September 3, 2025 • 6 mins
The admissibility of social media content in a court of law is not a matter of a new, separate legal code; it is an application of long-established evidentiary rules to a modern medium.
Become a supporter of this podcast: https://www.spreaker.com/podcast/go-beyond-the-brief--6353252/support.
Mark as Played
Transcript
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
You found the podcast Go Beyond the Brief, where we
take a deep dive into the societal currents shaping our lives. Together,
we'll explore the often unseen forces at play. We'll examine
the research, dissect the data, and most importantly, if you're
seeking to understand what's shaping our society, this is the place.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Okay, so let's dive in. Here's a thought, maybe a
bit surprising what you post online, you know, even a
picture that seems totally innocent or just a quick comment yeah,
well that could actually become the most dangerous piece of
evidence against you if you end up in a lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
It really could. It's something people don't often consider until
it's too.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
Late, exactly. So today we're going to unpack that.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
We're doing a deep dive into how social media evidence
gets well weaponized in court, specifically in civil cases. We
want to map out the digital dangers here, like what
makes your posts even allowed in court, what happens if
you hit delete, and maybe most importantly, how you can
actually protect yourself your credibility.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
And what's really quite insightful is that the courts aren't
necessarily making up new rules just for Facebook or Instagram
Oh really, Yeah, they're basically just applying the same old
evidence principles we've had for ages, which means sometimes those
seemingly tiny posts they can get in pretty easily.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
So what are the main hurdles then, for say a
photo at posted, Well.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
They're two main ones. Firstus relevance Does the post actually
relate to the case, Like you're claiming a serious back injury,
But there's that photo of you hiking last weekend?
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Ah, okay, that makes sense. Pretty clear relevance there. What's
the second hurdle?
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Authentication? Basically proving it's actually your post? Yeah? Did you
take that photo? Did you write that comment?
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Right?
Speaker 4 (01:45):
Okay? How do they prove that? I mean, couldn't someone
else have posted it?
Speaker 3 (01:49):
That's the tricky part. Authentication standards can vary quite a bit.
Some courts might say, Okay, the profile picture matches close enough.
Others want much stronger proof, almost like digital forends showing
only you could have made that post.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Wow, that's a big difference, it is.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
So the best advice assume the court's going to demand
the highest level of proof for your stuff.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Okay, good tip, But what about my you know, private accounts?
Speaker 4 (02:13):
Locked down? Friends? Only surely that's safe.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Unfortunately, not always private on social media doesn't mean legally
private lawyers can't trick their way in, but anything public
is fair game. And even for private stuff, if a
judge thinks it's relevant.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
They can order you to hand it over.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Exactly during discovery, that pre trial phase. So, yeah, your
idea of private might not hold up in court.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Got it?
Speaker 2 (02:36):
So Okay, let's say they get the posts private or not.
It sounds like just finding them is only step one.
You mentioned weaponizing it.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Pristley, this is crucial. Defense. Teams are smart. They know
social media is often just a highlights reel, right, not
the full picture.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Yeah, nobody posts their bad days usually, right.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
So we'll take that one photo of you smiling at
a party, maybe you're pushing through the pain, trying to
feel normal for an hour, and they'll show it to the.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Jury and spin it like, see, they're not really injured exactly.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
They take it completely out of context to undermine your claim.
It's a common tactic and it can be really effective.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Unfortunately, Oh, that sounds incredibly frustrating. And it's not just
my posts either, is it? Like what if a friend
tags me?
Speaker 3 (03:18):
That's another danger zone, friends, family. They can accidentally cause
huge problems by tagging you in photos showing activity, or
even just commenting like hope you're feeling better soon. It
can all be twisted.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
So what kind of posts are the biggest red flags?
Besides the obvious hiking photo.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Example, Well, anything showing physical activity that contradicts your injury
claim is huge. There was that famous case right where
someone's benefits got cut because they were film dancing at
a wedding despite claiming severe pain. Wow, or even simple
things a feeling great today post when you're claiming emotional
distress or worse, careless posts that sound like you're just
(03:57):
trying to get money, can't wait for this settlement. That
kind of thing destroys credibility.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Okay, that makes sense, avoid posting anything that contradicts the claim.
But you mentioned something else.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
Spoiliation? What's that?
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Ah?
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Yes, spoiliation. This is maybe the biggest, most overlooked danger.
It's the legal term for destroying or altering evidence or
should know. Litigation is likely. So deleting a post, deleting
a post, changing privacy settings after an incident, even deleting
an entire account once litigation is reasonably foreseeable. You have
a legal duty to preserve all relevant evidence that includes
(04:33):
your social.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Media Wait, so getting rid of a bad post that's
actually worse than leaving it up.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
That feels so backward.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
My first instinct would be to delete far worse.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
It seems counterintuitive, I know, but deleting looks like you're
hiding something damaging, And the penalties for spoilation they can
be severe, like what the judge could dismiss your case entirely,
or impose hefty fines or and this is often killer,
give an adverse inference instruction to the jury, meaning meaning
(05:04):
the judge tells the jury they can assume the evidence
you deleted was so bad for your case that's why
you destroyed it. It basically crushes your credibility.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
That is chilling, truly so okay for someone listening who
might be heading into a legal situation or even just
thinking about it. What's the immediate.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Advice the golden rule?
