Sometimes the Little Guy Wins

Not that you were asking but do you (gentle reader) know why I got into law?

First and foremost, it was to help the little guy.  

More to the point, to help those who didn't know how to help themselves.  

Overly opressive landlords, power hungry employers, school bullies, tyrant police officer - I just wanted to help alieve the pain aflicted by others on people who couldn't didn't know where else to turn - and I did a pretty good job of it until I couldn't and then I found other ways to help.

Like writing a blog about law and legal stuff to help people know where to go to get more information on their problems.

So, it weighs heavy on my mind when I read stories about people being oppressed.  Note that's "oppressed,"  not entitled.  There are a whole lot of people out in public land that think they deserve retribution simply because they breathe oxygen.

Jerry Hartfield is not one of those entitled ones.

See, back in 1976, Eunice Lowe - a white woman - was found murdered and sexually assaulted at a bus station where she had worked in Bay City, near Houston.  Hartfield, a black man from Kansas, was quickly arrested because his fingerprints were on a Dr. Pepper bottle found at the station.  

You know, I'll bet other people's fingerprints were found at the crime scene but were they arrested?!  Bunch of hicks, they were.

Anyway, and shortly after his arrest, Hartfield confessed to the crime.  That's "confessed" as in coerced.  Also how in blazes can a black man with an IQ in the 50's or 60's be said to be able to understand how to confess to anything?  Regardless and consequently, Hartfield was convicted by a jury of his "peers" and was sentenced to death.

On Sept. 17, 1980, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals ordered him retried because prosecutors had improperly dismissed a juror over her reservations about the death penalty.  However, instead of holding a new trial, prosecutors tried (for three years) to convert Hartfield’s death penalty to a life sentence. 

Uh huh.

They failed in that endeavor so, in 1983, the Texas appeals court again ordered a new trial - which never happened. 

In 2006, with the help of a fellow inmate Hartfield filed a writ of Habeas Corpus and seeking a speedy trial which the court(s) rejected.

After years of being bounced around, Harfield turned to the federal system in 2009 to clear up many of the obstacles that were impeding his case.  

However, in 2011, a federal judge rejected Hartfield’s claims because, the judge wrote, Hartfield had failed to exhaust his state remedies.

Are you kidding me?  A comedy of errors this was!

In 2013, 30 years after it had ordered Hartfield to get his new trial, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals acknowledged at last that Hartfield had been improperly imprisoned for all those years. But it, too, refused to order him released or retried.

Oh, the humanity!

Finally, in August 2015, Hartfield FINALLY got his second trial.  The problem was that two key witnesses who had testified against Hartfield in 1977 had died, so their original testimony was read into the record annnnd, Hartfield's attorney could not be cross-examined.

Other problems that affected this second trial was that none of the physical evidence — the pickaxe that was allegedly used in the murder, a car allegedly used by Hartfield, or DNA from the victim — was still around and jurors could not hear mitigating evidence from Hartfield’s family since most of them had also died. 

Of course none of that mattered because the jury convicted Hartfield again for murder.  However, this time, Hartfield's attorneys were on the ball and appealed this decision for violating Hartfield's right to a speedy trial under the 6th Amendment (note: he had been already incarcerated for the better part of 30 years!).

The Texas appeals court agreed and after 35 years, Jerry Hartfield was released.

But all's well that ends well, right?!

Yeah, no.  All the legal wrangling, all the judicial missteps, all the dinking around with a person's life only goes to show how messed up this legal system of ours is.  

I mean, Jerry Hartfield not only splipped throught the proverbial cracks of the legal system - he was royally screwed out of a third of his life! 

I suspect that if there's a silver lining to all this, it's that Jerry got his day in court and the system finally worked in his favor.  Thirty-five (35) years late but at least the court system finally got its act together.

Good on that. 

Some People are Just Camera Shy

Just the other day, I was looking at police videos and I see one where a cop says, "it's illegal to record police."

Now, why would a cop say such a silly thing?

I mean, unless you're doing something sketchy, why would a police officer be so put off for being recorded?  

