Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

The CDA Is Dead, But States Are Trying To Revive It

Posted by kdawson on from the free-speech-vs.-anonymity dept.

oliphaunt writes "This week at The Legality, Tracy Frazier has an article discussing the damage that can be done by anonymous online comments. While regulars here are familiar with infamous bits of Net censorship like the Fishman Affidavit fiasco, and everyone has been an anonymous coward at least once or twice, some of you may not know about the conflict between Heide Iravani and AutoAdmit.com. Heide eventually filed a lawsuit because the first result for a Google search on her name brought up anonymous comments on AutoAdmit that accused her of carrying an STD and sleeping her way to the top of her class. The Communications Decency Act was supposed to prevent this kind of thing, but an injunction prevented it from ever being enforced and eventually the Supreme Court killed it. Should the law be changed?" The article links to a proposal from last summer in the New Jersey legislature that would institute a DMCA-like takedown regime for allegedly defamatory content posted on a Web site, and would allow aggrieved parties to demand the identity of anonymous posters without a subpoena. No indication of how that proposal fared. Also linked is a recent North Carolina proposal that would criminalize the act of defaming someone using an electronic medium. This proposal shields Web sites from liability and explicitly does not apply to anonymous speech.

7 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Criminalise? by pjt33 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Defamation should be a civil matter.

    1. Re:Criminalise? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      What we really need is a barrage of these cases, so that people understand how information on the internet works. The problem isn't that information can be published anonymously. The problem is that people put too much weight on completely unsubstantiated rumors and trivial misbehaviors.

    2. Re:Criminalise? by garett_spencley · · Score: 5, Insightful

      "Just another reason why capitalism fails. The public-facing side of any single company is considered far more important than the life of any individual. Way to go mankind."

      Whoa hold on there. I was in agreement with everything you said up until this last paragraph.

      Capitalism isn't "business rules". It's private ownership of property (and capital in general, hence "capitalism"). How does you being able to own your own land and property have anything to do with what you were bitching about ?

      In capitalism every single individual is both a producer and consumer. Even if you just hold a "9 - 5" you sell your labour in exchange for a mutually-agreed-upon paycheck. It's a voluntary exchange. Capitalism also applies just as well to bartering your labour to a friend in exchange for a couple of beers and hospitality for the day. This is all as opposed to socialism in which the government controls all of the means of exchange and production. Where two individuals are not allowed to enter into a voluntary exchange without the government's approval.

      What you pointed out is that, in this case we have a problem with the JUDICIAL system. Whereby it takes far too long, and is too costly, for an individual to seek justice against someone who anonymously did them harm. How does that relate to capitalism at all ? You're complaining about a GOVERNMENT institution. So what's your solution, get the government involved in EVERYTHING ? Yeah that will fix the problem! /sarc (please note that I'm most certainly not saying that we should privatize the judicial system, only that the problem here has nothing to do with private ownership of capital and the means of production).

      If the justice is more easily attainable for the rich, then we need to fix the judicial system. The judicial system has never been private. It's always been government-run. So why should the rich be able to afford justice more than a poor person ? It has nothing to do with business, and it shouldn't. None of these problems have anything to do with capitalism.

  2. All Regulation does is grant undue Legitimacy by forkazoo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If people know that "bad" comments are taken off the Internet, and the Government is there to protect us, then the Government is giving weight to everything that's out there. Unfortunately, the Government can't take down every bad thing out there. Net result is that the effort to protect people just makes things worse. As long as the Government keeps its hands off, and people understand that there is no Thought Police on the Internet, then they will be dismissive of most unsubstantiated anonymous claims, and they can cause no harm. Legislators, please take the day off on this one. Everybody will be better off.

  3. Nobody should be able to issue a "takedown notice" by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... for "allegedly" anything. They should be able to prove their case in court, or STFU.

    While the current situation is not quite "prior restraint", it DOES have a chilling effect on free speech, in that speech can be censored by merely alleging that it is infringing something. That is wrong, plain and simple.

  4. Re:Selfish Slashdot by TreyGeek · · Score: 5, Insightful

    My question is, how can you be sure that the information that Google provides is actually about the person you searched for?

    When performing a Google search on my name (first and last in quotes) I can make out at least three different people on the first page. Which one is me? Which one is the chemist? And which one is the guy who died on a passenger ship in the first half of the 1900s? I know the answer, but how would anyone else?

    So, maybe there is a Heide Iravani who has an STD and slept her way to the top. But it may be about a different Heide Iravani than the one who is filing a lawsuit.

    You can't trust Google to provide you the information on an exact person.

  5. CDA isn't dead by NewYorkCountryLawyer · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Let me correct a few misconceptions in the underlying article and the post. 1. The CDA isn't dead; it's alive and well and thriving. Only 2 constitutionally repugnant sections were struck down by the US Supreme Court. 2. They were struck down in 1997, not in 2007. 3. Communication on the internet is not the "wild west"; it is subject to the same laws as the rest of the world. If someone libels someone, they are held liable under the same principals. An anonymous libel is easier to trace on the internet than it would be in the brick and mortar world. 4. The suggestion that 'online slander' is an 'epidemic' is pure hype.

    --
    Ray Beckerman +5 Insightful