Don’t let anybody tell you Facebook doesn’t matter.
image: adapted from zdnet.com (click)
It seems for a certain type of person, what’s said about them on Facebook really matters. So much so that clauses relating to Facebook are, by the look of things, finding their way into matrimonial settlement agreements, along with who gets the house, the car, the credit cards … (oh, and the kids).
A recent Court Judgment about a challenge to a document purporting to be a Matrimonial Settlement records the ex-spouses’ mutual concern about their ‘reputation’ … and contains clauses aimed at controlling what’s posted about them on Facebook!
4. [ex Husband] agrees …
f. To make no negative public or private statements about [ex Wife].
g. To make no Facebook comments or posts about [ex Wife] at all and to remove any and all negative Facebook posts and videos / audio of [ex Wife].
5. [ex Wife] agrees …
g. To make no negative public or private statements about [ex Husband].
h. To make no Facebook comments or posts about [ex Husband] at all and to remove any and all negative Facebook posts and videos / audio of [ex Husband].
i. To operate one Facebook account and to request Facebook remove and delete the xxx B [ex Wife] account. [Comment: Wow!]
j. To write an email to all people she sent the XX email on the xth of December to advising ‘All matters are resolved between the parties and that [ex Wife] has chosen to pursue other opportunities will not be having any further involvement with the [joint business] which is now being satisfactorily guided by [ex Husband]. A copy this email and the list of people it is to be sent to from the xth December distribution list is to be sent to [ex Husband] within 24 hours of signing this Agreement.
Of course, none of this was supposed to be publicly known …
7 That the terms and contents of this Agreement shall remain forever private and confidential between the parties and that this Agreement will not be discussed or disclosed to any other person apart from being absolutely legally necessary.
Oops.
in a classic case of ‘The Law of Unintended Consequences’, a Court case between the former spouses disputing the legality of the [unwitnessed] ‘forever private and confidential’ [alleged] agreement resulted in a Judgement … which, as is normal with public documents like Judgements, was published at the Auckland District Law Society website and thus, shows up in Google. Forever, I guess. Sigh.
(Someone emailed it to me as I have had dealings with [ex Husband].)
I don’t intend to ever have an ex-husband but I’m damned sure I won’t ever be signing any document that “I won’t say anything negative about him in private”.
Public, I can understand but when one has had a few glasses of wine and is extolling the virtues of a new squeeze surely you reserve the right to compare the two?
As for facebook – if you have security set right how will the ex ever know a comment has been made? All way too over zealous for my liking.
Agreed. Totally unrealistic.
I don’t like ‘confidentiality agreements’ at the best of times but contracting with your “ex” to gag them on Facebook seems silly.
Still, some of us are more sensitive to criticism than others, I guess. -P
[…] up on sone people’s sensitivity to Facebook comments, I understand singer Gin Wigmore is very particular about her image — and fair enough, too. […]
[…] You may remember I quoted from a matrimonial settlement that addressed Facebook accounts and statements thereon as part of the divorce … Facebook’s tentacles now part of divorce settlements! […]
[…] said in my comment about Facebook posts now featuring in legal agreements around matrimonial splits Facebook’s tentacles now part of divorce settlements! and court injunctions Welcome to the mainstream, social media (like, again)don’t let anybody tell […]