Even if you do identify them, and they agree to remove the content, it's unlikely the content is contained to that Web site alone. A person could try to sue the individuals who post on a Web site-as the Yale women have done-but in the world of anonymous postings and shared public computers, just finding a person's real name can be next to impossible. As a consequence, victims of a damaged reputation have little legal recourse. In 1996, Congress passed legislation-Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act-that immunizes Web sites from liability for the speech of individuals, under the rationale that companies like AOL shouldn't be responsible for the actions of each user. And two Yale Law School alumnae have spent years going after the perpetrators of nasty gossip about them, posted on a legal-discussion board.īut while libel and slander are regulated by law in the real world, in the cyberworld almost anything goes. Sites like DontDateHimGirl leak dirty allegations about unsuspecting men. Until it was shuttered last year, a site called Juicy Campus stirred controversy by spreading rumors about college students' alleged sexual escapades. While the specifics of the Catsouras case are unique, the broader issue-of how current laws seem impotent when faced with the viral spread of malicious Internet content-is becoming a widespread concern. From the magazine issue dated May 4, 2009
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
AuthorWrite something about yourself. No need to be fancy, just an overview. ArchivesCategories |