Interesting times indeed folks. A woman is attempting to sue an anonymous poster over a comment made online. Here's the scoop:
Last year, the Richmond Register ran an article about a woman who had been kicked out of a mall because the dress she was wearing was too short. (I didn't even know they could do that - who determines what is "too short" anyway?)
Well, it seems, after the story ran, an anonymous poster wrote in the comments section of the article that the woman had actually been kicked out because she'd exposed herself to a woman and her children.
The dress wearer has now filed a defamation lawsuit against the poster - seeking unspecified damages - and subpoenaed the newspaper for the person's name. (Good thing the damages are unspecified because for all we know the commenter could be a teenager with nothing more than babysitting money in her pocket!)
The paper is citing the Reporter's
Shield Law (the law that protects journalists from having to disclose confidential sources of published information). It seems another Register reporter wrote about the lawsuit and mentioned the poster's comment in his piece - thereby making that poster a "source."
This is certainly a slippery slope, folks and one we will surely see more of as Web 2.0 continues to grow.
Quoting Toni Bowers from the
Tech Republic,
Here's the line that is straddled: We have the right to free speech in the U.S., but what responsibility does the "host" of such free speech bear when it becomes illegal? If a business owner can be held accountable in a sexual harrassment lawsuit filed because of the actions of one of his employees, then does a web site have to be held to the same accountability for postings to its web site?
I like the argument Bowers makes, but it's not exactly analogous. A business owner is responsible for protecting his employees from other employees' comments and actions. But, the poster on this article is not (as far as we know) employed by the paper.
So, let me pose this question - if I walk into the restroom in an Atlanta bar and someone has scrawled a defamatory statement against my client on the bathroom wall, does my client have the right to sue the bar? After all, they are "hosting" this comment. Does that make them liable for it? How about if someone writes the old "for a good time call 867-5309" bit - or someone anonymously scribbles something nasty about a celebrity or public official?
That's what we're really talking about here. Comments sections online are really just walls of graffiti. Granted, they can often lead to genuine and thoughtful discussions. But, let's face it, most comments within web 2.0 end up possessing such substance as "you're gay" "he's gay" "they're all gay" or "epic fail." Not exactly scintillating conversation. (Except of course in my blog's comment section where the dialogue is always filled with learned insight!)
Also pulling from Bower's article: The media is taking this threat seriously. Some newspapers, including the Maui News in Hawaii, have stopped allowing readers to comment anonymously because of sexist and racist comments. Even large newspapers like The Washington Post and the Chicago Tribune have occasionally suspended online commentary when the posting became extremely inflammatory.
Now, I can see a paper wanting to monitor their comments, especially if things get out of hand. I've certainly deleted comments here on occasion when someone posts something that's too much of a sales pitch. But, anyone who has spent any time on message boards or within Blog's or YouTube's comment sections knows that some people are just trying to post something shocking or offensive. They're trolling for a laugh or a response of some kind. I really wonder what will happen when we ascribe the kind of validity that comes with a law suit to a statement someone posted anonymously online.
So, let me know what you think in my comments section below!
Jennifer A. Jones