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Just stop posting, temporarily cease all social media activity. Think
of it like you're under surveillance, because legally speaking, you
might as well.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Be Pisco dark for a while. Exactly, tweak your privacy
settings sure make things harder defined, but don't rely on that,
and absolutely critically do not delete anything, no posts, no accounts.
The risk from spoilation is almost always greater than the
risk from the original post itself.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
Don't delete, got it? What else?
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Talk to your close friends and family, ask them not
to post about you, your health or the case. Don't
tag you, just create a cone of silence around it online.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Good point, protect yourself from friendly fire.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
And finally, be completely honest with your lawyer. If there's
a post you're worried about, show it to them immediately.
They can help strategize, but only if they know what's
out there. Transparency is key.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Okay, So the big takeaway here seems pretty clear. In
this modern legal world, your online credibility is well everything
being really careful, strategic, disciplined about social media. It's not
optional anymore if litigation is even a remote.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
Possibility, absolutely not negotiable. And you know, thinking about all this,
the constant watching how posts get twisted, those harsh penalties
for deleting it does make you wonder, doesn't it?
Speaker 4 (06:34):
Wonder?
Speaker 3 (06:35):
What, in this age where so much of our lives
plays out online, can anyone really have a truly private
digital life once a legal issue pops up something definitely
worth thinking about as you, you know, navigate your own
feet today
You found the podcast Go Beyond the Brief, where we
take a deep dive into the societal currents shaping our lives. Together,
we'll explore the often unseen forces at play. We'll examine
the research, dissect the data, and most importantly, if you're
seeking to understand what's shaping our society, this is the place.
Speaker 2 (00:19):
Okay, so let's dive in. Here's a thought, maybe a
bit surprising what you post online, you know, even a
picture that seems totally innocent or just a quick comment yeah,
well that could actually become the most dangerous piece of
evidence against you if you end up in a lawsuit.
Speaker 3 (00:34):
It really could. It's something people don't often consider until
it's too.
Speaker 4 (00:37):
Late, exactly. So today we're going to unpack that.
Speaker 2 (00:41):
We're doing a deep dive into how social media evidence
gets well weaponized in court, specifically in civil cases. We
want to map out the digital dangers here, like what
makes your posts even allowed in court, what happens if
you hit delete, and maybe most importantly, how you can
actually protect yourself your credibility.
Speaker 3 (01:02):
And what's really quite insightful is that the courts aren't
necessarily making up new rules just for Facebook or Instagram
Oh really, Yeah, they're basically just applying the same old
evidence principles we've had for ages, which means sometimes those
seemingly tiny posts they can get in pretty easily.
Speaker 2 (01:19):
So what are the main hurdles then, for say a
photo at posted, Well.
Speaker 3 (01:23):
They're two main ones. Firstus relevance Does the post actually
relate to the case, Like you're claiming a serious back injury,
But there's that photo of you hiking last weekend?
Speaker 4 (01:34):
Ah, okay, that makes sense. Pretty clear relevance there. What's
the second hurdle?
Speaker 3 (01:39):
Authentication? Basically proving it's actually your post? Yeah? Did you
take that photo? Did you write that comment?
Speaker 2 (01:45):
Right?
Speaker 4 (01:45):
Okay? How do they prove that? I mean, couldn't someone
else have posted it?
Speaker 3 (01:49):
That's the tricky part. Authentication standards can vary quite a bit.
Some courts might say, Okay, the profile picture matches close enough.
Others want much stronger proof, almost like digital forends showing
only you could have made that post.
Speaker 2 (02:02):
Wow, that's a big difference, it is.
Speaker 3 (02:04):
So the best advice assume the court's going to demand
the highest level of proof for your stuff.
Speaker 2 (02:09):
Okay, good tip, But what about my you know, private accounts?
Speaker 4 (02:13):
Locked down? Friends? Only surely that's safe.
Speaker 3 (02:16):
Unfortunately, not always private on social media doesn't mean legally
private lawyers can't trick their way in, but anything public
is fair game. And even for private stuff, if a
judge thinks it's relevant.
Speaker 4 (02:27):
They can order you to hand it over.
Speaker 3 (02:29):
Exactly during discovery, that pre trial phase. So, yeah, your
idea of private might not hold up in court.
Speaker 4 (02:36):
Got it?
Speaker 2 (02:36):
So Okay, let's say they get the posts private or not.
It sounds like just finding them is only step one.
You mentioned weaponizing it.
Speaker 3 (02:44):
Pristley, this is crucial. Defense. Teams are smart. They know
social media is often just a highlights reel, right, not
the full picture.
Speaker 4 (02:52):
Yeah, nobody posts their bad days usually, right.
