Freedom of Speech on the Internet?

[Shawn]

Apparently, the Virginia court system doesn't think it exists:

http://www.theinquirer.net/?article=6555

In a nutshell: Someone posted on a Yahoo! messageboard, calling Nam Tai (an electronics company) products "crap". Nam Tai found out that the poster was an AOL user, and so they're currently attempting to force AOL to disclose the identity of the person in question so they can sue him for punitive damages.

The Virginia Supreme Court has ruled in Nam Tai's favor, upholding an earlier decision by a lower court. Basically, the court ruled that the 1st Amendment, part of the US Constitution, wasn't as important as Nam Tai suing for possible damages caused by someone dissuading people from buying their products. Currently, AOL is looking at taking the matter to the Supreme Court.

Also, I find it interesting that they're going after this one particular person, when a total of 52 people posted similar comments about the lack of quality in Nam Tai's products.

[ReaperFett]

While freedom of speech doesnt bother me overly, I find that case just dumb. Do film companies sue reviewers for bad reviews?

[Taylor Millard]

Considering I've never heard of Nam Tai I bet they just want publicity.

But this is the wrong kind they're getting.

[Marcus Telcontar]

What did this "Anonymous" person say? Was it malicious? If it is a reasoned, factual review, then Nam Tai has no case because it is an opinion.

IF however it is bashing, then no, the anon poster has no right to so called speech.

You do not have the right to say what you want. Not here, not anywhere. Libel, racist speech is NOT Free Speech and that is what the Electronic company is pursuing.

"Hong Kong-based Nam Tai Electronics has sought to discover the identity of an individual who posted a message on a Yahoo! board which the company claims is libelous. The company is seeking compensation and punitive damages against the individual who it says was part of a plot to persuade investors away from the company. "

Seems quite fair, the company wants to go the anon speaker for what it sees as libel and wants a name so it can pursue it's action, which might well be justified

[ReaperFett]

You cant have the Internet 100% free. If I e-harassed someone over many IPs and addys (IE, so she couldnt block me), is it right if I cant get done for harassment?

[Shawn]

Libel, racist speech is NOT Free Speech and that is what the Electronic company is pursuing.Libel would be spreading false information (eg, saying that the company uses child labor when they do not). It said that he called their products - quote - "crap". It's obviously an opinion. As Reaperfett suggested: it would be like suing someone for giving your movie a bad review.

Think about it: How would you like Vanchau dialing up your home phone number because you've stated that ezBoard is "crap"?

[ReaperFett]

ha HA! Now you regret dissing them! :)

[Ansatsu]

If you ask me the freedom of speech should have been applied here. People come on every day and flame companies, cities, and even spoecific people. Like Taylor said they are just trying to get publicity. If this company is not intelligent enough to leave this person alone for their own opinion, which is allowed by the United States, then they just need to realize their lack of intelligence. Like Shawn said, print is libel and spread everywhere, they can not pin this person for this, and I will get more information to you guys. Last but not least my personal opinion. This case is just as about as stupid as the woman suing Mcdonalds for their foods making her fat.

[Vinny Red]

Here's a similar situation...

http://cbc.ca/stories/2002/12/12/Consumers/Internetdefamation_021212

[Figrin D'an]

If such a ruling were upheld, virtually everyone here would be guilty of similar acts under this precedent.

If the user said, "This product is crap for reasons x, y, and z" and those reasons turned out to be completely refutable by factual evidence, then the company may have a case. If not, there is no legit case, and the US Supreme Court would almost certainly overturn it.

[Daiquiri Van-Derveld]

In this and other forums, how many people have stated that they believe American made cars are "crap" and nothing more than overly expensive "pos"? If this is upheld then simply voicing a belief or opinion is in jeopardy.

What a crock!

[Severen Morkonis]

Anyone anywere has the right to an opinion, plain and simple.

[Marcus Telcontar]

You do NOT have that right.

You have that privledge. You do not have rights, you have privledges as designated by law. Rights are something that can not be taken away. Speech is a privledge that can be removed and is regulatied.

A Right does not have to be claimed, it is self obvious and it can not be denied. Once you see the difference, youmight understand why your current privledges DO need to be protected.