Many police officers claim it’s illegal to record them not because the law actually says that but because they just don't want you to.  

In the United States, the general rule is that recording police performing their duties in public is protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, as long as you don’t interfere with their work.

So, outside of the interfereing with their work thing, what other reason might there be for police being nervous being recorded? 

1. Outdated or incomplete training

For years, the law around recording police was unsettled in some areas. But many federal courts have since ruled that citizens have a constitutional right to record police in public.  Examples include cases from federal appellate courts such as:

• Glik v. Cunniffe (653 F.3d 78 (1st Cir. 2011) – clearly recognized the First Amendment right to record police in public.

• Fields v. City of Philadelphia (862 F.3d 356 (3d Cir. 2017) – affirmed that recording police is protected even if the person filming isn’t directly involved.

• Turner v. Driver (848 F.3d 678 (5th Cir. 2017) – recognized the right to record police, though it granted qualified immunity to officers because the law wasn't clearly established earlier.

The problem is that many officers simply haven’t been updated on these rulings (or just don't care thinking they are untouchable).

2. Confusion with wiretapping laws

Police sometimes cite “wiretapping” or “two-party consent” laws in their zeal to prohibit recording them.  The problem is that those laws generally apply to private conversations, not public interactions with police.

For example:

• In ACLU v. Alvarez (679 F.3d 583 (7th Cir. 2012), Illinois tried to use its eavesdropping law against people recording police. The court ruled that applying the law this way violated the First Amendment.

The laws surrounding recording is pretty much the same in most states, for example:

In Utah, courts treat recording police in public as protected speech under the First Amendment.

Limits

• Must not interfere with police duties

• Must obey lawful orders to step back

• Cannot trespass or obstruct an investigation

As it relates to recording private conversations, Utah is a one-party consent state under Utah Code §77-23a-4, meaning you can record a conversation if you are a participant in it.

In Texas, you can record police activity visible from public spaces like sidewalks or roads.

Limits

• Cannot interfere with duties (Texas Penal Code §38.15)

• Must remain at a safe distance

• Cannot trespass or break other laws

Audio consent law: Texas is one-party consent under Texas Penal Code §16.02. Meaning you can legally record your own interaction with police.

In California, courts hold that officers have no reasonable expectation of privacy while performing duties in public. The state even passed a “right to record police” law confirming this.

Limits

• Cannot obstruct or delay officers (Ca. Penal Code §148)

• Cannot secretly record private conversations

Audio consent law:  California is two-party consent under Penal Code §632 for confidential communications (meaning that both parties much know that the conversation is being recorded).  Note that this rule does NOT apply to public police encounters because they are not confidential.

In New York, recording police in public is legal and explicitly protected.  New York law recognizes the right to document police activity without interference.

Limits

• Cannot interfere with police operations

• Cannot trespass or obstruct

Audio consent law: New York is one-party consent for recording conversations.

In Wyoming, recording police in public is legal under First Amendment principles.

Limits

• Cannot interfere with police

• Cannot trespass or violate other laws

Audio consent law: Wyoming is one-party consent.

In Indiana, recording police in public is legal if you are in a place you’re allowed to be and not interfering.  Indiana courts have specifically recognized a First Amendment right to record police activity in public.

Limits

• Cannot interfere with law enforcement duties

• Must comply with lawful safety orders

Audio consent law: Indiana is one-party consent.

Generally, if the officer is speaking in public while performing official duties, courts usually consider that NOT private.

3. “Interference” concerns

Recording can become illegal if it actually interferes with police duties. Officers sometimes stretch this idea.  For examples, a recording could legally become interference where the person recording is:

• Standing too close during an arrest

• Blocking movement

• Ignoring lawful safety orders

But simply filming from a reasonable distance is not interference.

4. Control of the scene

From a practical standpoint, officers are trained to control situations. Cameras introduce:

• accountability

• evidence against them

• public scrutiny

Some sketchy officers, therefore, discourage filming even when it’s legal because no one likes to have witnesses around when they're doing something sketchy.

