news.

        An like I said, all of this happened afore th development of digital technologies includin th digital cameras an cell phones people use taday more than they use bathroom tissue if ya understand th comparisons.

        Back in those days, an it’s still around, ya had photographic film that had ta be processed in order ta see th image an circulation of that image took longer as we didn’t have thangs like th internet th common person could use ta transfer them images everywhere virtually instantly.

        Now all th negative aspects of a med tech takin pictures of a corpse an circulatin em around ain’t new. Ya can look at yer older news media archives ta prove that fact.

        An people did get upset about those images an did sue th people responsible fer takin those pictures.

        But as much as I can recall about them thangs I don’t ever recall anyone suin Kodak Corp fer producin th film or photographic paper thse pictures were printed on.

        In our digital world film has been been done away with. Th new “film” if ya wanna call it that, consists of a digital file that can be transmitted by th Internet.

        So, if ya wanna sue th Internet an all manufactures of digital cameras go ahead but I doubt if ya will make any headway. When ya have a collision with a drunk driver do ya sue th store that sold him th alcohol, th automobile manufacturer, th state that built th road he drove th car on, th oil company that manufactured th gasoline th car ran on, th manufacturer of the alcohol, th tire company fer makin th tires an on an on ta nonsensical oblivion. Or do ya concentrate yer efforts on th person that caused th problem namely th drunk driver?

        Suin Facebook on this is nonsense. Suin th guy that took an posted th photos is a much more sensible approach unless, 1. Yer after a deep pockets monetary reward fer yer actions. 2. Yer really a mentally sick individual that gets off on all th personal attention ya draw frum th rest of th world as ya pursue a nonsensical lawsuit.

        I don’t use facebook an probably never will. I personally thank it’s a waste of time an can be very dangerous. But facebook ain’t the problem here. It’s th people, like drunks that can’t consume alcohol like most normal people, who cause th problems with facebook.

        An if yer one of th little freaks in our society that gets yer jollies frum cruisin th web an lookin at th bodies of dead an mutilated corpses, yer th problem. Unfortunately history has been full of these sick people but history don’t seem ta be goin around suin other people just cus some sick puppy used somethang they manufacture or produce that allowed em ta do it.

        Thought we already put that insanity away when people were suin gun manufacturers cus criminals used guns. Guess if ya electrocute yerself by droppin yer electric razor inta th water yer family can sue th electric company fer generatin th electricity ya buy. Makes perfect sense don’t it? NOT!

  27. Moral Truth says:

    It is in bad taste that someone posts a photo like this on Facebook however facebook is not repsonsible. What photos people post on Facebook is their business and this is a violates the privacy act of the user.

    This family is obviously taking a shot at free lotto(as they want to pay some bills off)and thats the moral truth.

    1. Bobotheclown says:

      Bad taste is when you tell who your girlfriend is cheating on. Taking an illegal picture of a private citizen who has been gruesomely murdered and sending it around the world without permission is a crime. It is also an outrage against the privacy of a bereaved family and an attack on the memory of the dead girl. This is so far beyond bad taste that I think you need a new dictionary. Moral outrage is the place you should go to start to understand this situation. And then try compassion for the family in this time of grief. I know that these are adult terms and you may not be used to thinking this way but what I am asking you is that you grow up and stop attacking innocent victims of a crime while you hide behind the anonymity of this blog.

  28. UyeahU says:

    Several issues: I can’t imagine the hurt and loss over a dead child, or the shock and outrage of seeing their dead image on the internet. However, considering the sheer number of posts to Facebook, it is difficult to see how they can monitor such events. Once aware of it they should have had a policy in place to deal with it, such as suspension of revocation of user privileges. Then there is the lawsuit itself. In our country it is called going after the deep pockets. The paramedic may not have two dimes to rub together but the creators of Facebook are rich, so sue them. The only way I see Facebook bearing responsibility is if they were warned about the picture and did nothing and it violates their written policy about such postings. But then I don’t have a lot of faith anymore in our judicial system or jurors.

  29. Johann says:

    No, Facebook is not responsible. However, once they became aware, removing the user and the photos would have been a good PR move and a responsible action. How long did the photos stay up? The media didn’t ask that question apparently.

    As for the jerk who posed the pics and the company he works for, please feel free to take them to the cleaners. Facebook had nothing to do with it, it was the moron who took the photos.

