libel in cyberspace

Heyward Ehrlich ((no email))
Thu, 8 May 1997 15:46:10 -0400

>Path: dziuxsolim.rutgers.edu!rutgers.rutgers.edu!news.columbia.edu!panix!news.mathworks.com!europa.clark.net!feed1.news.erols.com!news.enteract.com!newsfeed.enteract.com!news.inetnebr.com!netserv.unmc.edu!news.mid.net!news.mid.net!not-for-mail
>From: Gleason Sackman <gleason@rrnet.com>
>Newsgroups: comp.internet.net-happenings
>Subject: MISC> Libel in cyberspace: can anything you post be used
>Date: 5 May 1997 09:08:15 -0500
>Organization: Global Internet, Peace of Mind is finally Online!
>Lines: 153
>Sender: infoserv@news.mid.net
>Approved: ralphie
>Message-ID: <5kkpkf$fj6@shocker.gi.net>
>NNTP-Posting-Host: shocker.gi.net

Date: Sun, 4 May 1997 14:23:15 -0600
From: John Walker <jwalker@tor.hookup.net>

Libel in cyberspace: can anything you post be used against you?

http://www.nando.net/newsroom/ntn/info/050497/info5_13497.html

Copyright 1997 Nando.net
Copyright 1997 The Associated Press

(May 4, 1997 1:03 p.m. EDT) -- When the Founding Fathers wrote the
First Amendment protecting freedom of the press, they never imagined
millions of Americans would someday have their own version of one
sitting in their back rooms.

But with the advent of the World Wide Web, that's exactly what has
happened. And from this revolution has emerged a new legal quandary:
Just what standards are private individuals to be held to when it
comes to what they "publish" on the millions of Web pages and other
online forums that serve as the world's soapbox?

To a great extent, the answer thus far is this: No one knows. With
the Web revolution less than 3 years old, a body of case law hasn't
yet been built up. But lawyers who study online issues do have some
observations -- and advice.

First off, they note, the line between slander, once the realm of
individuals, and libel, the bane of publishers, has been blurred. It
used to be that spreading malicious gossip about someone down at the
barbershop could lead to charges of slander. But slander, by
definition spoken, was hard to prove and generally didn't reach
enough people to do any major harm.

Post that same information where it can be read by millions online,
however, and you've suddenly entered the realm of libel -- governed
by stricter laws originally written to cover print publications.

"Let's face it," says Mark Rasch, director of information security
law and policy at the Center for Information Protection at Science
Applications International Corp. in McLean, Va. "If I were to print
up a handbill saying bad things about my neighbor that were false, at
most I could distribute a couple of hundred of them. With the Web, I
can now damage his reputation worldwide."

The law is clear: Libel consists of publishing a false and
defamatory statement about an identifiable person, causing injury to
the subject's reputation. Often tied to it is the legal notion of
defamation, defined as that which exposes a person to hatred,
ridicule or contempt, causing them to be shunned or injuring their
business or calling.

Truth is always a defense against libel, so if your Web page says
someone has two heads and they do, you're fine. But say they're a
murderer and you can expect someone to come asking for some proof --
and possibly a bill for damages if you don't have any.

Then, there's invasion of privacy. It's one thing to pass along a
juicy bit of gossip to a friend. It's quite another to post it to
the Web.

"Let's say, for instance, you disclose some private fact about
somebody -- say, their medical records. Or you snuck into their
house and took a nudie photo of them and put it up on the Net. That
would be a no-no under civil law and they could sue for damages,"
says David Banisar, staff counsel for the Electronic Privacy
Information Center in Washington, D.C.

Although few of these cases have actually gone to court, lawyers
often are called in when things get ugly.

"I know of a few cases where the ex-husband and ex-wife have gone
after each other on the Net," Banisar says. "In one instance, the
ex-wife put up a diatribe page on what a scumbag he was and how he
wasn't paying his child support -- and gave out his phone number so
suitably angry women could take it up with him."

Remember, too, that the Internet's reach magnifies everything in the
eyes of the law.

Shouting "You jerk, I'm gonna belt you one!" at a careless driver
who runs over your mailbox won't get you into trouble. But posting
the threat on the Internet is dangerous. It's all a question of
reach: Anything done over a telecommunications device is
automatically an interstate communication.

"This suddenly makes it a federal issue if you e-mail," Banisar warns.

State statutes vary, but when federal laws come into effect, any
communication containing a threat to kidnap or injure a person
carries with it the possibility of imprisonment up to five years or a
fine of up to $1,000.

And an entirely different level of concern pops up when the object
of the threat is an elected official. Like the "no jokes" signs
posted by airport metal detectors, the FBI has no sense of humor when
it comes to threatening officeholders.

"We can't forget all those idiots arrested for sending threats to
the president. So don't send threats to the president over e-mail.
It's a federal crime," Banisar says.

Fraud is another sticking point. It's illegal everywhere, of course.
But the Federal Trade Commission has taken an especially hard line
against fraud on the Net. Send a snail-mail chain letter asking for
money and you might get a call from postal authorities. Try it on
the Web, however, and you'll be investigated by the FTC forces who
track online scammers.

But in the end, the biggest vulnerability of any self-publisher on
the Web is probably the wrath of large corporations.

You can say their logos are ugly and their presidents are jerks and
they don't flinch. But try using any variety of a heavily
trademarked name or image on your site and watch the injunctions flow.

Generally speaking, it's other businesses who get into trouble. But,
once in a while, an individual will set out to make a point -- and
get a legally phrased e-mail in response. Several cases have resulted
in Web sites' being taken down, including individuals who posted
statements against Kmart and McDonald's.

Overall, remember that putting words or pictures up on your Web page
is just like publishing them in the newspaper.

Use Rasch's simple test: "What you should avoid putting on the Web
is the same stuff you'd avoid putting on leaflets and handing out on
the street."

-- By ELIZABETH WEISE, AP Cyberspace Writer

--------------------
Also in this issue:
- Netscape promotes standards to Web-enable business intelligence
systems
- US falls behind Sweden in Internet awareness poll
- Ex-Girlfriend Of Oracle Boss Gets Year in Jail
- US Seeks Alternative Domain Name Plan
- Site Reports Vietnamese Government Closure of Internet Cafe
- Report spurs new move to curb information on bomb-building
-------------------------------

Excerpt from CSS Internet News (tm) ,-~~-.____
For subscription details email / | ' \
jwalker@tor.hookup.net with ( ) 0
SUBINFO CSSINEWS in the \_/-, ,----'
subject line. =3D=3D=3D=3D //
/ \-'~; /~~~(O)
"On the Internet no one / __/~| / |
knows you're a dog" =3D( _____| (_________|

-------------------------------