 

 5. Qualified immunity dynamics

Because of the doctrine of Qualified Immunity, officers sometimes face little personal consequence if they incorrectly order someone to stop recording—especially if courts say the law wasn't “clearly established” at the time.

That incentive structure can reinforce bad claims about legality.  As a practical rule in most of the U.S., you can record police if:

• You are in a public place

• You do not interfere

• You do not secretly record private conversations where state law prohibits it

So, to summarize, 

1. Anyone can record a cop on the street in public and 
2. Any police officer who says otherwise is just wrong and is probably just wanting to engage in something sketchy or just wants to feel all self-important.

Yeah, that's my guess. 

 

 

 

Staying In Your Lane Isn't Just About Cars

What do you think about when you're driving out and about?

Me?  I think about crazy pedestrians who jump off the curb and right out in front of me when I'm driving.

Well, at least I do now given that the other day while I was driving along listening to David Bowie sing about Modern Love, a kid on a skateboard and head buried in his cell phone jumped off the curb and into my lane mere seconds in front of my car!!!

No crosswalk and no traffic lights around for at least 200 feet.

Nope, kid just decided that specific location (which just happened to be right in front of my car) was where he was going to cross the street and were it not for my cat-like reflexes (and my brakes), that kid would have been a greasespot on the asphalt.

Yeah, I think about crazy pedestrians a lot, these days. 

The thing is, while most people think that pedestrians always have the right of way, I got to wondering if that is the case in every case?

Turns out pedestrians only have the right of way if they're following the rule of law.

Wait - rule of law?  What's that?!

At its core, the rule of law is the principle that:  Everyone—citizens and government alike—is bound by publicly known, consistently applied laws, enforced through fair procedures.

A few key pieces make that real (often discussed in constitutional law):

• No one is above the law (not even police or officials)

• Laws are clear and predictable so people can follow them

• Equal application—similar situations are treated similarly

• Due process—fair procedures before punishment

• Independent courts to interpret and apply the law

In the United States, these ideas are grounded in the Constitution especially through due process and equal protection principles.

So, what is the rule of law as it applies to pedestrians?

The rule of law doesn’t treat pedestrians as a special class that always “wins.”  Instead, it creates defined rules for everyone using the road—drivers and pedestrians—and holds both accountable.

As this all relates to pedestrians, under state traffic laws,  pedestrians have certain legal duties.  The same body of law that imposes liabilities on drivers also imposes obligationus on pedestrians such as:

• Pedestrians must yield when crossing outside a crosswalk (jaywalking laws)

• Pedestrians must obey traffic and pedestrian signals

• Pedestrians must not step into traffic creating an immediate hazard

This is the rule of law limiting pedestrian behavior.

Notwithstanding the general principle that cars (and other vehicles) must yield to pedestrians, what are some ways in which pedestrians do not have the right of way and should be looking out for vehicles?

1. Crossing outside a crosswalk (“jaywalking”)

Jaywalking is the act of pedestrians crossing a street illegally or unsafely, typcially outside of a designated crosswal, mid-block, or against traffic signals.   It is a traffic violation in many jurisdictions, intended to ensure road safety by directing foot traffic to marked intersections.  

 

For example, Utah's jaywalking statute can be found in Utah Code § 41-6a-1003(1) and states that pedestrians may not cross anywhere other than a marked or unmarked crosswalk.

 

Other similar state statutes include:

• Alabama Code § 32-5A-212 (2024): Pedestrians crossing outside a crosswalk
• § 32-5A-210: Must obey signals
• § 32-5A-211(b): Cannot step into traffic creating an immediate hazard

• Florida Stat. § 316.130: Pedestrians must yield to vehicles outside of a crosswalk, must obey pedestrian signals, and cannot suddenly leave curb into traffic.

• North Carolina Gen. Stat. § 20-174: Pedestrian must yield to vehicles outside of crosswalk and cannot walk into path of close vehicle.  

• Arizona Rev. Stat. § 28-793: Pedestrians must yield to vehicles outside of crosswalk, must use crosswalks when available between intersections, and no diagonal crossing unless allowed.

• Nebraska Rev. Stat. § 60-6,153: Pedestrian must yield right-of-way out of crosswalks, must obey traffic signals, cannot suddenly enter roadway. 

