Re: 2/28/01 - [GTMI] Industry Standard: Online Speech Precedents Still Trickling In
February 28, 2001
Online Speech Precedents Still Trickling In
An L.A. judge says anonymous ranters can't be sued for libel, the ACLU steps up to protect John Doe, and China buys a filter.
By Jen Muehlbauer
Maybe someday we'll have all the laws we need to govern the Internet. This, however, is not the week, as the legal system slouches toward a precedent for anonymous online speech.
An L.A. judge has dismissed a lawsuit attempting to collect damages from anonymous message-board posters. Essentially, the judge ruled that online banter about companies is too out-there to be considered libel – they're obviously opinions, not facts.
"These postings ... lack the formality and polish typically found in documents in which a reader would expect to find facts," wrote Judge David Carter. "It is unlikely, for example, that a corporation would express the view that investors should 'up the volume for some of that 2 dollar love.'" Kudos to Wired for digging up that bit of judicial wisdom. With such good sound bites available, where's the rest of the tech media?
The ACLU got into the act on Monday, vowing to protect online "John Does" from similar lawsuits. News.com reported that the ACLU submitted an appeal in a defamation case involving an online criticism of a Pennsylvania judge. The Washington State ACLU joined up with the Electronic Frontier Foundation to fight a subpoena that would reveal the identity of another anonymous poster. Newsbytes added that the ACLU wants most online speech regulated under slander laws (for spoken defamation) not libel ones (which cover published defamation).
While you're waiting for some First-Amendment-loving reporter to connect the ACLU crusades with the stock-board libel victory, you can read about new Chinese filtering software. China already blocks politically controversial Web sites, reported Reuters, but this software extends the filtering to sex and violence. Reuters' information came from a Chinese police official, who spoke "without making clear whether installation was mandatory," said the wire. Censorship is a serious charge, so let's hope for Reuters' sake that this new threat to Chinese freedom doesn't turn out to be simply a new product on the market.
thestandard.com |