You only have the privledges those in power allow you to have. It is true here and it is true in life.

[Wei Wu Wei]

You only have the privledges those in power allow you to have. It is true here and it is true in life.

I don;t know why, but that right there scares me to no end.

[Marcus Telcontar]

You should be scared. Your and mine privelges are dying the death of a thousand cuts - little bits nibbled off day by day. As I said, rights dont need to be fought over. Your privledges do. You have the privledge to walk in a relatively free country. Billions dont. But how much longer do you think that will be the case? Only if you respect and cherish your privledges do they stand a chance of remaining.

[Figrin D'an]

I'd be interested, Marcus... as what exactly do you define a "right", and what are some examples?

[Marcus Telcontar]

A "Right" is simply somethign that can not be denied. It can not be taken away and nothign can be done about it.

Basically, the only thing I can think of that fits that is thought. You have a right to think as you want. I cant really think of anythign else that can not be denied to you.

Even life is a privledge I believve. who knows if some monster is about to kill you or a bus explodes or.... well... anything. I view life as a privledge and it is not my right to expect to breathe more, cause I dont see it beign that way.

Now thought... ahhh well, that's different. What we are alive, we can be free to choose how we think. Now I know there are ways to influence or try to deny free thought.... but even thought can escap and transend us and become quasi imortal. Our thoughts can become expressions and live beyond us.

I dont really see anyhting else I cant stop you from doing. I can try to influence, but can I stop? Not unless your weak willed for some reason.

But even the most weaked willed person can say no and actually think for themselves. So I guess thought is the only right I think we have. But in a lot of ways, it's the most important one we could possibly have

[Fauna Sang]

To Hell with that last comment being scary... Marcus, you're really freaking me out. x.@;

Honestly, everyone here is guilty of bashing one thing or another. And nearly everyone is guilty of bashing ezBoard. Not to mention constant AOL remarks. Even you, Marcus, you've said your fair share of comments about programs or services you don't like.

[Sanis Prent]

Bashing and opinions != libel. Libel can be legally acted upon, and opinions cannot, unless some special circumstance like a gag order or a contractual obligation is enacted. Having an opinion, contrary to what Marcus has said, is a right. Expressing an opinion is a right. Libel, not being opinion, is not a right. Where people can get in trouble is signing away and waiving their rights. Once you do that, you exchange that right for something...such as ISP service, perhaps. Read your contracts carefully, if you worry about exchanging your rights for something.

[Ansatsu]

Websters defines libel as a written published statement that damages a persons character or image. Now it also defines published as to print and distribute a book or magazine to the public in any printed form. This was not distrubuted though. It was not information sold by these people. Therefore it is not libel because it is not published. It is not a book, magazine, ad, newspaper, etc. It is just the personal opinion of one individual. Opinion in websters is defined as a judgement held with confidence; a conclusion held without positive knowledge. This person just gave their opinion and it was not distrbuted to the public. The only way someone could have seen that was if they got the website address, or if they were browsing and came across it. Therefore it was not distrubuted. Because no one payed for it. It was all free which makes it opinion. So if it is an opinion then companies may as well go ahead and sue everyone in the world, because we all have opinons. Therefore, this person is not guilty of any and all charges. So in my "opinion" this company is just trying to get publicity, and are wasting their time and money. As for rights we do have those. So says the constitution. Any one can get a job in power, it just matters on how much you work for it. The homeless all in America have the power to get a job and work their way up in the world. I am not trying to sound mean, but I am just saying anyone can have power, and we all have rights we are born with. Certain inallienable rights according to the American Constitution. Now as for other countries in the world, I do not know what to say. These men also have their own opinions, and although some are very cruel and make them mistreat others then all we can do is pray and hope that those people or ours go in and give the less fortunate help. We should help others, because our country is already at its peak we should use our power and kindness to help those who are not like us. It all depends on the decisions from the "men in power." Thank you,

Ben

[Marcus Telcontar]

The Constitution and the Bill of Rights mean jack <smallfont color={hovercolor}>-Censored-</smallfont> if the ones in power really decide to run roughshot over them. And you, nor anyone else without a great deal of firepower, verbal or weapons wise can do a damn thing about it. Those so called rights CAN be removed. That is why they are privledges.

