Thread: Defamation risk increases as we hide behind the anonymity of the web

Defamation risk increases as we hide behind the anonymity of the web

• Paul Williams
• From: The Courier-Mail
• January 11, 2011 12:00AM

ONLINE: And, in some cases, out of control. Source: Herald Sun

HERE'S my advice to budding law graduates: specialise in defamation. It will be the goldmine of the future.

And who will we thank for this bonanza in litigation? None other than that bastion of free speech, the internet.

Make no mistake, the Information Age has rung in some marvellous innovations. From serious research to frivolous entertainment, the web has broken through the information barrier more profoundly than any technology since movable type.

And just like the printing press, the internet - spurred on by our love of free speech - has empowered ordinary folk.

Voters can communicate with governments and consumers can give feedback to business like never before. As the browser and the mouse pad replace the picket and the bull horn as the tools of protest, the web has been a great social equaliser in its promise of a new democracy.

And, in some respects, this brave new world really does resemble, as others have said, an "Athens without slaves".

Electronic petitions to politicians and open online forums are just a couple of innovations that have returned government to the people.

But all this is in peril of being compromised.

I would argue we are on the cusp - if we're not already there - of moving beyond Athens to some form of cyber mob rule.

The cause? The fact the uninformed and the malicious enjoy as much right as the learned and the civic-minded to express an opinion and to do it anonymously.

Free speech is a monumental human right, but it comes with equally monumental civic responsibilities.

As jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes said, the right to free speech does not extend to the right to wrongly shout "Fire!" in a crowded theatre.

It's politically incorrect to say it but, even in a democracy, not all opinions are equal. Yet the web makes them so.

Imagine the lunacy of an online newspaper publishing two letters in response to an article on disease.

Should the ramblings of the moronic really be published alongside the expert opinion of a medical researcher just to satisfy the accepted need for "balance"? Should the vexatious be allowed to make vicious attacks, not on the doctor's research, but at a deeply personal level?

In past decades, stringent slander, libel and defamation laws - together with a series of gatekeeper editorial checks and balances - ensured that only fair and reasonable comment fell on to printed paper. But today, with the simplicity of a mouse click, the most foul abuse and most vitriolic of tirades can find themselves immediately and permanently on the public record.

Baseless opinion is passed off as fact and personal reputations ruined, all under the pernicious veil of anonymity.

I shudder each time I read shameless and cowardly online attacks on political figures, business and community lead-ers - and even private citizens such as public servants and journalists - just trying to do their job.

Wild accusations and hateful prejudice, diatribes that would never be published in printed editions, are freely posted online without an ounce of substantiation.

Retailer Gerry Harvey is just the most recent case. Irrespective of the arguments over taxed imports, the cyber attacks on Harvey were unnecessary and unwelcome.

A frank debate on the problems of import duties would enhance our democracy; a personal assault on Harvey's character only diminishes it.

For someone to launch a cyber attack on another without having the courage to fully identify themselves, is akin to a cowardly king-hit. It is plainly un-Australian.

If critics genuinely stand by their words, they should have the courage to put their real names to them.

It's only a matter of time before victims of cyber attack turn, en masse, to litigation. And instead of a smug satisfaction under a cloak of anonymity, cyber stone-throwers will be answerable for their actions and, ultimately, subject to defamation laws.

Great social change, including winning the right to free speech, has come about only through ordinary men and women having the courage to stand up and be counted, not by slinking in the shadows.

I'm saddened as I wonder where that sort of courage has gone.

Williams is a senior lecturer at Griffith University's School of Humanities.

Going forth from Holmes, the First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but when the media get it so very wrong as to cause injury. Case in point, the massacre in Arizona on Saturday. Several media outlets, quoting "an unidentified source" erroneously reported that the Congresswoman was dead. Her husband, rushing to her side, was had more burden put on him than necessary, and the reason why ? To be first. So that some media could claim "We were first to report her dead".

There should be penalties for this.

There are other things the media get wrong, but find there way out by saying "Harvard medical says....", or other source. A recent precedent would be the now disgraced autism link to vaccines. The media played this up when that British doctor claimed it. The media brought on experts saying "Oh yeah, mercury will harm a kid". Well, duh. Would a vaccine producer intentionally put a harmful agent in a vaccine ?

Global warming is next. No TV network plays up warming like ABC. The east coast is buried under snow and ice, not seen since the early 1980's. Well, duh. Weather vacillates. The 1940's were cold. The 1950's were hot. The 1970's were freakin cold. The 1990's were warm. The conspirators have already been named in this made up sham. No one will prosecute the chicken littles, but they should. The Nobel committee has severely tarnished their reputation with two really bad calls in consecutive years. That's alright though, because in a few years, Al Gore will start claiming global cooling, and somehow, grounding the planes (except his private jet), parking the cars (except his limo), turning off the power plants (except the one close to his mansion), will make sense in his save the planet from ice campaign.

Originally Posted by Dudester

Going forth from Holmes, the First Amendment protects freedom of the press, but when the media get it so very wrong as to cause injury...

Dudester, the 1st Amendment does not apply to the entire world. The Australian Constitution, for example, does not contain any provisions relating to freedom of speech, though Australian courts have indicated implied rights.

The UN does have Article 19 adopted in 1948: "Everyone has the right to freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information and ideas through any media and regardless of frontiers." It's therefore conceivably that the web could fall under UN jurisdiction where nations fail to express, but having the power to enforce such a thing would be a scary thought for many people.

Ox, are there any crocs up Sh*t Creek?

Originally Posted by Blood

Ox, are there any crocs up Sh*t Creek?

After the recent inundation, nothing would surprise me. One guy claims he saw a shark in a river 30 miles from the ocean, which makes no sense. The floodwaters are flowing in the opposite direction.

Now where the f*ck did that go?

(the croc not the shark)

Who watches these journalistic watchmen? If their judgement of journalism in the past is any indication, I wouldn't trust them to censor themselves, much less anyone else.

Wait- the internet is anonymous? When did that happen? You can't get email without an irl address (and carriers are getting harder to fool every time), everything logs your IP... between spyware and adware and spammers, I mean it takes some work but can't you pretty much track who said what? I thought they had algorithms and stuff that did that.

I'm not talking whether or not they should- I just thought it was possible.