Libel on the Internet: The War of the Words—Part Two of Three

by Lisa Burns

Last week, WNW explored the difference between stating an opinion and libel. Because of the attacks on publishers within the past five years, WNW has decided to examine both sides of this debate. The decisions by the courts, either in favor of or against bloggers, will no doubt have a huge impact on the way the publishing industry operates.

For web designers, the war of words is an attack on the first amendment. The instant commentary provided on virtually every subject by websites and blogs is protected under the first amendment. This often colorful observation of events is sometimes taken for fact, which explains the opposition websites and blogs are facing. One of the more popular blogging websites, www.blogger.com, has a disclaimer that reads, “We respect our users' ownership of and responsibility for the content they choose to share. It is our belief that censoring this content is contrary to a service that bases itself on freedom of expression.”

The Supreme Court weighed in with its decision by ruling unanimously in favor of the ACLU in Reno v. ACLU. According to the ACLU, “the Court declared the Internet to be a free speech zone, deserving of at least as much First Amendment protection as that afforded to books, newspapers and magazines. The government, the Court said, can no more restrict a person’s access to words or images on the Internet than it could be allowed to snatch a book out of a reader’s hands in the library, or cover over a statue of a nude in a museum.” This landmark decision was an enormous victory for web designers and bloggers everywhere.

Advocates for free speech on the Internet see posted disparaging information as freedom of expression, not defamation of character; they believe that censorship of such information will begin with blogs and websites and eventually pollute email and search engines. To restrict or alter information on the Internet would be as damaging as the banning of classic American novels, including The Catcher and the Rye.

Around the world, bloggers whose posts have been removed believe a political agenda is behind the removal of their words. A report in the May 3, 2006 bulletin from France’s Reporters Without Borders states in reference to bloggers’ possible repression of freedom of expression, “Dictators would seem powerless faced with this explosion of online material. How could they monitor the e-mails of China's 130 million users or censor the messages posted by Iran's 70,000 bloggers? The enemies of the Internet have unfortunately shown their determination and skill in doing just that. Censorship of the Web is growing and is now done on every continent.”

To censor websites and blogs is a global issue, not just an American concern. To limit or alter information from the general public could be a huge step backwards, and an infringement on civil rights. The question facing the courts is where to draw the line. The line is the difference between freedom of speech and libel on the Internet.

Agree? Disagree? Tell us at editor@writersnewsweekly.com