Just because piece of paper says you have rights Does not mean you have them. The thought that the Bill of Rights gives permanent rights is a dangerous illusuion. They are priveledges and they most certainly CAN be removed if you do not stay alert and on guard and defend those privledges.

[Sanis Prent]

The Constitution and Bill of Rights > lower laws. Its one thing to change a small "detail" law. Changing something so entrenched and engrained will not be done without altering the sovereignity of the United States. Not saying it can't happen, but if we're ever in a position that it can, then nit-picking about this crap will be the least of our concerns.

[TheHolo.Net]

A very important thing to remember is that The Bill of Rights is part of the United States of America Constitution, which does not neccessarily apply to an international medium such as the Internet.

[Sanis Prent]

Regardless, there are standards that every country adheres to in their own manner. These are generally extremely engrained. While they can be waived in international contractural law (be wary of fine print), they are not easily changed on a whim. If people try to snatch these out, there will be shockwaves felt in that country, whether its the US, Australia, England, Nepal, Djibouti, etc. Does not matter. At that point, arguing over rights vs privileges and fine print becomes secondary to trying to survive the inevitable civil strife.

[Figrin D'an]

I'd like to point out, as well, that there are certain "rights" and "laws" that are internationally recognized through things such as the United Nations and the Geneva convention.

[Shawn]

A very important thing to remember is that The Bill of Rights is part of the United States of America Constitution, which does not neccessarily apply to an international medium such as the Internet. Nam Tai is (I believe) an American-based company, as is AOL and the person in question. So I do think it pretty much falls under that jurisdiction.

[imported_Terran Starek]

As a political science major, this topic drew me in immediately. There have been some extremely interesting takes and views on this subject, and I decided to excercise my right (sorry Marcus) to share my own opinion.

The internet is a difficult medium to regulate. It is not something you can touch or manipulate physically--it is information in the form of a non-physical technology. With newspapers and magazines, it is mroe than easy to shut down the publishing and means of distributing done by a company. Sure, these companies may move into some type of underground printing or pamplet creation, but you have effectively taken away their ability to produce visibly and effectively to the masses. The same is true of radio and video.

With the Internet...man, what an exciting and yet frightening medium of communication. It allows so much and has been regulated so little. It is not difficult to obtain materials on bomb-building or Neo-Nazi leadership. It is more than easy to view pornography or even put up your own for view. With so many potential problems already derived from the current state of little to no regulation, I wonder why we would go so far as to thoroughly examine and rule so firmly on a case about calling a private company's product quality 'crap.'

Essentially, I think it is extremely difficult to control the Internet because of it's flexibility. I am no techno-wizzard, but I do know that connecting to the World-Wide-Web is not difficult--through an ISP or hacking in somehow (considering that there are many--maybe even members of this fine community :) who could).

Why try to bring down a mountain by mowing grass off of the top? Why not attack the base of it with dynamite--hit its principles, its inner-workings, its core function. I see extreme fallibility in the ideal that one should accomplish regulation of such a large-scale medium by simply trimming off some of the edge work.

But then again, I guess you have to start somewhere. Hell, the Supreme Court's entire power of Judicial Review was instated because a guy didn't get a job (Marbury v. Madison). :)

Oh, and, uh Marcus...I would love--and I mean love--to discuss natural right vs. privelage with you. It would be very fun! :D

[Tiberious Kinslayer]

You cannot sue for for your opinion. Nor will they win in the long run. Whether you think it is a privelege or a right. I don't know how it works in Australia. But here it is a Law. Here being America. They can try to take our rights away. Thats why we have congress set up the way we do. With our series of checks and balances.

It is our right to voice our opinion. The freedom of speech was built into the Constitution to guarantee us that right. That is why Aol is taking it to the Supreme Court. To protect there freedoms and the freedom of there users. Only when the citizens stand back and let unjustice prevail will we be roughshod over. We have the RIGHT and the privelige here in America to make sure those in power give an accounting of there actions.