    1. Ornlly Gumfudgen says:

      Why th company th jerk worked fer? When they found out about it they dismissed him. So why would ya wanna go after th company unless yer one of them deep pocket individuals? Ta paraphrase one of yer sentences, th company he worked fer had nothin ta do with it, it was th moron who took th photos.

    2. Bobotheclown says:

      He was wearing a uniform and was employed by the police. How is this not a crime?

  30. Pailette Murray says:

    I am just hoping this facebook thing is just a fad,and all the highschooler and the wannabes find something more useful to entertain themselves with.. but only time will tell..
    This so called professional should be jailed and facebook should be held somewhat
    and for all the idiots who even looked at this photo..Karma is alive and well.

    This is deplorable and dispicable and so is the emt…

    1. Alex Rand says:

      Gotta love it when people who take to website comments and tell others they need to “find something more useful to entertain themselves with”.

      Every person who believes Facebook is remotely liable is evidence against civilian juries. The “the jewelry store is responsible for selling stolen goods” argument is simply bad logic, where did Facebook make (direct) money off of the pictures?

  31. Mark Diederich says:

    How can facebook monitor every picture posted, that’s not a reasonable expectation. They can delete users that violate their terms of use, the article does not say if that happened. They should sue the person who posted it, I’m glad he lost his job. I know why the lawyers prefer to sue Facebook, I hope they lose.

    1. Bobotheclown says:

      Is posting unauthorized pictures of murder victims so that their families can be harrassed not outside of facebooks terms of use? Is involving facebook in abuse of corpse and invasion of privacy issues also not outside of the terms of use? If not we shoukld all sue facebook because they are vulnerable to class action suits.

  32. J.Malm says:

    The law is on Facebook’s side here. If they fight it, there is a 100% chance of victory. Many of you are allowing your strong emotions over this family losing their girl to influence your opinions that Facebook should pay up. The anti-Facebook mindset here is pretty much “Oh those poor parents! They lost their baby. HOW DARE anyone question their Facebook lawsuit!” You could care less if the lawsuit is valid or not.

    The fact is, Facebook did nothing wrong. The bottom line is that the paramedic probably can’t afford to pay the family much and the killer is in prison, so he can’t pay restitution either. That leaves Facebook as their only option for money, and I don’t really blame them for attempting it. They will probably get a decent out of court settlement.

    For those of you who believe that Facebook is liable, what about all of her friends that saw the photos? Should each of them be able to sue Facebook also? Hopefully you see the can of worms this opens up if it goes to trial and the family wins, neither of which are likely to happen.

    1. Bobotheclown says:

      The only worms I see are the ones eating the body of this young murder victim. While facebook cannot monitor evey picture posted it is held to the same regulatory requirements as every other web site and those regulations prohibit certain types of images from being published. Images such as pornography, child abuse, and yes, abuse of corpse images that violate the privacy of private citizens. Just as it is illegal to take a picture of you in the shower and post it, it is ilegal to take a picture of your dead body and do the same. Facebook is required to review all images upon witten complaint and to remove any images that violate regulations or face civil suit. That is the law. If facebook refuses to take down violence porn that both violates the privacy of the deceased and is repugnant to the community they can explain why in front of a jury. I’d like to hear their explanation. But I think we both know how a jury would rule in this case and facebooks cheapest alternative is to take down the picture asap.

  33. Karyns4 says:

    While my heart breaks for the horror committed upon this family and I feel their suffering should be duly acknowledged. Legal Expectations of accountability from Facebook is a bit far reaching.

  34. dottie miller says:

    so maybe the whole internet should shut down because of an artical ,i’m so sorry these people lost a child and we got sick ass people,but there is such a thjng as freedom of speech.grow up you greedy people

    1. Frank says:

      Your freedom of speech does not extend to posting photos of murdered people. Hence the paramedic lost his job.

      1. shed says:

        Frank please show us where in the Constitution that it makes that exception.

  35. carrie k says:

    It’s obviously the paramedics fault!! I can’t believe they are trying to sue facebook! Facebook is not an actual person who posted the pics duh!!! Wow people are sooo stupid!

  36. John R Schuh says:

    Facebook should have removed the images as soon as they became aware of them. Otherwise they are leaving us all open to some pretty bad stuff.