• South Dakota Codified Laws § 32-27-4:  When crossing outside a crosswalk in business/residential areas, must yield to vehicles.

2. Ignoring available crossing infrastructure

Ignoring available crossing infrastructure means a pedestrian chooses not to use a provided safe/legal crossing (like a crosswalk or pedestrian bridge) and instead crosses the road somewhere else.

This usually includes:

• Marked crosswalks (painted lines)

• Unmarked crosswalks at intersections

• Traffic signals / pedestrian signals

• Pedestrian bridges or tunnels

• Designated crossing zones (like school crossings)

For example:  Utah Code § 41-6a-1003(2): A pedestrian crossing a roadway at a point where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead pedestrian crossing is provided must yield the right-of-way to all vehicles on the roadway.

 

Other related state statutes include:

• Ohio Rev. Code § 4511.48: If there’s a designated crossing nearby, you can’t just cross anywhere you want.

• California Vehicle Code § 21955: Between adjacent intersections controlled by traffic signals or police officers, pedestrians shall not cross the roadway except in a crosswalk. 

• Washington RCW 46.61.240 & RCW 46.61.235: Pedestrians crossing outside crosswalks must yield to vehicles. Where adjacent intersections have signals, pedestrians must use crosswalks.

3. Crossing against traffic signals

Crossing against traffic signals means that when a pedestrian enters or continues crossing a roadway when the traffic control signal says they should NOT cross the street.  While covered in related sections (e.g., pedestrian signal laws), the general rule is:  Where a pedestrian is crossing on a “Don’t Walk” signal, the pedestrian is violating the law and they have no right of way.

 

Related state statutes include:

 

New York Vehicle & Traffic Law § 1112 states that when the sign says:

• “Walk” → pedestrian may proceed

• Flashing “Don’t Walk” → may finish crossing, but should not start

• Steady “Don’t Walk” → must not enter the roadway

Massachusetts Gen. Laws ch. 89, § 11: Where traffic signals exist, pedestrians may only cross in accordance with them.  Entering on “Don’t Walk” = unlawful crossing.

Indiana Code § 9‑21‑17‑2 notes that:

• Flashing or steady “Walk” → a pedestrian may proceed across the roadway in the direction of the signal, and vehicles must yield.

• Steady “Don’t Walk” → a pedestrian may not start to cross the roadway in that direction.

• Flashing “Don’t Walk” → a pedestrian may not start to cross; if already crossing on “Walk,” they must proceed to the sidewalk or safety island.

4. Stepping into traffic suddenly (immediate hazard)

Stepping into traffic suddenly (immediate hazard) means a pedestrian leaves a place of safety (like a curb) and enters the roadway so abruptly that a nearby driver cannot reasonably stop or avoid them.  

 

In that situation, the pedestrian is violating the traffic laws and typically must yield the right-of-way because they created a dangerous, unavoidable condition. 

 

Utah Code § 41-6a-1002(1)(c) states that a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a place of safety and enter the path of a vehicle that is too close to stop.  Even in a crosswalk, this can remove right-of-way protection.

 

Related state statutes:

Oregon Revised Statutes § 814.040:  says a pedestrian commits a traffic offense if they:

(a) Suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and move into the path of a vehicle that is so close as to constitute an immediate hazard
(b) Fail to yield to vehicles when crossing outside crosswalks
(c) Fail to yield the right-of-way generally

Montana Code Annotated § 61‑8‑502 states:

When signals are not in place, drivers must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks, but a pedestrian may not suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle that is so close that it is impossible for the operator to yield

Rhode Island General Laws § 31‑18‑3 provides:

Drivers must yield to pedestrians in crosswalks when signals aren’t operating, but no pedestrian shall suddenly leave a curb or other place of safety and walk or run into the path of a vehicle which is so close that it is impossible for the driver to yield.

5. Crossing where crossing is restricted

“Crossing where crossing is restricted” means a pedestrian enters or crosses a roadway at a location or in a manner that the law specifically prohibits, such as between intersections with traffic signals, on highways, or in areas marked “No Crossing.” Violating these restrictions removes the pedestrian’s right-of-way and can be treated as a traffic violation. 