Being an American these companies can voice there opinion and desire to sue who they want when they want. Or Vice, Versa. Libel is not the voicing that a company is crap. So good luck Nam Tai you aren't going to win.

Also many people died and sacrificed to bring us the Constitution. So I would appreciate if you didn't say it means Jack <smallfont color=#FF4400>-Censored-</smallfont> because it means a lot to us. Because in this country it means we had men at one time that stood up and fought for what was right. For there posterity there country and for there freedoms. Insulting the one's in power now and catergorizing them all as villians is just insulting. Surely you don't think everyone in power in Australia is corrupt do you? Hoist's a flag because he's feeling patriotic. America the beautiful is playing in the background. A salute goes up. :smokin

Hmnn this seemed a little bit like attacking Marcus so for that impression Im sorry. But as for the rest o_O its all good.

[Taataani Meorrrei]

You cannot sue for for your opinion.

You can sue for whatever you want.

[Marcus Telcontar]

Surely you don't think everyone in power in Australia is corrupt do you?

To a degree, yes. It's called politics. Everyone has dirty hands, some hide it better than others and some get in the trough more than others.

Unfortunantly, I've met a lot of very powerful political and business figures via my mother's work with one of the two major political parties in Aust and I unfortunantly got a clue how it really works. Our so called leaders have two priorities and if you think it not the same, if not worse in the USA, sorry but your blinkered or not looking hard enough.

The two priorities are...

1) Money to get and stay in office
2) Vote catching.

Now, I dont blame the people. It's the system. The system rewards those who do the top two best. Neither two reasons you might note has the common good or care for voters in them. example - across the world, anti immargration policies are vote winners. Big ones. Elections have been run and won in a few countires on this issue. And it's not the party with the best policy, it's always the one that appeals to the voters. Popularist != good. Usually Popularist = very bad.

I'm afraid I'm not idealist. I try to see the world for what it is, see things for what they really are. The political system really is corrupt and it does not serve you or I at all.

I'll give Lucas one thing - he called it right with the words Palpatine said in TPM - there is no interest in the common good, there is only squabbling and fighting.

And can I say that AOL going to the Supreme Court is defending their users is wrong. AOL are doing it cause it suits themselves and THEIR interests. If it suited AOL's interests to had the name and location of the real user, they would in a blink. Cynical, but when its gets down to the end, AOL dont give a damn about anythign else other than what best does for AOL.

[Oriadin]

I still believe that freedom of speech is a right, and not a privilage. I have a right to live, a right to give my opinion as that is what a democracy is. You take away those rights and instantly your looking at a dictatorship. You cant be made to think something else and you shouldnt be made to keep your opinions to yourself if others are willing to listen.

Marcus, Im sure in your past that you yourself have said a particular company or organisation is 'crap' or something to that effect. There is no way thats fair. I agree with a lot of what youve said and the bit about the politics only caring about getting enough money to stay in office and getting as many votes as they can is spot on. If people lose faith that they are loosing the freedom to say what they think then they wont stand for it. People can be pushed only so far before they say they wont take anymore. Loosing your freedom of speech, your right to say what you want is going to far, IMO.

[Sanis Prent]

Freedom of speech is not an unconditional right. There are filters against slander and speech that represents a clear and present danger. Therefore, you cannot say just anything. Aforementioned, there are also court injunctions, such as gag orders, and also contractural arrangements to where your right to free speech can be waived in exchange for any number of things.

[imported_Blade Ice]

I have to say I don't fully agree with everything Marcus has said but allot of it hits right on the dot. First off Free speech was once a Right in America now its limited I can't go out and look a African American in the face and call him racist names (i wouldn't do that its an example), I can't protest something I dislike with out having to go through government red tape, and on to top that off I can't walk out side nude which is a type of figurative free speech and yes they do talk about it in the bill of rights.

The sad part is Americans can't do anything to get the limits on free speech removed because it also states that both the bill of rights and the Constitution (which are two separate documents) are just skeletons and can be interpreted however a legal judge feels. So basically on the issue of calling it "crap" they can take it all the way to the supreme court and the head judge decides to interpret the freedom of speech as to say that calling it crap was slander they can do so.