  37. Son of Bob says:

    The article didn’t give most of the pertinent details.

    If Facebook refused to remove the images, then yes, they should be held accountable. Facebook is not a legitimate “media source” (ie newspapers, magazines, television newscast, news-based website, etc.), so they aren’t entitled to the same protections.

    Since the paramedic pled guilty to “official misconduct” and was fired for his actions, clearly these images were not legally posted on the site, so they should have been removed by Facebook when they were made aware of them. If they did, then they took the only responsible action they could have and shouldn’t be included in this lawsuit.

  38. Stuart says:

    The article does not how much he is suing for. Bit suing FB makes as much sense as suing the manufacurer of the camera and the retailer who sold it.
    Another example of why tort reform is needed and why we need a ferw lawyers lynched.

    1. Real Rick says:

      Stuart, I like your thinking! It’s an old, worn-out joke but, “What do you call 10,000 attorneys at the bottom of the ocean?”

      “A nice start!”

  39. Nathan says:

    Did an intern write this article?

  40. Inebrius says:

    I think I will have to sue the Wimmers. I’m so appalled at their gold digging that I can no longer sleep at night I’m so disturbed by them and distraught. You hear that Wimmers? I’m coming to sue your arses off…

    1. st says:

      Gold digging? The Wimmers lost their CHILD, their daughter. For Facebook to allow a photograph of their murdered daughter to be displayed in the Internet for idiot curiosity seekers is beyond the pale. Facebook should be held accountable and should pay for causing even more pain and suffering to a grieving and devastated family. Shame on you, Inebrius.

      1. Real Rick says:

        I’m with you st! I can’t imagine the pain of losing a child and I pray I never do.
        Inebrius, you most be one hate-filled dude.

  41. N Waff says:

    If this was a child porn photo Facebook would have to take it down.

    I think they should be required to take this kind of photo down also. This seems to be a recurring problem with crime scene photos being circulated – and they should not.

    1. TheTRUTH says:

      um…child porn is illegal. Photos of dead people are not, as yet, illegal. NEXT???

    2. John Woodbury says:

      I sorry for the people’s loss. The real fools they should sue are the killer’s lawyers who got him off or slapped on the wrist for lesser crimes, so he reasoned killing the person would be OK as well. Many crimes are committed and excused by the liberals in control of a ponzi scheme we call the justice system. If, and in other stories they did pull the pictures when they became aware of them, they pulled the photos and told police then Facebook did all it could and most likely regrets giving the poster an account, in the first place.

  42. benny shylock says:

    The person who photography the victim
    was former emergency medical technician Mark Musarella
    should be able accountable for their actions.

    Mark Musarella and his former employer should be Include in the Civil Law Suit

    Not Facebook
    No facebook employee took the picture and posted on the bulletin board.

    It was a facebook member which was
    emergency medical technician Mark Musarella who posted on Facebook

    If you review job requirements for any Emergency Medical Technician –
    they are suppose respect the privacy of the injured and dead

    That is why Mark Musarella lost his job.

    1. Bobotheclown says:

      He should face jail time not just the loss of his job. He committed a crime when he illegally took the picture and when he illegally distributed the picture. Crimes usually put you in jail. Why hasn’t he been prosecuted for his crimes?

  43. MikeMNYC says:

    Aside from “the traditional defendants” — yes, apparently it has come that, suing is a tradition now!

  44. j says:

    How can the dead be disrespected? They’re physically dead you living dummies. What does Facebook have to do with this? These photos can be posted just about anywhere!

    1. k says:

      Maybe you should find your mother on Facebook…. murdered and brutalized. See how you like it…. Idiot

      1. S says:

        It is time that sites like Facebook etc are held accountable for their mismanagement.

        They are too busy allowing people to wreck others lives. This 1996 Law that protects them should be repealed and they should be treated like any other company. They are not a non-profit company, they SELL PEOPLE DATA, THAT’S FOR PROFIT. Zuckerberg etc are living high on the Hog on other peoples misery.

      2. McSorley says:

        Why not include the cell phone manufacturer and the cell phone network provider as well? Sorry this lawyer sounds like a two bit hack and the family should be ashamed of their lawyers actions. This would be similar to bringing a suit against the phone company because the guy posted the pictures on a telephone pole.

      3. S says:

        to McSorley, you idiot!