 

Utah Code § 41-6a-1003(3)–(4): provides that pedestrians are not permitted to cross between signalized intersections except at crosswalks and no diagonal crossing unless allowed by signal

 

Related state statutes include:

Mississippi Code § 63‑3‑1105 states that:

• A pedestrian crossing a roadway at any point other than within a marked crosswalk or within an unmarked crosswalk at an intersection must yield the right‑of‑way to all vehicles.
• A pedestrian crossing where a pedestrian tunnel or overhead crossing is provided must yield the right‑of‑way to vehicles.
• Between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross except in a marked crosswalk. 

Arkansa Code § 27‑51‑1204: provides that between adjacent intersections at which traffic control signals are in operation, pedestrians shall not cross at any place except in a marked crosswalk.  

Michigan Comp. Laws § 257.613:  

• Pedestrians facing traffic control signals may only proceed within a marked or unmarked crosswalk when the signal permits, and cannot legally start crossing outside of that.

General Michigan pedestrian rules (public guidance)

• Pedestrians are expected to use crosswalks at signalized locations and not cross in unsafe, unmarked mid‑block areas when signalized crossings are available.

6. General principle: pedestrians only have "conditional" right of way

Even where pedestrians usually have priority (like crosswalks), the law still limits them and:

• Drivers must yield only when the pedestrian is lawfully in the crosswalk

• That duty disappears if the pedestrian acts unpredictably, violates crossing rules, and creates an immediate hazard

I guess the moral to this story is pedestrians do NOT have the right of way when they:

• 🚫 Jaywalk

• 🚫 Ignore signals

• 🚫 Step into traffic suddenly

• 🚫 Cross where prohibited

• 🚫 Fail to use designated crossings

 

But drivers should still probably try to avoid collisions and can still be partially liable if they run over people in the roadway.

Too bad, that. 

 

 

Word of the Month for June 2026: Exploitation

So, I was wandering through social media land the other day and I came upon a video where a stranger says hello to a child (young female) who is holding her mother's hand.

Mother asks, "do you know that man?" to which Child says no - I don't.  Mother looks back at stranger with a grimmace.

Later, another stranger wishies Child a happy birthday.  Child is confused and,...well, why don't you have a looksee at the video and see if it doesn't hit home with you?

Why this got my attention is what with all the talk about Jeffrey Epstein, I would think posting pictures of your kid(s) and other details of their lives online is just another form of child exploitation.  Before we get any deeper into this, let's define what we're talking about as it relates to exploitation.  

EXPLOITATION is a form of abuse where an individual or group takes advantage of an imbalance of power to manipulate, coerce, or deceive a person into performing acts—or being used for acts—that benefit the exploiter, usually in exchange for something the person needs or wants, such as affection, money, or food.  This abuse is fundamentally about the power imbalance, meaning that even if a person appears to "consent" or initiates the interaction, they are still considered a victim.

The problem is that under U.S. law, parents generally control the legal rights of their minor children, including decisions about publicity and privacy.  That means a parent usually has authority to share photos of their child.

There is no general federal law prohibiting parents from posting pictures of their children on social media. Most laws instead regulate companies or explicit exploitation.

Two key federal laws show the focus:

• Children's Online Privacy Protection Act (COPPA)

  • Regulates websites collecting data about kids under 13.

  • It controls companies, not parents posting pictures.

• Child Pornography Prevention Act

  • Criminalizes sexual or exploitative images of minors.

  • Innocent family photos normally do not fall under it.

So legally speaking, the system assumes parents are acting in the child’s best interests.  Even though posting photos is usually legal, it does becomes illegal in certain circumstances.  

A. Sexualized or exploitative images

If an image is sexualized or intended for exploitation, it can violate federal child-exploitation laws.

Relevant laws include:

• Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act

• Federal child pornography statutes

  Under 18 U.S.C. § 2251 (Sexual exploitation of children), a person commits a federal crime if they: employ, use, persuade, induce, entice, or coerce any minor to engage in… sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual depiction of such conduct.

