Now that online communication has become a routine part of everyday life, it is important for teens to understand how constitutional principles apply in the digital age. According to the courts, the First Amendment right to free speech applies online. However, this guarantee is subject to the same limits as in person and in print: citizens can’t defame, libel, or slander others. But due to the anonymity, speed, and enormous reach of the Internet, it is unfortunately easier than ever to destroy a person’s reputation by posting false information online. The author explains what kinds of speech constitute defamation, including libel and slander, and how to handle the issue when it arises in teen life. Related issues, including cyberbullying and hate speech, are also addressed.

Daniel Solove presents a startling revelation of how digital dossiers are created, usually without the knowledge of the subject, & argues that we must rethink our understanding of what privacy is & what it means in the digital age before addressing the need to reform the laws that regulate it.

This timely guide reminds readers of their legal rights and responsibilities online. Reviewed by legal experts, it outlines the laws of cyberspace and some of the common activities and practices that can trip up young Web users. It also offers readers an overview of what to expect if they or someone they know gets into legal trouble, including what happens in court and what their rights are. Real-life events help explain what can happen when the law is disregarded. It also highlights some perhaps surprising legal parameters, in hopes of keeping readers mindful of safe, responsible, and legal Internet use.

With the rise of technology, how people communicate has changed. People are rarely without a phone and are able to communicate within seconds. Unfortunately, for many teens, this carries complications. Readers explore some of this modern technology and are provided with a guide to navigating texts and the Internet safely, from avoiding misunderstanding to larger legal issues that can arise from careless texting.

As the Supreme Court has recognized, social media sites like Facebook and Twitter have become important venues for users to exercise free speech rights protected under the First Amendment. Commentators and legislators, however, have questioned whether these social media platforms are living up to their reputation as digital public forums. Some have expressed concern that these sites are not doing enough to counter violent or false speech. At the same time, many argue that the platforms are unfairly banning and restricting access to potentially valuable speech. Currently, federal law does not offer much recourse for social media users who seek to challenge a social media provider's decision about whether and how to present a user's content. Lawsuits predicated on these sites' decisions to host or remove content have been largely unsuccessful, facing at least two significant barriers under existing federal law. First, while individuals have sometimes alleged that these companies violated their free speech rights by discriminating against users' content, courts have held that the First Amendment, which provides protection against state action, is not implicated by the actions of these private companies. Second, courts have concluded that many non-constitutional claims are barred by Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, 47 U.S.C. § 230, which provides immunity to providers of interactive computer services, including social media providers, both for certain decisions to host content created by others and for actions taken "voluntarily" and "in good faith" to restrict access to "objectionable" material. Some have argued that Congress should step in to regulate social media sites. Government action regulating internet content would constitute state action that may implicate the First Amendment. In particular, social media providers may argue that government regulations impermissibly infringe on the providers' own constitutional free speech rights. Legal commentators have argued that when social media platforms decide whether and how to post users' content, these publication decisions are themselves protected under the First Amendment. There are few court decisions evaluating whether a social media site, by virtue of publishing, organizing, or even editing protected speech, is itself exercising free speech rights. Consequently, commentators have largely analyzed the question of whether the First Amendment protects a social media site's publication decisions by analogy to other types of First Amendment cases. There are at least three possible frameworks for analyzing governmental restrictions on social media sites' ability to moderate user content. Which of these three frameworks applies will depend largely on the particular action being regulated. Under existing law, social media platforms may be more likely to receive First Amendment protection when they exercise more editorial discretion in presenting user-generated content, rather than if they neutrally transmit all such content. In addition, certain types of speech receive less protection under the First Amendment. Courts may be more likely to uphold regulations targeting certain disfavored categories of speech such as obscenity or speech inciting violence. Finally, if a law targets a social media site's conduct rather than speech, it may not trigger the protections of the First Amendment at all.

Weight and weight loss have become widely discussed topics, in the media and among teenage peers. There are many companies and programs that seem to offer fast "miracle" solutions for losing weight. This guide helps readers navigate the issue of weight loss by answering the complicated questions such as: Do I need to lose weight? What is the best way to go about it? And how can I avoid unhealthy weight-loss habits?