| | |
|
TheInternetAndTheNewRacism 8 - 25 Apr 2012 - Main.CameronLewis
|
| | Every time I read a news article, a blog post, or anything else on the internet related to the issue of race, I try to avoid reading the user comments. The reason is that I know, with all certainty, that there will be a small but vocal group of anonymous posters who thrive on using their anonymity to incite racial hatred. I wish I could say that this was limited to an uneducated group of Mississippi rednecks, but even comments on race-related posts on Above the Law can rise to this level of small-minded discourse.
In fact, with the increasing popularity of twitter, many people don’t even try to hide behind a shroud of anonymity anymore. Most recently, with the release of the Hunger Games movie, there was a widely reported instance of apparent dissatisfaction and disapproval with the fact that many of the “good” characters in the movie were black. Of course, as soon as these users became aware that their tweets were being reported on major news sources like the Huffington Post, without their usernames redacted, they either deleted their tweets and made their accounts private or shut down their accounts altogether. | | | I came across this article today. It's somewhat related to our discussion, but it focuses more on the New York statute that potentially serves as a way for parties claiming defamation, etc by anonymous persons on the internet to gather information through that person's ISP. I'm a huge advocate of free speech, so I don't know if I'm ok with anyone using this type of power for anything beyond averting an imminent threat, investigating a murder, etc. But the article does hint at the First Amendment issues related to claims under this statute.
-- JasonPyke - 12 Apr 2012 | |
>
> | I found that article you posted to be a really valuable roadmap of how these claims might proceed in NY, as well as some of the remaining unsettled issues. This article, published today, refers to a couple in Texas who just won a $13.8 million jury ruling for defamatory statements made anonymously against them on a website. The case is interesting, as the defendants are also being sued for malicious prosecution. They filed a sexual assault claim against the defamation plaintiffs, and then essentially launched a smear campaign on a forum website, Topix.com, alleging murder, pedophilia, and drug abuse. The case features a lot of the technical difficulties identified in the article previously posted, including multiple ISPs, discovery requests, etc.
While I understand hesitation in opening the floodgates for defamation suits based on Internet speech, I think it hits close to home for what we were talking about earlier in this thread. As more of our lives are conducted on the internet, our real life identities and our online actions will increasingly overlap. Imposing liability for speech on the internet, even when the person believes themselves anonymous, is an important step in signaling that people are accountable for what they do on the internet. While it has been true for quite some time, the important thing is that society become aware of it so we can begin to adjust our behavior.
-- CameronLewis - 25 Apr 2012 |
|
|
|
|
This site is powered by the TWiki collaboration platform.
All material on this collaboration platform is the property of the contributing authors.
All material marked as authored by Eben Moglen is available under the license terms CC-BY-SA version 4.
|
|
| | |