Its sad but its true American's are more limited then they seem to think. I'm an American and I vote not that it matters much because the Machine will decide for me in the end.

[Oriadin]

This is on the bbc website and felt it was relevant to this discussion.

An urgent shake-up of British libel law is needed to protect free speech on the internet, according to a new report.


Businesses are increasingly using legal threats against Internet Service Providers (ISP) to close down websites set up by angry customers or protest groups, the Law Commission found.

The situation is in danger of stifling free speech as many of the sites may contain allegations which are true, it said.

The internet is subject to the same libel laws as broadcast and printed media.

But there is no legal immunity for authors of defamatory statements on bulletin boards and chat rooms.

And complications can arise when material published in one country is read in another, with tougher libel laws.

The Commission stressed that although it was legitimate for the law to protect the reputation of others, it was important to investigate other means of achieving this.

Pressure

One solution, it said, is to follow the US example and exempt ISPs from legal liability for material published.


Another suggestion is to allow the defence of "innocent dissemination", where service providers claim they are unaware of the libellous nature of the material on their servers, to be extended.

The Law Commission was asked by Lord Chancellor, Lord Irvine, to look into how libel laws apply to the internet.

Its interim report, published on Wednesday, follows a landmark ruling last week by Australia's highest court.

The court ruled an Australian businessman, Joseph Gutnick, can sue US-based Dow Jones in his home state of Victoria, where the libel laws are tougher.

It also comes just weeks after a gossip website removed an untrue rumour about David Beckham, under threat of repercussions from the footballer's lawyers.

European law

Law Commissioner Hugh Beale, QC, said: "When a website carries material to which someone objects - rightly or wrongly - it is often easier to complain to the ISP than to the author.

"The problem is that the law puts ISPs under pressure to remove sites as soon as they are told that the material on them may be defamatory.

"There is a possible conflict between the pressure to remove material, even if true, and the emphasis placed on freedom of expression by the European Convention of Human Rights."

'Global risks'

Giving UK-based ISPs immunity under British law would not prevent legal action against them in foreign courts, the Commission found.

An international treaty would be needed to solve the problem of "unlimited global risks", says the report.

It also suggests a change in the law to cover newspapers' online archives.

Libel actions can currently be brought years after a story is placed in an archive, as publication is considered to be continuous.

Adopting the US "single publication" rule, where the article is considered to have been published after it is first posted in an online archive, would solve this problem, the Commission said.

Court case

Two years ago well-known ISP Demon paid more than £200,000 to settle a libel action over material posted on one of its newsgroups.

Demon refused to remove postings about physicist Dr Laurence Godfrey, described by Godfrey's lawyers as "squalid, obscene and defamatory".

The case, settled just four days before a jury trial was due to begin, hinged on whether this ISP could be treated as publisher of material on a newsgroup.

Demon argued at the time it had neither the resources nor expertise to monitor the content of hundreds of thousands of messages posted each day.

The Law Commission's report was welcomed by Thus, which owns the Demon brand.

'Untenable'

Thus' Internet content regulation manager Mark Gracey said: "Despite having no editorial control over material hosted on their servers, ISPs are currently being held legally responsible for defamatory, copyright-infringing and other types of content.

"This puts ISPs in the untenable position of acting as judge and jury in cases where complaints have been made, having to balance the rights of the complainant with those of their customer and the risk to their business."

He added: "In order to ensure that the internet remains a forum where everyone is entitled to freedom of expression it is essential that these issues are tackled.

"The law should recognise that it is the author of the material, not its distributor, who is responsible for ensuring the legality of information online."

Takedown

The Internet Service Providers' Association also welcomed the Law Commission's move and said it hoped the government would act quickly.

A spokesman said: "We've been dealing with the issue of notice and takedown, when a client is made aware of problematic content, for a long time now.

"ISPs potentially face civil actions from both the persons complaining and also the website, if they are judged by one or the other of getting the takedown wrong.

"ISPs are having to invest a lot of time, effort and resources in having to manage this process.

"We need some kind of universal procedure which guides an ISP's decision."

The spokesman warned that the report did not cover other problematic areas, such as copyright or racism, when ISPs were "being asked to act as judge and jury over content".



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/2587057.stm