        The phone and telco are nothing to do with it, the phone is a private device, FACEBOOK IS PUBLIC!

        You are a fool, when you are finished here you can go and post your potty breaks on Facebook!

      4. Peter says:

        Hey S you MORON!! Cell phones are private? What if I took a picture of you and sent it via TEXT msg to 100 people via my cell phone? Then they each sent it to 100 people via their cell phones. And so on so it kept growing on the so called PRIVATE device?.. The device is not the issue. This is just as bad as the idiots that try and sue the gun manufactures for some D BAG killing with a gun made by them. Facebook is a device just as much as the cell phone. Go after the person that did it
        What an ignoramus!!

  45. Rick Greene says:

    Apparently, something is left out here. Photos posted on facebook, only goes to those it is sent to; or to people that are facebook connected, with each other..
    Everybody, doesn’t get to see those photos, unless you know the persons or groups, connected. This isn’t Wikipedia.

  46. Dr. Led Peint says:

    Pardon me. The man who would post crime scene photos is probably a sicko and also seems to have a profound lack of human dignity and respect for self and for others.

    FACEBOOK is NON-PROFIT? That is what I don’t get at all. The company is worth more than $50 billion, and Zuckerberg is one of the wealthiest men in the world, so someone must be making a profit. What about all that advertising?

    For the family’s sake and for millions of others who have suffered as a result of Facebook, I hope Albany or somebody does something to reign in Zuckerberg & Co.

    1. T says:

      Here Here!!

      Facebook has turned into a den of sicko’s, weirdo’s and freaks.

      People posting their every bowel movement to all and sundry, posting photographs of crime scenes.

      Time to get this abomination off the internet.

      1. AmericanCabbie says:

        More than half of all Americans now have a Facebook account. So I guess the majority of Americans are sad, demented freaks.

    2. Christopher E. Grell says:

      It will take an act of Congress to change the law i.e Section 230 of te Communication Decency Act so that the right of free speech does not trump the right to petition for redress ii.e sue someone who in any other situation would or could be held liable. As it now stands, under Section 230 of the Communication Act, anyone who reposts, or republishes a libelous statement is protected from liablility which would not be the case if the reposting was done in a newsparer, TV etc.
      Under Section 230, ads discriminating against housing and jobs posted by someone else, say on Craigslist etc, protects Craiglslist from liability.
      Nude photo’s of the living and the dead can also be posted by websites like Facebook and be immune from liability under Section 230, a federal law.
      Section 230 was designed to protect free speech on the Iternet by making webistes, ISP’s etc immune from liability because they allow someone else to post on their site. This is the law and unless people step forward and tell Congress that it is time to change it so that a persons right to privacy etc is entitled to the same protection as sppech, more and more websites will start allowing others to post whatever they want regardless of the harm it causes.

    3. Joe says:

      there’s a difference between “Non-profit” and “Not-for-profit”. If the article is correct, Facebook is in the latter category, and can, therefore make a profit.

  47. David Fiedler says:

    “Because Facebook is a not-for-profit community bulletin board”…really, CBS? Is this journalism in the 21st century?

    1. W says:

      It’s amazing that they are allowed to remain protected by a not-for-profit law when the reason they don’t have an IPO is because of the number of Law suits that they would be subject to because of the abuse.

      And to those that say that the information is not available externally, IT IS IF THE PERSON SETS IT TO BE PUBLIC.

      I am sorry but people that use Facebook are sad, demented freaks and losers and Facebook is a haunt for freaks and perverts!

  48. New York Nick says:

    “Mark Musarella,” Fat slovenly Union protected sack of ^&*()….

    1. Karen says:

      You couldn’t have put it better. He is disgusting.

  49. Robert Elliott says:

    How is this Facebook’s fault? I feel very badly for this family, but they are just looking for a payday by suing Facebook.

    1. Jason says:

      How do you know what their motivation is? More likely, they’re trying to pressure Facebook into some change of policy. But, as other readers have mentioned, we’re left none the wiser due to the inadequate reporting of the story.

  50. Shawn says:

    Is this a CBS News site? And did they describe the pictures as “grizzly” – like the bear? Journalism is dead. It’s “grisly”. I think most people might not realize that but you would hope people who write for a living would.

    1. Nina G. says:

      Your post is nonsense. How does this even relate to the story?

Leave a Reply