  18 U.S.C. § 2252  (Certain activities relating to material involving the sexual exploitation of minors) criminalizes knowingly transporting, receiving, distributing, possessing, visual depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct.

  18 U.S.C. § 2252A (Certain activities relating to material constituting or containing child pornography) criminalizes distribution, receipt, possession, access with intent to view child pornography using computers or interstate commerce (internet).

  18 U.S.C. § 2256  (Definitions for Chapter 110) Defines Explicit Conduct to include: 
  (i) sexual intercourse
  (ii) bestiality
  (iii) masturbation
  (iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse
  (v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area.

  That last phrase is where courts apply the Dost test (under United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986)).

• State exploitation laws

  Every state has parallel statutes criminalizing sexual exploitation of minors.  Here are a few examples:

  Utah Code § 76-5b-201 (Sexual exploitation of a minor):  A person commits sexual exploitation of a minor if they: produce, possess, distribute, or view material depicting a minor engaged in sexually explicit conduct.  Utah treats this as a second-degree felony or higher. 

  Caifornia Penal Code § 311.4  (Use of a minor in producing obscene matter): Criminalizes employing or coercing a minor to participate in sexual conduct for visual material.

  Tex. Penal Code § 43.26  (Possession or Promotion of Child Pornography):  Criminalizes knowing possession or distribution of visual material depicting a minor engaged in sexual conduct.

  N.Y. Penal Law § 263.05  (Use of a Child in a Sexual Performance): Criminalizes employing or inducing a child to engage in sexual conduct for visual depiction.

Why these statutes matter for a social-media scenario is because in the vast majority of family-photo situations, these laws do not apply, because:

• the images are not sexually explicit

• child are not engaged in sexual conduct

• there is no intent to create sexual material.

However, they can apply if someone posts images that meet the statutory definition of:

• lascivious exhibition

• sexual conduct

• sexually explicit performance

even if the image originally came from a family setting.  Courts evaluate these situations on a case-by-case basis using the United States v. Dost, 636 F. Supp. 828 (S.D. Cal. 1986) factors.

B. Sharing private information

Posting identifiable details can create legal problems if it crosses into:

• harassment

• stalking

• doxxing

• publication of private facts

For example, revealing address, school location, or personal data could lead to civil liability in some circumstances. 

C. Commercial exploitation of children

This is the fastest-growing legal area.  “Family influencer” accounts sometimes earn large amounts of money from videos or photos featuring children.  Some states now regulate this.

Example:

• Utah H.B. 322 (2025), codified primarily in Utah Code Title 34A (Labor in Private Employment)  
• Requires parents earning significant income from monetized content featuring a child to set aside a portion of earnings in a trust for the child.
• Allows a person who appeared in social-media content as a minor to request deletion or editing once they reach adulthood

• Illionois 820 ILCS 205/1–22 (Illinois Child Labor Law amendments); enacted by SB 1782 (2023). 
• Applies when a child appears in 30% or more of monetized online content.
• Requires a percentage of earnings to be placed in a trust account for the child.
• Allows children to sue parents for unpaid compensation after reaching adulthood.  

• Minnesota H.F. 3488 (2024) amending state child labor statutes.
• Requires compensation and trust accounts for minors appearing in monetized social-media content.
• Children under 14 cannot appear in certain monetized content work.
• Grants the right to request removal of content later in life.  

• Arkansas. Code Ann. § 11-6-101 et seq. (amended by Act 396 of 2023).
• Expands child labor laws to include minors appearing in monetized digital content.
• Requires recordkeeping and compensation protections similar to child-performer laws.

• Montana Code Ann. Title 41 (Child Labor).
• Requires earnings derived from minors appearing in monetized content to be preserved in trust accounts.
• Provides financial protections modeled after child-actor statutes.

• Hawaii Revised Statutes § 390-2 (child labor law). 
• Includes online content creation within the definition of theatrical employment.
• Requires earnings protections similar to the Coogan law.

