|
|
| FINDING LIMITS IN CYBERSPACE Online, does everything go? September 8, 1997 |
|---|
Return to this
forum's top page
Questions answered in this forum: Will independent cyberjournalists have access to political sources? Shouldn't cybernauts just trust their own judgement? Could newsgroup posts be considered libelous? Could libel suits squelch freedom of speech online? Should libel laws be updated to reflect the digital age? Viewer comments on online credibility
NewsHour Backgrounders
August 28, 1997
The NewsHour reports on questionable news on the 'Net.
December 25, 1996
A panel discussion on how the Internet fared in 1996.
Browse the Online NewsHour's coverage of cyberspace and law.
Outside Links:
The U.C.L.A Online Institute for Cyberspace Law and Policy.
And, finally, The Online NewsHour asks: In an age when "everybody can be a publisher," are the current libel laws on the books appropriate for the digital age? If not, how would you change them?
Steve Geimann of the Society of Professional Journalists responds:
As I've just outlined, I think we may have to test the existing laws and recognize that a strict interpretation of libel law estabished in a written and published context may be too restrictive for the free-for-all that's developed on the Internet. I would hate to take part, however, in an exercise designed to distinguish or label speech as anything more than "responsible" and "irresponsible." New rules will have to be developed. For journalists who cherish free speech, we must make the argument from the perspective of being more open, more accessible and more free. We must defend the right of anyone to speak their minds, freely, without fear of retribution for a slip of the finger (tongue) or ill considered criticism. This is a tough issue. Those who are subjected to criticism or attack on the Internet will understandably want to seek the most extreme remedy and punishment available. We cannot allow such efforts to squelch free speech, nor can we encourage and endorse recklessness and irresponsibility in the name of free expression.
Prof. Margaret Jane Radin responds:
As long as we believe that a person's reputation is worthy of protection against injury from certain types of false statements, then in one sense the law we have now is appropriate. Indeed, we have more leeway for free speech in our defamation law than the British do, because when political speech is involved (i.e. alleged defamation against public figures) we make the plaintiff prove the defendant published injurious falsehood intentionally, or at least with reckless disregard for whether it was true or not. However, just mentioning that libel law is stricter in another country than it is the U.S. points up another sense in which the law we have now is very likely not going to be appropriate for the digital age. Some countries have laws against seditious libel (speaking against the government), whereas in the U.S. it's a precious First Amendment privilege; some countries have laws against blasphemy, whereas we value religious freedom; some countries have laws against various kinds of hate speech which are permitted here. Indeed, since defamation law is tort law, it is law that varies to some extent from state to state even within the U.S. It is very unclear right now how the global Internet is going to be policed, but at minimum it isn't clear how all this differing territorial law can be harmonized. So, how to make it better? Right now I don't know. It would be a start if lawmakers would get on the Internet and see how it works.
Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. PBS Online Privacy Policy
Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved.
