In recent days, there has been much public discussion about the Jeffrey Epstein case and the people associated with it. Social networks have been flooded with comments, emotional reactions, assessments, and interpretations that often go beyond the bounds of ordinary opinion. However, what may seem to many as spontaneous statements on the internet can have very specific and real consequences from a legal point of view.
The wave of discussion was further intensified by the fact that the US Department of Justice, in compliance with a court order, published documents related to the case. Although the disclosure itself was based on legal grounds, this does not automatically mean that all the information contained therein can be freely and irresponsibly used in further public communication. According to lawyers, questions about the alleged anonymization of data are increasingly arising in practice—formally hidden names or surnames do not necessarily mean that a person can no longer be identified when considering the entire context and additional circumstances.
According to Mantas Baigys, a lawyer at the AVOCAD law firm and an expert in personal data protection law, public discussion of high-profile cases reveals that society still does not sufficiently understand where freedom of expression ends and legal responsibility begins.
According to the lawyer, one of the most frequently ignored aspects is comments on social networks. "People driven by emotions often write statements that can be considered not only offensive or humiliating to a person's honor and dignity, but also as having signs of criminal activity. Threats of violence, justification of violence, or incitement to violence, even if expressed figuratively, can become grounds for a pre-trial investigation. It is important to understand that social networks are legally considered a public space, and words written on them are taken as seriously as those spoken in public or published in the media," says the lawyer.
An equally important issue is the protection of personal data. Information that has been made public, even if it has already been published in foreign media or court documents, does not automatically become freely available. Publicly available data continues to be considered personal data. Its collection, systematization, republication, or distribution on social networks must have a clear legal basis. "This applies not only to private individuals, but also to journalists, opinion makers, and content creators," warns M. Baigys.
In practice, we are increasingly encountering what is known as secondary use of information, where publicly disclosed data is transferred to comments, articles, or social media posts, supplemented with personal interpretations or emotional assessments. According to the lawyer, anyone who disseminates such information further assumes independent legal responsibility, regardless of who was the original source of the information. This means that a person may become a defendant in a civil case in a Lithuanian court based on a claim by the injured party and, in certain cases, face sanctions for violations of the General Data Protection Regulation.
The third, often overlooked aspect is the right to privacy. The Epstein case revealed numerous details about specific individuals' personal relationships, lifestyles, and circumstances that are not necessarily directly related to the legal substance of the case. When driven by curiosity to "dig up more" and publish additional details of private life, it is very easy to cross the line. Even a person involved in a high-profile case does not lose their right to privacy, and in certain cases, violating this right may result in criminal liability.
When assessing the legality of such publications, which contain a wealth of information about individuals, such information cannot be disseminated solely to satisfy public curiosity or create a sensation.
According to AVOCAD's lawyer, this obligation applies not only to individual social media users, but also to journalists and media outlets. Professional activities, freedom of the press, or the dissemination of information to the public do not exempt one from the obligation to constantly assess whether the information published actually serves the public interest or whether it violates a person's right to privacy and personal data protection requirements.Case law consistently emphasizes that the publication of information about a person should not serve solely to generate clicks or satisfy the curiosity of the audience.
In summary, Mantas Baigys emphasizes that the internet often creates a false illusion of security and informality. However, in legal terms, it is the same public space where the same laws and principles of responsibility apply as in real life. It is possible to take an interest in current cases and discuss them, but this should be done responsibly, with the understanding that every public statement can have legal consequences. Legal liability on the internet is not theoretical—it is real, tangible, and increasingly applied in practice.