For point of reference, the Coogan law is named after child actor:  Jackie Coogan.  He was a famous child star in the 1920s who appeared in the film The Kid (1921) with Charlie Chaplin.

Coogan earned millions as a child actor, but when he became an adult he discovered that his parents had spent nearly all of his earnings.  He sued his mother and stepfather in 1938.  The public outrage from that case led California to enact a series of statutes protecting child performers' earnings.

In recent years, a new concept called “Sharenting” has sprung up.  Sharenting (referring to a blend of "sharing" and "parenting") is the practice of parents regularly posting photos, videos, or detailed personal information about their children on social media and internet platforms.  

Sharenting is a widespread phenomenon driven by pride, community, and documenting milestones, but it raises significant concerns regarding child privacy, safety, and long-term digital footprints. 

A few legal issues that arise from Sharenting include: 

• Children cannot consent to a permanent digital record 
• Predators may collect images 
• Identity theft risks 
• Reputational harm later in life

A related phenomenon called Digital Kidnapping has also arisen where strangers take a child’s photos and pretend the child is theirs online.

The core legal problem is this:  Parents have a constitutional right to raise their children, and courts are reluctant to interfere with ordinary parenting decisions.  To criminalize ordinary photo sharing, a government would have to overcome:

• First Amendment speech issues
• Parental rights doctrine
• Enforcement problems

So lawmakers usually regulate extreme cases, not normal family behavior.

OK, that's all well and all but where might the law go in the future? As it turns out, there is a growing movement to treat children’s online exposure more like child labor in entertainment.

• Possible future regulations being discussed include:
• Digital consent rights for children
• Limits on monetized family content
• Mandatory earnings trusts (like child actors)
• A child's right to erase online childhood content

Some European countries have already recognizing stronger “child digital privacy” rights.

I guess what all this boils down to is parents really need to get a grip and know that while they say they are looking out for their kids, 'rents need to realize that EVERYTHING they post online is seen by everyone.

NOTE: that's EVERYONE as in not just the intended audience (friends and family), but potentially any person or system that can access, copy, intercept, store, or redistribute the image at any stage of its existence on the internet. 

So, how all this works is: once a photograph is uploaded to a social media platform such as Facebook, X, or Instagram, it becomes accessible to the platform itself, meaning employees, automated moderation systems, content-analysis algorithms, and internal data-processing tools that scan images for policy enforcement, advertising signals, or machine-learning training. 

From there, access may extend to the people the parent intentionally shares it with, but also to anyone those recipients show, screenshot, download, forward, repost, or otherwise distribute the image to, whether deliberately or casually. 

Even when privacy settings limit viewing to a smaller group, any member of that group can duplicate the image instantly and send it outside the platform through email, messaging apps, cloud storage, or other social networks, effectively dissolving the original privacy boundary.

Beyond the human viewers, “EVERYONE” can also include the technical infrastructure that touches the file. The image may pass through servers, backup systems, content-delivery networks, and caching layers that store copies for speed and reliability. 

Those systems may be operated not only by the original platform but also by third-party vendors providing cloud hosting, security scanning, or analytics services. In addition, automated web crawlers, scraping tools, or malicious actors may obtain copies if the content becomes accessible beyond a strict private setting, and once a single copy leaves the original environment it can propagate indefinitely across forums, databases, or file-sharing networks without the knowledge of the original poster. 

In the most expansive interpretation, “EVERYONE” could encompass the platform company and its employees, contractors and cloud providers, the intended viewers and anyone they share the image with, unknown third parties who acquire copies through technical or social means, automated systems that index or analyze the image, and any future recipient who encounters the file long after the parent believed it remained within a limited circle. 

So, to summarize, when you post your child's photograph online so that "EVERYONE" see it, (in this case "EVERYONE" means that the potential audience is not merely a list of friends but an open-ended chain of humans and machines capable of accessing or redistributing the data once it enters the networked environment.

Paranoid yet?

So when next you go to post something about your darling younglings on social media, I hope you keep all this in mind and resist the urge to post those cutsey birthday pictures or baby's first bath or your daughter's first kiss.

Yeah, maybe keep those memories close(r) to the vest.