Opher BanarieAnonymity On The Internet
December 9th 2008 19:25
Let's say you owned a business, oh, a donut shop. And let's say the local newspaper had an Internet site with a forum for people to write about the community. And let's say that someone, anonymously, posted a message that your shop was one "of the most dirty and unsanitary-looking food-service places I have seen." Would you sue? If so, who? The newspaper has "safe harbor" guarantees as long as they don't get involved in censoring what content is posted. And the name of the poster is hidden behind a screen-name.
Those are the facts in a case now being heard by the Maryland Supreme Court. The shop owner is trying to get the newspaper to release the name of the person who posted the message. As reported by the Washington Post,
For advocates of strong protections for anonymous speech and the Internet, online chat rooms are the 21st-century successors to the town square and the political pamphlet.
"There's a long tradition in U.S. history of at least anonymous political speech, and certainly when you contemplate the Internet and the new opportunities it offers, this is the way a lot of speech happens," Sam Bayard, assistant director of the Citizens Media Law Project at Harvard Law School, said in an interview.
At the same time, however, many argue that the First Amendment should not become a shield for those responsible for defamatory remarks. The reach of the Internet has allowed anonymous speech to potentially influence more people than ever, compounding the harm of a false claim.
How to balance out the claims made under First Ammendment protection, versus the right of the harmed party to see damages? This case may well go to the US Supreme Court no matter how the Maryland court rules.
In my opinion, there needs to be shown a significant impact of the anonymous message on the person or business being discussed. Of course, what is significant for a small donut shop is much different than, say, Exxon Mobil or IBM. That means a court will have to weigh the claims of both sides and determine if there is a significant impact. This finding may need to balance how prominent the website is, how many links there are to it, how many visitors and posters, etc. Additionally, the person or business may have specific information in the form of cancelled orders or less activity since the post was made. Overall, a slow and painful process.
Is there a "better" way to resolve this situation?
Those are the facts in a case now being heard by the Maryland Supreme Court. The shop owner is trying to get the newspaper to release the name of the person who posted the message. As reported by the Washington Post,
For advocates of strong protections for anonymous speech and the Internet, online chat rooms are the 21st-century successors to the town square and the political pamphlet.
"There's a long tradition in U.S. history of at least anonymous political speech, and certainly when you contemplate the Internet and the new opportunities it offers, this is the way a lot of speech happens," Sam Bayard, assistant director of the Citizens Media Law Project at Harvard Law School, said in an interview.
At the same time, however, many argue that the First Amendment should not become a shield for those responsible for defamatory remarks. The reach of the Internet has allowed anonymous speech to potentially influence more people than ever, compounding the harm of a false claim.
How to balance out the claims made under First Ammendment protection, versus the right of the harmed party to see damages? This case may well go to the US Supreme Court no matter how the Maryland court rules.
In my opinion, there needs to be shown a significant impact of the anonymous message on the person or business being discussed. Of course, what is significant for a small donut shop is much different than, say, Exxon Mobil or IBM. That means a court will have to weigh the claims of both sides and determine if there is a significant impact. This finding may need to balance how prominent the website is, how many links there are to it, how many visitors and posters, etc. Additionally, the person or business may have specific information in the form of cancelled orders or less activity since the post was made. Overall, a slow and painful process.
Is there a "better" way to resolve this situation?
| 50 |
| Vote |
Add To: 