Speaker 3 (02:55):
So we'll take that one photo of you smiling at
a party, maybe you're pushing through the pain, trying to
feel normal for an hour, and they'll show it to the.
Speaker 2 (03:01):
Jury and spin it like, see, they're not really injured exactly.
Speaker 3 (03:05):
They take it completely out of context to undermine your claim.
It's a common tactic and it can be really effective.
Speaker 2 (03:10):
Unfortunately, Oh, that sounds incredibly frustrating. And it's not just
my posts either, is it? Like what if a friend
tags me?
Speaker 3 (03:18):
That's another danger zone, friends, family. They can accidentally cause
huge problems by tagging you in photos showing activity, or
even just commenting like hope you're feeling better soon. It
can all be twisted.
Speaker 2 (03:30):
So what kind of posts are the biggest red flags?
Besides the obvious hiking photo.
Speaker 3 (03:35):
Example, Well, anything showing physical activity that contradicts your injury
claim is huge. There was that famous case right where
someone's benefits got cut because they were film dancing at
a wedding despite claiming severe pain. Wow, or even simple
things a feeling great today post when you're claiming emotional
distress or worse, careless posts that sound like you're just
(03:57):
trying to get money, can't wait for this settlement. That
kind of thing destroys credibility.
Speaker 2 (04:02):
Okay, that makes sense, avoid posting anything that contradicts the claim.
But you mentioned something else.
Speaker 4 (04:08):
Spoiliation? What's that?
Speaker 2 (04:10):
Ah?
Speaker 3 (04:10):
Yes, spoiliation. This is maybe the biggest, most overlooked danger.
It's the legal term for destroying or altering evidence or
should know. Litigation is likely. So deleting a post, deleting
a post, changing privacy settings after an incident, even deleting
an entire account once litigation is reasonably foreseeable. You have
a legal duty to preserve all relevant evidence that includes
(04:33):
your social.
Speaker 2 (04:33):
Media Wait, so getting rid of a bad post that's
actually worse than leaving it up.
Speaker 4 (04:38):
That feels so backward.
Speaker 3 (04:40):
My first instinct would be to delete far worse.
Speaker 2 (04:43):
It seems counterintuitive, I know, but deleting looks like you're
hiding something damaging, And the penalties for spoilation they can
be severe, like what the judge could dismiss your case entirely,
or impose hefty fines or and this is often killer,
give an adverse inference instruction to the jury, meaning meaning
(05:04):
the judge tells the jury they can assume the evidence
you deleted was so bad for your case that's why
you destroyed it. It basically crushes your credibility.
Speaker 3 (05:11):
That is chilling, truly so okay for someone listening who
might be heading into a legal situation or even just
thinking about it. What's the immediate.
Speaker 4 (05:19):
Advice the golden rule?
Speaker 2 (05:21):
Just stop posting, temporarily cease all social media activity. Think
of it like you're under surveillance, because legally speaking, you
might as well.
Speaker 3 (05:28):
Be Pisco dark for a while. Exactly, tweak your privacy
settings sure make things harder defined, but don't rely on that,
and absolutely critically do not delete anything, no posts, no accounts.
The risk from spoilation is almost always greater than the
risk from the original post itself.
Speaker 4 (05:47):
Don't delete, got it? What else?
Speaker 3 (05:49):
Talk to your close friends and family, ask them not
to post about you, your health or the case. Don't
tag you, just create a cone of silence around it online.
Speaker 4 (05:58):
Good point, protect yourself from friendly fire.
Speaker 3 (06:01):
And finally, be completely honest with your lawyer. If there's
a post you're worried about, show it to them immediately.
They can help strategize, but only if they know what's
out there. Transparency is key.
Speaker 2 (06:12):
Okay, So the big takeaway here seems pretty clear. In
this modern legal world, your online credibility is well everything
being really careful, strategic, disciplined about social media. It's not
optional anymore if litigation is even a remote.
Speaker 3 (06:26):
Possibility, absolutely not negotiable. And you know, thinking about all this,
the constant watching how posts get twisted, those harsh penalties
for deleting it does make you wonder, doesn't it?
Speaker 4 (06:34):
Wonder?
Speaker 3 (06:35):
What, in this age where so much of our lives
plays out online, can anyone really have a truly private
digital life once a legal issue pops up something definitely
worth thinking about as you, you know, navigate your own
feet today
Popular Podcasts
Stuff You Should Know
If you've ever wanted to know about champagne, satanism, the Stonewall Uprising, chaos theory, LSD, El Nino, true crime and Rosa Parks, then look no further. Josh and Chuck have you covered.
Las Culturistas with Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang
Ding dong! Join your culture consultants, Matt Rogers and Bowen Yang, on an unforgettable journey into the beating heart of CULTURE. Alongside sizzling special guests, they GET INTO the hottest pop-culture moments of the day and the formative cultural experiences that turned them into Culturistas. Produced by the Big Money Players Network and iHeartRadio.
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.