> Today I came across a very interesting article on the front page of last Sunday's local paper. It's linked below, and deals with the issue of free speech on the internet and a lawsuit brought against "internet critics". Not critics of the internet, but people who expressed certain critical opinions of a company through an online discussion group. The article potentially brings to light many issues and questions, but three came to my mind first. I'd love to hear your general or specific thoughts about the lawsuit and/or opinions on these questions.

The lawsuit, to me, seems like a scare tactic by the company. From the stories I've read, nothing truly libellous was said, but then again I haven't seen the unedited messages.

I think a lot of people don't really understand what libel and slander are. A quick briefing (I'm not a lawyer, but I am a journalism student and have a very basic understanding of media law): the First Amendment allows you to say anything that is either the truth or just opinion. The first part (truth) is pretty easy: if you can prove it's true in a court of law, it is (e.g. witnesses, documentation, etc.).

The question then becomes, "What is opinion?" This is generally defined as anything that cannot be proven true OR false in a court. For instance, if I say, "Dave is annoying," that's my opinion. "Annoying" is completely subjective and open for interpretation. If, however, I say, "Dave is annoying and punched me in the back of the head," that's an assertation of fact, because it's provable whether or not I was actually hit. The really tricky areas are when you make a loaded-statement with subjective connotations. If I say you're a "liar" what does that mean? That you habitually lie? Or merely that you have, at some point, lied?

A statement must have a few other qualifications to be either libel or slander (slander is spoken, libel is printed -- it gets tricky with things like TV or radio, but my understanding is that this is usually libel). One of the important ones is that a statement must be damaging to the victim. If I tell my friend Bill that Dave thinks "The Golden Girls" is the funniest show ever (which I hope is an untrue statement), this isn't slander because Dave doesn't actually suffer.

Numerous other exceptions abound (especially if you're dealing with politicans and other public figures or if you're in the media) and laws differ from state-to-state, but I think that covers the gist of it. I provide this only so we're relatively clear on what "free speech" means; if anyone wishes to correct me please do so.

>
> Should the internet be treated the same way as any other medium in situations of libel?

Pretty much. The only really interesting thing about the Net is that everyone has the ability to become a publisher, but virtually nobody really understands libel laws. T

he story linked to mentioned the fact that the Net crosses state boundaries, as if this would unduly complicate matters, but it's not that new. Many national publications, radio stations and TV stations publish all over the country, and we have libel laws that deal with such matters. My understanding is that you are held accountable by the laws of the state in which your statements caused the most damage, and this is also what the federal court system is for. There are also many Supreme Court rulings that help sort out federal libel statutes.

One of the trends that is disturbing, though, is that of large companies using the legal system to squash non-libellous speech by just THREATENING litigation. As mentioned in that article, a federal lawsuit is incredibly expensive. Our society seems to continue to become more and more letigious which is disturbing -- lawsuits are for when you have actually been damaged by somebody else, not when some people on a tropical plant mailing list say your company sucks. The company in question CERTAINLY didn't suffer $10 million in damages, and seeking $5 million in punitive damages against a group of average individuals is absurd.

Blah. I've gone off on several tangents, but here's my point: libel laws are good and they should be applied to the Net. People need to realize that their words have power (even online) and it's only a matter of time until they do. At the same time, I think there's really another issue here, that of companies bullying people around with silly lawsuits. That is a whole different discussion, however, and I don't see any really good solutions on the horizon.

>
> In an online context, it is hard to trace exactly who said what. What role does and should this 'anonymity factor' play?

This is interesting. I believe (though don't have any sources on-hand to back this up) that the Supreme Court has upheld that anonymity in speech is a right (particularly with regards to political speech). I'm not certain how it plays into libel lawsuits -- you certainly can't sue somebody if you don't know who it is. At the same time, I tend to think that the words of an anonymous person have less weight than somebody who identifies themselves, and as such would be less damaging. But this isn't necessarily true.

>
> What are the lawsuit's implications for us -- both as individuals and as participants in the RinkWorks forum and chat?

I'm not so sure the lawsuit has any particular implications other than to remind us that we can be held responsible for our words. Which is probably a good thing to keep in mind.

Stephen

P.S. I purposely didn't mention the Net's international aspect, because I have no clue what the deal is there.